IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 2533 of 2010.
---
Rajeev Kumar ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Bar Council of India through its
Chairman, 21 rouse Avenue
Institutional Area, New Delhi-11002.
2. Jharkhand State Bar Council, Ranchi
through its Chairman, Doranda, Ranchi.
3. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate.
4. Sri Horen Kumar Mahto
5. Sri Prabhir Kumar Chatterjee ... ... ... ... Respondents.
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate In Person.
---
2. 28.6.2010
. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
16.4.2010 (Annexure 8) passed in the disciplinary case being D.C. No. 01 of
2010 by the Disciplinary Committee No. 11 and for consequential reliefs.
2. Referring to the order dated 10.5.2007 passed in Criminal appeal No.
426 of 2006, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate appearing in person, submitted
that the Chairman of the Committee is not competent to proceed with the
disciplinary proceedings. He further submitted that Disciplinary Committee
No. 11 has not been constituted in terms of Rule 8 (i).
3. The objections raised in this writ petition were raised by the petitioner
before the Committee which has been rejected by the impugned order
dated 16.4.2010.
4. Mr. Rajeev Kumar could not show that after the said order dated
10.5.2007 was passed, any action was taken against the Chairman of the
Disciplinary Committee No. 11. A general statement has been made that he
is on inimical terms with the petitioner since 1997. Further, there is nothing
against two other members of the Committee.
5. It also appears from the impugned order that in a General body
meeting, the Jharkhand State Bar Counsel (for short “J.S.B.C.”) resolved and
empowered the Chairman, J.S.B.C. to constitute the Committee and,
accordingly, the present disciplinary committee has been constituted,
which is proceeding with the case against the petitioner.
6. Then there is provision of appeal available to the petitioner.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to
interfere with the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed.
(R. K. Merathia, J)
AKS.Cp.2.