Karnataka High Court
Shri Prabhakar H Gaggari vs Karnataka State Bar on 29 October, 2015
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.11134 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Shri Prabhakar H Gaggari,
Son of Hanumanth Gagari,
Aged about 31 years,
Advocate, Rayabag,
Resident of Handigunda Village,
Kuduchi Hobli,
Rayabaga Taluk 591 317,
Belgaum District,
Karnataka State.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri D. Basavarajappa, Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka State Bar Council,
Represented by its Secretary,
Old K.G.I.D.Building,
Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
2. The President,
2
Shri Basavaraj Gayakvad,
Shri Sharada Educational Institution
Laxminagar, Banahatti,
Jamkhandi Taluk 587 301,
Biijapur District,
Karnataka State.
3. The Principal,
Nawada Law College,
Nawada Taluk 805 123,
Patna District,
Bihar State.
4. The Vice Chancellor,
Magada University,
Bhoda Gaya,
Patna Taluk and District 805 123,
Bihar State.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri C.M. Poonacha and Shri Kiran V Ron, Advocates for
M/s. Lexplexus for Respondent No.1;
Shri Pulikeshi C Mathad and Shri Hussain Basha, Advocates
for Respondent No.2;
Smt. M.P.Geetha Devi, Advocate for Respondent No.3)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issuing the writ of certiorari
or other suitable writ against first respondent to quash the letter
dated 28.11.2014 vide Annexure-K alternatively and etc;
This Writ Petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case stated are that the petitioner had obtained his Bachelor's Degree at SCT and DPS Degree College, Mahalingapura of Belgaum District. After completion of his B.A. Degree, he had been admitted to the LL.B. course from the third respondent - College through the second respondent - Educational Institution on payment of Rs.50,000/- per year. The petitioner claims to have successfully completed his LL.B. Degree from the third respondent - College under the guidance and coaching of the second respondent - Institution through postal correspondence under the fourth respondent - University. The petitioner had then enrolled himself with the Karnataka State Bar Council as on 20.06.2014 and he was practicing as a member of the Rayabag Bar Association, Belgaum District under one B.S. Vadayar, his senior counsel. However, it was a shock to the petitioner that there was an allegation as to he having produced fake certificates in having 4 enrolled himself as an Advocate and it is in that background Annexure-"K" having been issued, the present writ petition is filed.
3. It is the vehement contention of the petitioner that in terms of Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, if there is a complaint against an Advocate of misconduct, the matter has to be referred to a Disciplinary Committee, whereas in the present case on hand, the Bar Council has taken upon itself to hold an enquiry, which is wholly irregular and seeks that Annexure-"K" which was a notice calling upon him to attend a meeting in December 2014 be quashed.
4. However, it is pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State Bar Council that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law and enquiry was conducted by the Disciplinary Committee and not by the Bar Council as alleged, and findings have been arrived at and it is on instructions the counsel would further state that the enquiry 5 has been concluded and there are findings against the petitioner, which will be indicated to him in due course.
The petition therefore is rendered infructuous and ought to be rejected outright.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently canvassed that the irregularities going to the root of the matter as the Bar Council would have no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry in the face of a mandate that such a complaint should have been referred to the Disciplinary Committee, the entire proceedings against the petitioner would have to fail and ought to be set at naught. However, such a contention is premature at this point of time. If a finding has been arrived at by the Bar Council, the petitioner would do well to challenge the further proceedings taken by the Bar Council through its Disciplinary Committee. To quash the notice at Annexure-"K" would be an exercise in futility, for the notice merely calling upon the petitioner to attend the meeting has been challenged, which he may have already attended. Therefore, there is no interference 6 warranted at this stage on the basis of the petition averments. Without prejudice to any further petition that the petitioner may lodge questioning the further proceedings taken by the Bar Council, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS