RANJIT DATTARAM SATARDEKAR Vs. RUCMINI RAGHUNATH NARVEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a legal practitioner, being a learned member of the Bar Council of India has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14-6-2003 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in Disciplinary Case No. 102/2002 instituted and pending against the petitioner, initiated on a complaint filed by the respond-ent No. 1, the erstwhile client of the petitioner making very serious allegations of professional misconduct indulged by the petitioner causing grave injury to the rights and properly of the respondent No. 1, a widow of her deceased husband.

(2.) THE petitioner has narrated the bare facts in his synopsis prefaced to the present petition. According to the petitioner on 8-1-1991 a Sale Deed was executed in respect of the property of the deceased husband of the respondent No. 1 in favour of his wife and another. A Special Civil Suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed was filed by the respondent No. 1 on the grounds inter alia, that she was not aware of the Sale Deed and that it was obtained by the petitioner fraudulently from her deceased husband. She also lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioner on 25-2-2002 whereupon F. I. R. /crime case No. 36/2002 was registered by the Police against the petitioner and four others. The petitioner rushed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji and obtained an anticipatory bail on 16-3-2002. It further appears that the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (hereinafter referred to Bar Council ). The petitioner was called upon to file his say to the said complaint and the petitioner filed his say on 29-5-2002. It further appears that the petitioner was required to file his written statement in the Civil Suit and he did not want to file his written statement in the suit. He approached this Court for stay of the proceedings. By an order dated 25-7-2002 this Court directed the petitioner to file his written statement in the said Special Civil Suit No. 97/2001/a. It further appears that he has filed his written statement on the merits of the case. As per the procedure followed by the Bar Council, a preliminary inquiry report was sought by constituting a Committee of a Single Member of the Bar council and accordingly on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned single Member, the Bar Council referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee consisting of three learned Members of the Bar Council. The petitioner thereupon filed an application before the Committee praying for stay of the proceedings on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against him in the Criminal Court for the very same allegations. It further appears that the Disciplinary Committee after hearing the petitioner declined to stay the disciplinary proceedings by its order dated 14-6-2003. It further appears that the Panaji Police filed charge-sheet on 20th June, 2003 against the petitioner and three others. It is further to be noted that the Disciplinary Committee corrected its order and re-delivered the same to the petitioner on 28-9-2003. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Committee, the respondent No. 2 refusing to stay the disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the criminal complaint before the Crimi-nal Court at Panaji.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel on both the sides for some time, and considering the facts and circumstances, we thought it proper to dispose of the writ petition finally at this stage itself. The learned Counsel on both the sides, have fairly consented for final disposal of the writ petition.