EKNATH SHANKARRAO PAGAR Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the decision taken by the Bar Council of India in Revision Petition No. 27 of 1996. By the impugned order, the Bar Council of India, while exercising the powers under Section 48A of the Advocates Act, 1961 allowed the revision petition by exercising suo motu powers by the Secretary,Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, which was amounting to cancellation of the decision taken by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa granting Sanad to the Petitioner.

(2.) The Petitioner at the relevant time was discharging his duty as part time Law Professor in T.Y.B. Com faculty. He had applied for Sanad as he wanted to practice as an Advocate. The Enrollment Committee of the Bar Council of State of Maharashtra and Goa admitted the Petitioner on the roll. The Bar Council of Maharashtra while taking decision of enrollment of the Petitioner on the roll of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa further resolved that the Secretary may file revision against the order of Enrollment Committee enrolling the Petitioner on the roll. The State Bar Council accordingly by resolution allowed the Petitioner to be enrolled on the roll and permitted the Secretary of the Bar Council of the State to file revision against the decision taken by the Bar Council of State. The Secretary of the State Bar Council accordingly filed revision application against the Petitioner being Revision Petition No. 27 of 1996. The aforesaid revision application was clubbed with another revision application filed by some other person, to which this Court is not concerned. By the impugned order, the Bar Council of India having held that the revision at the instance of the Secretary of State Bar Council is not maintainable but while exercising the suo motu powers the said revision petition was allowed as it was held that the Petitioner should not have been enrolled as an Advocate as he was serving at that time as part time Professor. This petition was admitted by this Court as back as on 5th August, 1997 and ad interim order is also granted by this Court by which the Petitioner is allowed to practice as an Advocate.

(3.) It is pointed out by the learned Counsel Mr. Bandiwadekar that during the pendency of this petition, the Petitioner has also retired as part time professor and he is now no more in service as a part time professor in College. It is submitted that at the relevant time when the matter was kept for hearing before the Bar Council of India, the Petitioner had already sent a telegram requesting the Bar Council of India to adjourne the matter and intimate the next date on the ground that he is having personal difficulty as his son was to be admitted in MBBS Course. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that inspite of request for adjournment and intimation about the next date, the next date was not informed to the Petitioner and the matter was decided ex-parte. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel Mr. Bandiwadekar that in any case, when the Bar Council of India found that the revision at the instance of the Secretary of State Bar Council was not maintainable, a show cause notice was required to be given to the Petitioner pointing out as to why suo motu powers should not exercised. It was submitted by Mr. Bandiwadekar that the College in which the Petitioner was discharging his duties as Part Time Professor in fact had 98.sxw already given no objection certificate, which is at page 24 to the petition. The Petitioner has produced the said no objection certificate dated 7th December, 1993 pointing out that the Petitioner was teaching Mercantile Law, Industrial Law and Business law at T.Y.B. Com. level and these subjects are related to law faculty and teaching hours are from 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. and his work load was 2 hours and 15 minutes a day and that the college has no objection, in case the Petitioner is enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. It is submitted by Mr. Bandiwadekar that the said certificate is already submitted to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa at the time of giving application to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for Sanad. It is pointed out by Mr. Bandiwadekar that as per the rules framed by the Bar Council of India, the Petitioner was allowed to be enrolled as an Advocate. The relevant rules are annexed at page 49 of the compilation.