{"id":58961,"date":"1982-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982"},"modified":"2018-10-15T17:47:47","modified_gmt":"2018-10-15T12:17:47","slug":"mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982","title":{"rendered":"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra … on 29 October, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra … on 29 October, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 AP 271<\/div>\n
Author: K M Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: K M Reddy, Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  K. Madhava Reddy, Actg. C.J.   <\/p>\n
 1.  This appeal by an advocate on the rolls of the  Bar  council  of Andhra pradesh  is directed  against the dismissal of his  writ  petition  seeking  a writ   of Mandamus  against the Bar  council of the state of Andhra pradesh  Hyderabad to stay the enquiry   in c. C. No. 10 of  1981  on its  file pending  disposal  of O.S.  12\/81 and E.A. 16\/79  in E.P. 7\/79  on the file  of the District  Munsif at Jangaon.  That writ  petition came to be filed in the following  circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
 2.  Thakur  Anantha Ram Singh 2nd  respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the complaint or  2nd  respondent) was the Municipal  Toll tax contractor  of jangoan Municipality   for the  year 1960.  The Municipality  filed a suit O.s. 13\/67  against  him for  recovery of sum of Rs. 4.267-50 ps. The  appellant (petitioner) (hereinafter refered to as the advocate)  was engaged as  an  advocate to defend him in this   suit.  That  suit  was  decreed on 24-8-1967.  For  execution of that decree Jangaon Municipality filed   E.P. No. 25\/67  and  attached a vacant  site and house  belonging  to the 2nd  respondent (judgment-debtor)  a Claim petition E.A. 41\/67  was filed by the minor son of the 2nd respondent through his concubine.  That petition was allowed on 22-6-1968.  The advocate’s wife purpoted to purchase  the house from the minor son on 26-12-1968   under an agreement of sale coupled  with delivery  of possession.  The  Municipality  filed a regular suit  O.s. 22\/69  on 18-12-1969  to set aside the claim  order impleading the 2nd   respondent his minor   son the  advocate  and his wife on  orders of the Court the advocate’s  name was deleted  from  the array  of defendants.  The  claim suit was   decreed on 6-10-1969  On 17-8-1980  the advocate obtained a retification deed from the 2nd  respondent the Municipality  once again attached the housein E.P. 7\/79.  The advocate’s  wife file E.A. 16\/79 inter alia contending that only the site  was mortgaged to the Municipality  and not the house  and hence  if at all.  Only  the site  could be attached and not the house.  On 22-12-1980  the 2nd   respondent filed a suit O.S. 12\/81 on the file of the District Munisif   Jangaon for declaration of title  and that neither the advocate  nor his  wife  was the owner  thereof  and all  the  documents set  up by them were fabricated by the  advocate.  On the same set  of facts he submitted a complaint to the Bar  council  of the  state of Andhra pradesh  alleging  misconduct on the part  of the  advocate.  That complaint was registered as C. C. 10\/81  and notice issued to the advocate.  On receipt  of the notice  the advocate on receipt  of the notice the advocate on receipt  of the notice the advocate filed a defence statement  and  an  application I.A.  1\/82  to follow the procedure laid down for the trial of civil suits by framing issues for determination and requiring  the complainant  to file a list of witnesses as provided  in r. 1 of O. 16 C.P.C. and then to record  oral  evidence.  The  advocate also filed  I.A.   2\/82 to drop  the compliant case No. 10\/81  or in the alternative to stay the same  pending disposal  of O.S. 12\/81  and E.P. 7\/79  pleading that he would  be grave  prejudiced and he would put  to great and  irreparable   loss and injury the Bar  council  of Andhra Pradesh  after  hearing  the complainant and the  advocate held that the enquiry  need not be stayed and  accordingly  claimed I.A. 2\/82.  It is that order is challenged  and a writ  of mandamus  is prayed for.  Our  learned brother chennakesav Reddi. J. Dismissed the writ  petition in limine.\n<\/p>\n
 3.  The advocate while not disputing  the jurisdiction of  the Bar  council to entertain the complaint and enquire  into it, questions the propriety  of proceeding with the enquiry  when the  same issues are pending  adjudication before a civil  Court.  He also apprehends that the  enquiry by the  disciplinary  committee of the  bar   council  consisting of three  senior   advocates may prejudice the Court and any finding  given by the  committee may influence the   decision of the Court.  He also urges  that the Bar  council being  obsessed with the time  limit of one year for disposal of the matter before it failed to consider whether it was fit case to be stayed.\n<\/p>\n
 4.  From the above narration of facts,  it is clear that what is in issue before the  civil  Court is whether the 2nd  respondent (complainant) is the owner  of the suit  property and whether  the documents set up by the  advocate’s  wife are fabricated.  Two  of the issues (issues 3 and 4)  settled for trial  by the  District  munisif in the  said  suit  as extracted in the  advocate’s  affidavit  are:\n<\/p>\n
  “3.  Whether  the plaintiffs have ratified  the agreement dated 26-12-1968  alleged  to have been executed by laxmi  bai by executing  an agreement  dated 17-2-1970  for a consideration of Rs. 10,000\/-  in favour  of defendant No. 2?\n<\/p>\n
 On the  other hand the  issue that  would fall for consideration before the  Bar council would  be whether  the  documents in question are fabricated and if so.  Whether the advocate  was in any way responsible   for such fabrication  and   whether   his  conduct otherwise  constitutes professional misconduct as understood under  the  advocate Act and the  Bar council of India Rules, 1975.\n<\/p>\n
 5.  Though one of  the  issues viz.,  whether the Documents in question are fabricated? Is common the other   issues that fall for  enquiry  and decision in the suit are different from those that  are required to be considered and decided by the  Bar  council in the complaint case.  The relief that may be granted in the suit is not the same  as the action that  may be taken  by the  Bar council on the  basis of the Findings arrived at by the disciplinary  committee in  C. C. No. 10\/81  in the  suit  1983  Andh pra 18 VIII  G-10 the declaration prayed for may be granted  or refused In  the  disciplinary  proceedings no relief will be granted  to the complainant, only  the advocate  may be punished for professional  misconduct  or the proceedings dropped as not proved.  The enquiry pending  before  the District  Munsif’s  Court  in O.S.  No. 12\/81  and the enquiry  before  the Bar council are thus  not parallel enquires  only one of the issues arising  for decision for disposing  of the respective  cases   before   them is common  Even if the documents are found  to be  fabricated.  It does not necessarily   follow  that the advocate   against  whom  disciplinary  proceedings are pending in  C. C. 10\/81  was  responsible for  it  or  was guilty  of professional   misconduct.  It is not as if the findings in the civil   Court  automatically  conclude  the proceedings   in C. C.  10\/81  the proceedings before  the disciplinary    committee  of the Bar  council  are against an advocate with reference   to the  allegation of professional misconduct against him.  The enquiry is by a  professional body  calculated to maintain professional body  calculated to maintain professional  discipline  among  the members  of the Bar and is not intended to grant  any relief   to the  complainant as such.  Thus on the facts.  It  cannot be said   that these  proceedings are parallel  proceedings the   continuation   of which is prohibited  the   law  all  or  is  otherwise  absolutely  necessary  under allcircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
 6.  Mr. Lakshmana Rao, learned  counsel  for  the  appellant rightly  (did) not  contend the at the Bar   council   had  no  jursidcition to proceed with the  entry  in C. C. 10\/81  the Allegations in the complaint prima  facie   disclose misconduct on the  part of the advocate  and  all for  an enquiry   by the  Disciplinary  committee.  The   learned   counsel  therfore confined  himself  to attacking  the order  refusing  to stay  the proceedings on the ground  that this enquiry   would prejudice him   and  it  is but  fair  that he should  not be compelled to disclose  his defence in the  disciplinary  proceedings while the matter is pending  adjudication in a civil  Court.  He  therefore urged  that the disciplinary  authority.  In all fairness, ought  to have  adjourned    the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
 7.  In the  context  it must be noticed that the  advocates Act and the rules  framed  by the   Bar  council  of India   are calculated to maintain high  standard of  professional conduct.  Towards   this  end,  it  is  provided  that  any  allegation of professional misconduct should   be enquired into  by senior   members  body has reposed  confidence   electing them   R. 36-B of the  Rules  made under Advocates Act  envisages  expeditious  disposal  of any such   complaint  by  prescribing   a period  of one  year for the disposal  of the complaint and laying   down  that if the  enquiry  is not  so  disposed of  it would stand transferred to the  Bar   council of India.  Neither   the Act nor the  rules  governing  the  disciplinary  proceedings envisage stay of these proceedings having   regard to the pendency of   a criminal  or civil   case before   any Court or other authority  the complainant himself   cannot  withdraw  the proceeding.  Even  the death  of   the complainant does not terminate the  disciplinary  proceedings   before  the Bar   council.  It is only a decision of the  Disciplinary  committee that  terminates  the proceedings Disposal  of such a proceeding with ulmost expedition is in the interests of the  advocate whose professional   integrity  is under a  cloud  as a result  of the initiation  and pendency of the  disciplinary  proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
 8.  Mr.  Lakshmana Rao, learned counsel for  the  appellant however contended that whenever a proceeding is pending before a civil  Court  even  though  the bar  council  may  have  jurisdiction to proceed   with the  enquiry  it is  neither  expedient nor fair   to  proceed  with the   enquiry.  In this  behalf    he relied  upon  a decision  of  the  jammu  and kashmir  High Court in harbans  singh  v. Transport  commissioner, AIR  1966 J & K 73.  The learned  single Judge  Murtaza  Fazl Ali, J. (As he then  was)  considered  the  question  whether  a prayer  made to the  Transport  commissioner  for  staying  the  departmental enquiry   is   reasonable having  regard  to the pendency  of  the criminal  case and observed that the  prayer  was not unreasonable.  It  would be pertinent to note   that  in this   decision it  was not  laid   down  as a matter  of law   that  it  would be unreasonable not to stay under  all circumstances.  The learned Judge  considered  the several   infirmities attached to the departmental  enquiry   like not supplying  material  on which charges  were  framed not  giving  him sufficient  opportunity  to   participate  in the  enquiry  proceeding  with the  enquiry  behind  his back  without  notice   to him  and observed  that in those circumstances it was not an unreasonable  request to stay the departmental  enquiry   pending the proceedings in a  criminal  case.\n<\/p>\n
 9.  The learned counsel also  placed reliance on a  judgment  of the punjab  High Court in hoshair  singh v. State .  That was a case in which a commission  of enquiry  constituted under  the commissions of Enquiry constituted under the commissions of Enquiry  Act proceeded  to make  a public  enquiry  in regard  to an incident which formed the subject-matter of the criminal  case  Upon the request of  the accused to stay the proceedings   before the  commissionof Enquiry  being  refused.  The question arose whether the commission of enquiry   was  guilty  of contempt of  Court and  whether    the enquiry   should  be stayed.  The  Court was of the  view   that such an enquiry  ws bound to interfere  with the even  and ordinary  course  of justice  and  that the enquiry   must be  stayed  pending trial  or otherwise  it would amount to contempt for the  amtters  involved in both  were  more or less the same.  In  reaching  this conclusion the learned Judges relied  mainly   upon  the decision of the  Full  Bench  of   the  patna High Court in the King  v. Parmanand.  AIR  1949  pat 222.  It may  be noticed that the observations made by the  Full  Bench   in King   v. Parmanad AIR  1949  pat  222 were not  viewed  with  favour   by the Supreme Court  in Jang Bahadur  singh v. Baij nath   to which we would refer in due  course.  Suffice to state  that the Court therein was considering  whether  parallel proceedings by the commission of Enquiry would  constitute  contempt  of Court  when  identical  matter   was   pending trial  before a criminal  Court.  That was a case  in which the accused, who was facing  a criminal  trial had asked   for  stay  of a public  enquiry   by the commission of  Inquiry  which was likely   to prejudice  his  defence ther is no exhaustive   discussion of the aspects with which we are now  concerned with reference to a   disciplinary  proceeding  being  taken by a   professional body such as the Bar council   of India  against a member  of that profession.  One point that   seems to have largely  weighed  with  that Court  in that  case  was that the matters for consideration before the  commission of Enquiry   and the  criminal  Court were identical  which  is not  the case  in the matter now before us.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  Mr.  Lakshmana Rao, learned  counsel  for the appellant also  relied   upon the  decision of the Supreme Court in Delhi   Cloth  and General   Mills  v. Kushal<\/a> bhan   where  their   Lordships  of hte Supreme Court  were  called   upon  the consider  whether   a domestic    enquiry   by a  master   against    his servant   should be stayed  pending  trial of a criminal   Court.  The Court  observation (Para 3):- \n\n  \"Though very employers stay enquiries  into the  misconduct of th employees  pending the decision of the criminal trial  courts  dealing with  the same  facts  and that  is fair, it cannot be  said  that principles  of  natural  justice   require  that  an employer  must  wait  for   the decision   at  least of the criminal  trial Court befre   taking   action   against  an  Employee\". \n\n \n\n This   decision far from   supporting  the  appellant's case given a clear indication that there may  be cases where   staying   the domestic  enquiry  may be neither  necesssary  nor   expedient  and failure  to  stay such  an enquiry  cannot be termed  as 'unfair\".  All that their   Lordships  observed  was  that  if  the case is  of a grave  nature or involves questions of fact or law which are not simple  it  would  be advisable  for the employer to await  the  decision of the trial  Court so that the  defence  of the  employee in hte criminal  case  may not be  prejudiced'. \n\n \n\n 11.  Tata Oil  Mills v. Workmen,<\/a>   which was also relied upon  by the  learned counsel is yet  another   case of  a domestic   enquiry  into the misconduct  of  a workman  resulting in his dismissal while  a criminal  case in respect of that very  incident was   pending.  The Court observed (para 9):- \n\n  \"It is dexirable  that if the incident  giving  rise  to the  charge   framed   against  a  workman in a domestic  enquiry  is being   tried  in a  criminal   Court.  The  employer  should  stay  the domestic enquiry   pending the final   disposal  of the  criminal   case.  It  would  be particularly   appropriate  to adopt such a course  where the  charge  character  because in such  a case,  it would  be untair   to compel  the   workman to disclose the  defence  which   he  may   take   before   the criminal   Court:.  \n\n \n\n It would be pertinent to note  that their lordships  hastened to add:- \n\n  \"But  to say that domestic  enquiries  may be  stayed  pending  criminal  trial is very different from  anything    that if an employer  proceeds  with  the  domestic   enquiry  in spite  of the fact that  criminal   trial  is pending   the  enquiry   for that  reason  alone is  such an enquiry  is either bad in law or  mala fide\". \n\n \n\n In  fact their lordships  proceeded to hold that the \"Tribunal  was in error when it characterised   the result of the  domestice enquiry  as mala fide partly   because  the enquiry  was not stayed   pending    the criminal  proceeding against   Raghavan (workman).\"  In coming to  that conclusion  the Court  was more   weighted  by the    fact  that the  accused   facing a criminal  trial  in a case of grave   nature  would have  to  disclose   his  degence  and the matter involved   enquiry  into questions  of  fact   or law which are not simple  .  Further  those observations  wer made in  the  context  of a domestic enquiry  by a master   against  his  servant.  That  cannot be taken   as a  principle of uniform   application and certainly not  intended to apply  even to an enquiry   by a professional body   which has   the  necessary  expertise  to enquire   into all questions of fact   and alw  however   grave an  to an enquiry  into all  questions of fact and law however  grave  the nture  of the imputitions may be  and to an  enquiry  the   purpose   of which is to  maintain  high professional standars.  Any   enquiry   by such  a body cannot be deeemed to prejudice the person   concerned  who  is an advocate   and   who is  not facing   a criminal    trial  but is  only   required   to defect    a civil  claim  before  a district  munsif's Court. \n\n \n\n 12.  In fact  in T.  G. Goskar v. R.N. Shukla<\/a>   a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the ocntext  of the contention that  any  enquiry  by the customs officer under  the provisions of the sea  customs Act  while  a criminal    prosecution of  the  person  in connection with smuggling  of  gold  was imminent,  constituted contempt  of  Court  observed  (para 3)\"- \n\n  \n\n  'The  customs officers are empowered to consfiscate  smuggled  goods  and to levy   penalties on person concerned with the smuggling.  They may  initiate proceedings  for   confiscation of he goods and for imposition of the penalty  though the  trial  of those  persons in a criminal   Court for   connected  offences is imminent.  The initation and continuance of those proceedings in good faith  cannot  amount  to  contempt of the  criminal  Court. \n\n xx                        xx                                  xx                   xx\n\n \n\n The customs officers  did  nothing  of this  kind.  They are acting   bona fide and discharging   their statutory  duties  under secs. 111 and 112.  The power  of adjudicating   penalty and confiscation under those sections  is vested in them alone.  The criminal  Court  cannot  make   this  adjudiciation the issue of show  cause notice  and proceedings  thereunder  are authorised  by the  Act  and  are not clculated to obstruct  the  course  of Justice  in any Court. We  see no  justification for  holding that   the  proceedings amount to contempt of Court\".  \n\n \n\n The ocurt also considered whether the refusal to stay  the proceedings under secs. 111 and 112  during the  pendency  of  trial  of the criminal case amounted to proper exercise  of discretion   or  not and held   that in the exercise  of  the  discretion  they have refused to stay the proceedings and that  it is not  shown  that their  action is mala  fide  or arbitrary  and in that  view  held  that the   Court will not issue a mandamus  to control  the exercise  of their   discretion. \n\n \n\n 13.   In Jang  Bhahadur singh v. Baij  Nath   (supra) their    Lordships  of the Supreme Court put the  position broadly  thus: \"An authority  holding  an inquiry  in good faith in exercise  of the   powers vested  in it by statutory  regulations is not guilty  of contempt of Court merely  because  a parallel  inquiry is imminent or pending  before  a Court and indicated that  such proceedings should  not  be stayed when  taking  in good  faith.  The Court proceeded to observe (para 7):- \n\n  \"We cannot  agree with the broad observation  that  a parallel  inquiry  on a matter  pending  before a Court necessarily   amounts  to a contempt of Court .  we think  that an inquiry   by a  domestic  tribunal in good faith into the charges  against an employee does  not  amount to contempt of  Court  merely  because an inquiry  into the   same  charges  is pending  before a civil  or criminal Court\". \n\n \n\n In deciding whether  a  proceeding before  a disciplinary   committee of a Bar   council  should be stayed or not we must  take note of the nature  of the allegations   against the advocate and the fact  that  the enquiry  is pending  before  the professional  body.  Such  allegations of misconduct almost  invariably  give  rise to either  civil  consequence  or criminal  liability  and invariably   they  form  the subject-matter of either civil or criminal proceedings  before  a Court or  other  authority.  A professional   body.  Such as  the Bar-council, has the  exclusive jurisdiction to enquire  into the   allegations  of misconduct against   the members of the legal  profession and it is enjoined   to dispose  of  enquiry  into such allegations expeditiously   within a  period  of one year.  That  provision  is intended not merely   to clear   the cloud    cast  on the  particular  advocate   at the earliest  but   also  intended  to keep  the noble    profession itself  clear   of such members.  Advocates owe  a duty   not  only  to their  clients  but  to the  Court  as well in the  administration  of law and justice.  It is   in  the interest of the Advocate  and in particular  that the  proceedings   conclude   with the  least  possible   delay   Merely  because  some  civil  or criminal proceeding is pending before    a Court or authority  in respect   of some  issue  common to  that proceeding and the proceeding   before  the disciplinary  committee of the Bar  council and stay   of proceedigs  before  the Bar  council  would  result   in serious   interference with the  discharge  of the statutory   functions of the  professional   body  unless allowing such  proceeding  to go on would   result   in miscarriage of justice such a step  should  in our   view  be avoided. \n\n \n\n 14.  In the  instant case the matter before the bar council is a disciplinary    proceeding and not a parallel   enquiry  into the issues identical   to those  arising   in the suit  pending before  a civil   Court.   The enquiry is being   held  by a  Disciplinary  committee eminently   qualified to decide  all intracate  issues   of law  and fact.  The committee is enjoined by the   advocates   Act and the  rules  framed  thereunder   to  dispose of the disciplinary   matters  within a period    of one  year   from  the  date of their  initiation.  In such  circumstances it cannot be said   that th said committee has exercised  its discretion    arbitrarily  in refusing  to stay  its proceedings  as prayed for  by the  appellant. When that  professional    body   itself    having   considered all the  aspects has refused  to  exercise  its discretion to stay  the proceedings  we do not think   that this   Court   should  exercise  its  extraordinary   jurisdiction  to issue  a mandamus  directing  the professional  body  to exercise  the  discretion vested in it in a  particular  manner  or issue  a direction  staying the proceedings  before   it.  We therefore do not see  any   reason  to interfere  with  the   order  made by the  learned single    judge  dismissing  the writ   petition. \n\n \n\n 15.  This  writ  appeal.  Therefore fails  and is  accordingly dismissed  but in the circumstances.  We make  no order as to  costs.   \n\n \n\n 16. Appeal  dismissed. \n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra … on 29 October, 1982 Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 AP 271 Author: K M Reddy Bench: K M Reddy, Ramaswamy JUDGMENT K. Madhava Reddy, Actg. C.J. 1. This appeal by an advocate on the rolls of the Bar council of Andhra pradesh is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra ... on 29 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra ... on 29 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-15T12:17:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra … on 29 October, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T12:17:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982\"},\"wordCount\":2145,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982\",\"name\":\"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra ... on 29 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T12:17:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra … on 29 October, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra ... on 29 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra ... on 29 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-15T12:17:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra … on 29 October, 1982","datePublished":"1982-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T12:17:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982"},"wordCount":2145,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982","name":"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra ... on 29 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T12:17:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangu-srihari-vs-bar-council-of-state-of-andhra-on-29-october-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangu Srihari vs Bar Council Of State Of Andhra … on 29 October, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58961","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}