Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

V.Rajaram vs The Law Secretary on 11 January, 2012

Author: Vinod K.Sharma

Bench: Vinod K.Sharma

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.01.2012

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

W.P.No.30173 of 2011

V.Rajaram	                    ... Petitioner.
    - vs -

1.	The Law Secretary
	Law Department
	Government of Tamil Nadu,
	Secretariat, Fort St.George
	Chennai

2.	The Secretary
	Bar Council of Tamil Nadu
	Chennai

3.	M.G.Regunath
	Advocate,
	82-C, Rajaji Nagar,
	Bangalore Bye-Pass Road,
	Krishnagiri and District  635 001	... Respondents.
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent bearing Confl.No.991 dated 13.09.2011 and their Resolution No.74 of 2011 dated 06.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent for having deceived the petitioner.
		For Petitioner   	:   	Mr.V.Rajaram
						Party-in-person

		For Respondents	:	No representation
						
*****
O R D E R

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the act of respondent no.3, has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, in dismissing the complaint of misconduct, filed against the respondent no.3.

2. The remedy with the petitioner is to file statutory appeal under the Advocates Act to the Bar Council of India.

3. In view of the availability of alternative statutory remedy of appeal, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, can avail the remedy of statutory appeal in accordance with law.

4. The other grievance of the petitioner is for prosecuting respondent no.3 and also for recovery of loss suffered due to his negligence. This grievance of the petitioner also cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction, as the remedy with petitioner is to file civil suit or criminal complaint in accordance with law, if so advised.

5. In view of the fact that the petitioner has alternative remedy to redress his grievance, as noticed herein-above, this writ petition is dismissed as not competent. No costs.

11.01.2012Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar To

1. The Law Secretary Law Department Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai

2. The Secretary Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Chennai VINOD K.SHARMA,J., ar W.P.No.30173 of 2011 11.01.2012