Madras High Court
K.N.Pushpavalli vs The Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu on 26 February, 2013
Author: A.Arumughaswamy
Bench: A.Arumughaswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.02.2013
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY
Writ Petition No.46022 of 2002
K.N.Pushpavalli ..Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Secretary to Bar Council
High Court Campus
Chennai-600 104
2.The Bar Council of India
Rep. By Secretary to Bar Council
New Delhi ..Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in Roc.No.1709 of 2002 dated 17.12.2002, quash the same.
For petitioner ... Mr.B.Rabu Manohar
For respondents ... Mr.Sy.Masood for R1
No appearance for R2
O R D E R
The petitioner joined the service in the Registry of Madras High Court, on 07.03.1963. Without intimating the High Court or getting prior permission, she joined three years Law degree course in SLSRC, Havanur College of Law during academic year 1984-1987. According to her, she attended the Evening College by securing attendance during weekend and public holidays. On completion of course, she was awarded Law Degree and the Registry of High Court, Madras, by Official Memorandum in Roc. No.945/98-Estt.IV, dated 14.07.1999, ratified the action of the petitioner in having joined in the Law College at Bangalore and obtained Law Degree Certificat from the Bangalore University in the year 1987, without obtaining prior permission of this Registry. After her superannuation, as per Section 24 of the Advocates Act, she enrolled herself as an Advocate on the role of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on 2.5.2002 and the Certificate of Enrolment dated 02.05.2002 along with Identity Card was awarded. While so, the petitioner received a communication dated 17.12.2002, from the first respondent cancelling her enrolment. Aggrieved over the same, she has come forward with the writ petition seeking to quash the said order.
2. While admitting the Writ Petition on 20.12.2002, this Court granted interim stay. Thereafter, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu filed a petition seeking to Vacate the order of the interim stay. However, this Court by order dated 21.08.2003 made the interim stay absolute.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the first respondent was satisfied about the qualification of the petitioner for enrolment and having enrolled her, it is not open for the Bar Council to cancel the same, citing Section 26(2) of the Advocates Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.3983 of 2004 in the case of R.Kaaruppan Vs. Dhanapalraj.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu submitted that the petitioner had already filed a Review Application before the Bar Council of India and challenging the order impugned in this writ petition has written a letter to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu dated 18.12.2002 praying for deferring the further proceedings and communications. He further submitted that neither the petitioner nor the respondent are in a position to state about the ultimate disposal given by the Bar Council of India. Having availed the alternative statutory remedy it is not open for the petitioner to approach this Court in filing this Writ Petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 23.11.2012 in Writ Appeal No.2439 of 2012 in the case of V.Rajaram Vs. The Law Secretary, Law Department and others.
5. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record.
6. The issue arises for my consideration is:- Whether the writ petition is maintainable and whether the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy under the Bar Council of India Act?
7. It is well settled that if any member is aggrieved by any order passed by the State Bar Council, the remedy for the advocate is to make an appeal to the Bar Council of India under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and not before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also well settled that when the party aggrieved has got an alternative remedy which is more efficacy in general, this Court will not entertain the writ petition in respect of the same. However, there are certain exceptions to the said self imposed restriction. One such exception is violation of principles of natural justice. If the party aggrieved complains that the impugned order came to be passed without following the principles of natural justice the High Court instead of driving him to avail the alternate remedy to redress his grievance can pass an order invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India.
8. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner was working in the Registry of this Court and studied in the Law College, Bangalore and obtained Law Degree in the year 1987 and after her superannuation, enrolled herself in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. By the impugned order dated 17.12.2002, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, stated that during the course of study of Law at the said Law College, the petitioner was in full time service in the office of the Registrar, High Court of Madras from 07.03.1963 to 31.03.2002 ; that the Bar Council feels that the details given by the petitioner regarding the Law Degree Course is not satisfactory and accordingly directed the petitioner to return her original Certificate of Enrolment and original Identity Card. Even though the contention of the petitioner is that the Registry of the High Court, Madras had ratified the degree studied by the petitioner and also recorded her qualification in the Service Register, this Court is of the view that just because the Registry of the High Court, Madras permitted the petitioner and ratified her educational qualification with respect to Law Degree, it will not stand in the way of the first respondent - Tamil Nadu Bar Council, to pass an order directing the petitioner to return her enrolment certificate and original identity card, because the first respondent is an autonomous body governed by the Regulations under the Advocates Act.
9. In the given case as admittedly the petitioner has availed the alternative statutory remedy before the Bar Council of India under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Having done so, it is not open for her to institute a parallel proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Therefore, I hold that this writ petition is not maintainable.
10. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Law degree obtained by her has been recognised by the Registry of this Court and therefore, she is eligible for enrolment. In respect of enrolment of a member as an Advocate, it is the statutory power of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to go into the eligibility criteria and qualification critera of the individual. The Registry of this Court viz; the employer of the petitioner has got nothing to do with the procedural aspects followed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu regarding enrolment of the petitioner.
11. From the perusal of the records maintained by the Registry of this Court, it is seen that the petitioner gave a representation dated 17.02.1998 to the Registrar of this Court stating that she had been qualified in Law Degree, the required qualification for the post of Assistant Registrar, of this Court and hence she had requested to direct the office to place the entry in her Service Register and consider her for the post of Assistant Registrar in the existing vacancy. The Registry of this Court by O.M. dated 11.2.1999, called for her explanation for not having obtained necessary permission from the Registry to study the Law Course at Bangalore. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted her explanation to the said O.M. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Registry of this Court by O.M. dated 10.7.1999, the action of the petitioner in joining the Law Degree Course without obtaining prior permission. It is very unfortunate.
12. Though I am surprised by the action of the Registrar-Administrative side of the Registry of this Court in ratifying her qualification in respect of Law degree which was obtained without having sufficient attendance and without getting prior permission from the Registry of this Court, I do not want to go into the same further, since the permission has already been ratified and that issue is not before me. Therefore, I hold that the ratification given by the Registrar-Administrative side of the Registry of this Court, to the petitioner for the Law degree obtained by her is not binding on the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was right in cancelling her enrolment.
13. In my considered opinion, even in the case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., in Writ Appeal No.3983 of 2004 in the case of R.Kaaruppan Vs. Dhanapalraj, the contention of the appellant is that the Supreme Court has granted bail to the appellant, it must be taken that the order of the High Court punishing the appellant for contempt is deemed to have been suspended. However, the Division Bench of this Court has held that mere filing of an appeal would not operate as stay of the order appealed against. I am of the view that the facts of the case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is entirely different from the facts of the case on hand.
14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.
26.02.2013 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No nvsri/gr.
To
1.The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Bar Council High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104
2.The Bar Council of India Rep. By Secretary to Bar Council, New Delhi A.ARUMUGHASWAMY, J.
nvsri/gr.
W.P.No.46022 of 200226.02.2013