Judgment 1. This is hardly a matter which should become one of litigation between Bimal Kumar Jain, a person who seeks a franchise from the Indian Oil Corporation as a retail dealer for its products, and one Umesh Narayan who also vies for the same business. The array of parties does not show as to who two persons are in lis as plaintiff and defendant. 2. The opposite party Umesh Narayan is the plaintiff. He has sought an action before the court below, to the effect, that he should also be considered for being awarded a franchise of the Indian Oil Corporation. He has further sought a declaration, to the effect, that the allotment in favour of the defendant Bimal Kumar Jain as an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation be not considered on some ground that defendant Bimal Kumar Jain is ineligible. 3. A committee which has been constituted by the Supreme Court is examining issues on the award of franchise of the Oil Corporations and the cases which were pending in several High Courts had been transferred to the Supreme Court. There were allegations that franchises became the subject matter of an irregular allotment. This engages the attention of a special committee constituted by the Supreme Court. 4. In so far as the present issue is concerned, this is not connected with the issues on which the special committee is examining the irregular distribution of the franchises by the Oil Corporations. 5. Umesh Narayan happens to be no other person but a member of Bar, an Advocate. The plain issue is whether an Advocate can also become an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation to run a retail business for the sale of its products, petrol, diesel, etc. Clearly, the principles on which a person is called to the Bar to practise as an advocate restrain him from holding any office of profit and indulging in business as these are not the functions of a lawyer. A lawyer cannot be in a business and simultaneously be an Advocate. If this were so then that lawyer will be abusing his licence and the fact that he functions as a business man will entitle the Bar Council to cancel his licence to act in a court of law. It may also tantamount to professional misconduct. 6. A lawyer cannot be in a business and simultaneously be an Advocate. If this were so then that lawyer will be abusing his licence and the fact that he functions as a business man will entitle the Bar Council to cancel his licence to act in a court of law. It may also tantamount to professional misconduct. 6. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that should he be granted a licence then he will hang up his licence. This plea has an element of champerty in it. If the opposite party is so interested to join business trade and industry and a franchise as a petrol dealer is one such business, then he will first have to surrender his licence to the Bar Council and cease to be an Advocate. In the circumstances, if the Court below has granted an injunction on the ground that a person can be Advocate and business man both, then clearly the court below is in error and its order(s) is also illegal. 7. In the circumstances, the order dated 28 April, 2001 in T.S. No. 106 of 2001 : Umesh Narayan vs. Indian Oil Corporation passed by the Subordinate Judge, VIII, Patna and order dated 17 September, 2002 passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 43 of. 2001 : Bimal Kumar Jain V/s. Umesh Narayan & Ors. are set aside. 8. In the result, this revision application is allowed. 9. On the administrative side the Registrar General will put up these matters of the Judicial Officers concerned as to how they have ignored the basic principles and instead encouraged a lawyer in business.