AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Arumughaswamy, J.—The petitioner joined the service in the Registry of Madras High Court, on 07.03.1963. Without intimating the
High Court or getting prior permission, she joined three years Law degree course in SLSRC, Havanur College of Law during academic year
1984-1987. According to her, she attended the Evening College by securing attendance during weekend and public holidays. On completion of
course, she was awarded Law Degree and the Registry of High Court, Madras, by Official Memorandum in Roc. No. 945/98-Estt.IV, dated
14.07.1999, ratified the action of the petitioner in having joined in the Law College at Bangalore and obtained Law Degree Certificate from the
Bangalore University in the year 1987, without obtaining prior permission of this Registry. After her superannuation, as per Section 24 of the
Advocates Act, she enrolled herself as an Advocate on the role of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on 2.5.2002 and the Certificate of
Enrolment dated 02.05.2002 along with Identity Card was awarded. While so, the petitioner received a communication dated 17.12.2002, from
the first respondent cancelling her enrolment. Aggrieved over the same, she has come forward with the writ petition seeking to quash the said
order. While admitting the Writ Petition on 20.12.2002, this Court granted interim stay. Thereafter, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu filed a petition
seeking to Vacate the order of the interim stay. However, this Court by order dated 21.08.2003 made the interim stay absolute.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the first respondent was satisfied about the qualification of the petitioner for
enrolment and having enrolled her, it is not open for the Bar Council to cancel the same, citing Section 26(2) of the Advocates Act. In support of
his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 3983 of 2004 in the case of R.
Kaaruppan Vs. Dhanapalraj.
Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu submitted that the petitioner had already filed a Review
Application before the Bar Council of India and challenging the order impugned in this writ petition has written a letter to the Bar Council of Tamil
Nadu dated 18.12.2002 praying for deferring the further proceedings and communications. He further submitted that neither the petitioner nor the
respondent are in a position to state about the ultimate disposal given by the Bar Council of India. Having availed the alternative statutory remedy it
is not open for the petitioner to approach this Court in filing this Writ Petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
first respondent, relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 23.11.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 2439 of 2012 in the case of V.
Rajaram Vs. The Law Secretary, Law Department and others.
I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record.
The issue arises for my consideration is:-Whether the writ petition is maintainable and whether the petitioner has already availed the alternative
remedy under the Bar Council of India Act?
It is well settled that if any member is aggrieved by any order passed by the State Bar Council, the remedy for the advocate is to make an
appeal to the Bar Council of India u/s 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and not before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is also well settled that when the party aggrieved has got an alternative remedy which is more efficacy in general, this Court will not
entertain the writ petition in respect of the same. However, there are certain exceptions to the said self imposed restriction. One such exception is
violation of principles of natural justice. If the party aggrieved complains that the impugned order came to be passed without following the
principles of natural justice the High Court instead of driving him to avail the alternate remedy to redress his grievance can pass an order invoking
Article 226 of Constitution of India.
On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner was working in the Registry of this Court and studied in the Law College, Bangalore
and obtained Law Degree in the year 1987 and after her superannuation, enrolled herself in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. By the impugned
order dated 17.12.2002, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, stated that during the course of study of Law at the said Law College, the petitioner was
in full time service in the office of the Registrar, High Court of Madras from 07.03.1963 to 31.03.2002; that the Bar Council feels that the details
given by the petitioner regarding the Law Degree Course is not satisfactory and accordingly directed the petitioner to return her original Certificate
of Enrolment and original Identity Card. Even though the contention of the petitioner is that the Registry of the High Court, Madras had ratified the
degree studied by the petitioner and also recorded her qualification in the Service Register, this Court is of the view that just because the Registry
of the High Court, Madras permitted the petitioner and ratified her educational qualification with respect to Law Degree, it will not stand in the way
of the first respondent - Tamil Nadu Bar Council, to pass an order directing the petitioner to return her enrolment certificate and original identity
card, because the first respondent is an autonomous body governed by the Regulations under the Advocates Act.
In the given case as admittedly the petitioner has availed the alternative statutory remedy before the Bar Council of India u/s 37 of the
Advocates Act, 1961. Having done so, it is not open for her to institute a parallel proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Therefore, I hold that this writ petition is not maintainable.
Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Law decree obtained by her has been
recognised by the Registry of this Court and therefore, she is eligible for enrolment. In respect of enrolment of a member as an Advocate, it is the
statutory power of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to go into the eligibility criteria and qualification criteria of the individual. The Registry of this
Court viz.; the employer of the petitioner has got nothing to do with the procedural aspects followed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu regarding
enrolment of the petitioner.
From the perusal of the records maintained by the Registry of this Court, it is seen that the petitioner gave a representation dated 17.02.1998
to the Registrar of this Court stating that she had been qualified in Law Degree, the required qualification for the post of Assistant Registrar, of this
Court and hence she had requested to direct the office to place the entry in her Service Register and consider her for the post of Assistant
Registrar in the existing vacancy. The Registry of this Court by O.M. dated 11.2.1999, called for her explanation for not having obtained
necessary permission from the Registry to study the Law Course at Bangalore. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted her explanation to the said
O.M. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Registry of this Court by O.M. dated 10.7.1999, the action of the
petitioner in joining the Law Degree Course without obtaining prior permission. It is very unfortunate.
Though I am surprised by the action of the Registrar-Administrative side of the Registry of this Court in ratifying her qualification in respect of
Law Decree which was obtained without having sufficient attendance and without getting prior permission from the Registry of this Court, I do not
want to go into the same further, since the permission has already been ratified and that issue is not before me. Therefore, I hold that the ratification
given by the Registrar-Administrative side of the Registry of this Court, to the petitioner for the Law decree obtained by her is not binding on the
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was right in cancelling her enrolment.
In my considered opinion, even in the case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., in Writ Appeal No. 3983 of 2004 in the
case of R. Kaaruppan Vs. Dhanapalraj, the contention of the appellant is that the Supreme Court has granted bail to the appellant, it must be taken
that the order of the High Court punishing the appellant for contempt is deemed to have been suspended. However, the Division Bench of this
Court has held that mere filing of an appeal would not operate as stay of the order appealed against. I am of the view that the facts of the case
relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is entirely different from the facts of the case on hand. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.