LAXMI NARAIN Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Laxminarayan is present in person. He insisted that he may be heard and the matter be decided by the Court in view of the fact that he has been denied to practise as a lawyer by the impugned order dated 16-11-96 (Annexure-1) passed by the Bar Council of India and because of that he is literally starving Though served none has put up his appearance for the respondent No. 1-Bar Council of India. Mr. R. P. Malik, Senior Office Assistant of Bar Council of Rajasthan is present in person. No one was present for the respondent No. 3-University.

(2.) On 6-3-98 this Court (P.P. Navlekar) ordered to issue notice in this petition as to why this writ petition may not be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Except by the respondent No. 3, University, no reply is filed either by the Bar Council of India or by the Bar Council of Rajasthan.

(3.) The impugned order at Annexure-1 came to be passed by the Bar Council of India on a reference made under Section 26(1) of the Advocates Act by the Bar Council of Rajasthan. It was held that the petitioner cannot continue as an Advocate and his enrolment deserves to be cancelled since his enrolment was obtained by misrepresentation.