IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 7866 of 2006(J)
1. NAJMAL BABU. K., S/O. MOHAMMED K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERLAA,
... Respondent
2. THE ENROLMENT COMMITTEE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :06/12/2006
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)NO.7866 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of December 2006
JUDGMENT
Writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 enquiry report
prepared by 2nd respondent for reference to Bar Council of India
under Section 26 of the Advocates Act for decision as to whether
petitioner’s name should be removed from the roll of members of
Bar Council of Kerala. Petitioner filed the application for
enrollment on 15-11-2004 declaring that he was not engaged in
any profession or trade. Based on the application, petitioner
was enrolled as Advocate in the enrollment held on 21-1-2004.
However, Bar Council immediately noticed that petitioner was
employed as a member of the personal staff with a minister in
the State Government even on the date of making application for
enrollment. However, petitioner’s case is that petitioner got a
relieving order from Government by order dated 29-11-2004
relieving him with effect from 12-11-2004. In the enquiry
proceedings, petitioner’s educational qualification for enrollment
is also questioned by the Bar Council on the ground that he has
taken L.L.B. degree attending evening course. It is submitted by
W.P.(C)NO.7866 OF 2006
Page numbers
counsel for petitioner that this issue is covered in favour of
petitioner by judgment of this court. Counsel for respondent
submitted that besides this issue, the misdeclaration about
employment in the application of enrollment filled by petitioner
is another issue on which reference is made by the Bar Council
for their decision under Section 26 of the Advocates Act. It is to
be noted that petitioner has filed writ petition and writ appeal
challenging notice proposing enquiry. But this court did not
interfere with the enquiry by the Bar Council. Petitioner’s case
is that since report is adverse to him, it is to open for challenge
in this court again. I do not think there is any scope for
interference because a report by itself is not a adverse decision
against the petitioner. It cannot be denied that petitioner has
not made a misdeclaration in the application filed by him.
However, since petitioner got relieved with retrospective effect,
it is a matter to be seen whether the misdeclaration in the
application itself entitles the Bar Council to remove petitioner
from its roll. This is a matter to be decided by the Bar Council of
India as State Bar Council has no authority to interfere with this.
W.P.(C)NO.7866 OF 2006
Page numbers
Counsel submitted that Bar Council of Kerala has not decided in
making reference to the Bar Council of India.
In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to respondents to immediately refer the matter to Bar
Council of India, if they have already decided in the matter. If
decision for reference is not taken, then Bar Council can decide
the matter after hearing petitioner’s objection and depending on
the decision either reference will be made or decision will be
communicated to the petitioner at the earliest. If reference is
made, I am sure Bar Council of India will give priority for
petitioner’s case as it is a case of enrolled person not allowed to
practice.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE
jes