CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: November 11, 2008.
Parties Name
Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Petitioner with counsel
Mr. H.S.Bajwa, Advocate;
Mr. O.P.Goel, Senior Advocate, with
Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate, for respondent No.1
Mr. G.P.Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE (oral)
JUDGMENT
In this petition for a writ of quo-warranto, the petitioner has
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -2-
called in question the nomination of respondent No. 4 -Shri Harish Kumar
Narang as Honorary Secretary of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh. The principal ground of challenge mounted by the petitioner
is that the LL.B. degree, which respondent No. 4, claimed to have acquired,
was not recognised for purpose of enrollment as a Member of the Bar under
the Advocates Act, 1961.
It is not in dispute that during the pendency of these
proceedings, respondent No. 4 himself approached the Bar Council of
Punjab and Haryana seeking surrender of the licence, issued in his favour.
It is also not in dispute that on receipt of the said application, the Bar
Council of Punjab & Haryana had appointed a Special Committee of three
Members of the Council to hold an enquiry into the allegation that the said
Shri Narang had managed to get himself enrolled as a Member of the Bar
without being eligible for such enrollment. The Special Committee so
appointed has submitted a report, from a reading whereof it appears that
Shri O.P.Sharma, Chairman of the said Committee, had recommended the
matter to be taken up with the Bar Council of India under Section 26 of the
Advocates Act for removal of the name of Shri Narang from the rolls and
registration of a criminal case for forgery and cheating against him, the
other two Members, namely, Shri Raj Mohan Singh and Mukesh Berry have
in their separate reports stopped short of recommending registration of a
case against Shri Narang. The matter could in their opinion be left to be
determined by the Bar Council of India.
Upon consideration of the recommendations, made by the
Special Committee, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana have by a
resolution dated November 5, 2008, unanimously accepted the report of the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -3-
Special Committee and resolved to recommend to the Bar Council of India
for the removal of the name of Shri Harish Kumar Narang, Advocate, from
the rolls of the Bar Council. The resolution, a copy whereof was placed on
record by learned counsel appearing for the Council, further stated that Shri
Narang had by fraudulent means and by producing a fake and forged degree
got himself enrolled as a Member of the Bar and that a suitable FIR against
the said Shri Narang be got registered on the directions of Bar Council of
India.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that consequent upon the
subsequent developments, mentioned above, Shri Narang has already
demitted office w.e.f. December 31, 2007, when his term as Honorary
Secretary expired by efflux of time. In that view, therefore, nothing really
survives for consideration in this Court in the present proceedings as
respondent No. 4, is no longer holding any public office to call for
intervention of this Court.
Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Bajwa strenuously argued that
respondent No. 4 had committed perjury in the course of these proceedings,
for which this Court ought to direct his prosecution. He drew our attention
to an interim order of this Court dated May 20, 2008, and submitted that
since the description of the University as given in the application form
submitted to the Bar Council was different from that given in the affidavit
filed in this Court, it was evident that the statement made before this Court
that the respondent has passed his LL.B. degree from Hindi Sahiya Samelan
Allahabad was false . He urged that the legal profession must remain free
from any mal-practices including mal-practices in enrollment of Advocates
and that this Court ought to take a stringent view in the matter and direct
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -4-
prosecution of respondent No. 4 to deter others, who may similarly attempt
to circumvent the system by fraudulent means from doing so.
On behalf of respondent No. 4, it was, on the other hand,
submitted by Mr. Cheema that the affidavit, filed by respondent No. 4 in
this Court and the other documents , produced in the course of the present
proceedings, clearly stated that the LL.B. degree, which respondent No. 4
had acquired, had been awarded in his favour by the Hindi Sahitya Samelan,
Allahabad. He also drew our attention to the affidavit, filed by the Bar
Council of Punjab and Haryana and Annexure R-3 enclosed to the same,
according to which respondent No. 4 is shown to have acquired the Vidhi
Visharat (LL.B.) from Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad, in June, 1992.
He submitted that respondent No. 3 stood by the statement, made in the
counter affidavit, as also other documents, in which the said respondent
was shown to have acquired his LL.B. degree from Hindi Sahitya Samelan,
Allahabad. He urged that in the application form, submitted to the Bar
Council of Punjab and Haryana, a copy whereof has been enclosed as
Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit, filed by respondent No. 1, the name
of the College at which the course of instructions in law was taken is no
doubt shown as Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Kanpur, but the said error was
inadvertent and unintended. He submitted that respondent No. 4 at no stage
studied at Kanpur and had nothing to do with the institution at the said
place. According to Mr. Cheema, there was no Hindi Sahitya Samelan
institution or University in existence in Kanpur. The fact that a mistake had
been committed by respondent No. 4 in describing the Institution, from
where he had passed the LL.B. degree, did not , according to the learned
counsel, amount to committing perjury so as to warrant any direction for
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -5-
prosecution of respondent No. 4.
There is in our opinion considerable merit in the submission
made by Mr. Cheema. The affidavit and the documents enclosed with the
same by respondent No. 4 in the present proceedings leave no manner of
doubt especially after Mr. Cheema has made a specific statement at the bar
that the degree acquired by respondent No. 4 was from Hindi Sahitya
Samelan, Allahabad, that any description of the institute in the application
form submitted to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana is not factually
correct. The mistake committed by respondent No. 4 in wrongly
describing the Institution from where he acquired the LL.B. degree in the
application form submitted to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, may
call for action at the instance of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana or
the Bar Council of India depending upon whether or not the Bar Council
accepts the version of respondent No. 4 regarding the mistake being
genuine or inadvertent but the same does not constitute perjury in the
instant proceedings to call for any direction from us. The question whether
we ought to direct any prosecution will depend entirely upon whether the
statement made in the affidavit, filed by respondent No. 4, is on a question
of fact false to the knowledge of the said respondent. Our answer to that
question is in the negative. There is before us no material to suggest that
the statement made in the affidavit, filed by respondent No. 4, or the
documents enclosed therewith did not reflect the true position. In that view
of the matter, there is no room for issuing any direction for prosecution of
respondent No. 4 for the alleged perjury committed by him. We may hasten
to add that this order shall not prevent the Bar Council of India from
considering the recommendation made by the Punjab and Haryana Bar
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -6-
Council to institute appropriate proceedings for prosecution of respondent
No. 4 for any offence that the Bar Council of India may prima facie find
respondent No. 4 to have committed in the process of getting himself
enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana or
forging or fabricating any record or any valuable security or document. We
leave it entirely to the Bar Council of India and to the Bar Council of Punjab
and Haryana to take appropriate decision in that regard. We may make it
clear that in case after receipt of recommendations of the Bar Council of
Punjab and Haryana, Bar Council of India takes any action or institutes any
proceedings against respondent No. 4, he shall be at liberty to seek redress
against any such proceedings in accordance with law.
With above observations, this petition stands disposed of.
( T.S.THAKUR)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(JASBIR SINGH)
November 11, 2008. JUDGE
DKC
