ORDER Honble A.K. Yog, J.—The prayer made in the 1st Application reads : “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass appropriate orders restraining Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, a designated Senior Advocate to argue the intervening application proposed to be argued by him and further be pleased to pass such orders de-recognizing as Senior Advocate of the Hon’ble High Court and/or pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts pleaded in the 1st application for making aforequoted prayer are to the effect that- (i) Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate distributed pamphlets against working of Hon’ble Judges of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and functioning of the Hon’ble Judges (Pr 5); (ii) Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate has been in the practice (in the habit of) of distributing pamphlet and distributed a pamphlet on 5.1.1998 in order to scandalize Court/Annexure 7 to the Application (Pr 7 of the application), extremely objectionable aspersion made in the said letter/pamphlet. Said pamphlet purports to the letter addressed by Sri Ravi Kiran Jain under his signature as Senior Advocate of Allahabad High Court addressed to about 50 members of the Bar’. The objectionable averment in the said letter read— (a) ‘............ our Chief Justice totally depends upon handful persons in the registry. The Registry is all powerful and corruption is all time high therein.............’ Our Chief Justice depends mainly on two or three officers of the registry..........’ Now he remains engaged in disposing of such cases which are reported by the registry to have become infructuous………..’ There have been Chief Justice in this Court and other High Courts who decide cases involving important questions of law............’ There have been Judges in this Court who had experience of a particular Branch of law before their elevations. For example Mr. Justice P.S. Gupta, Mr. Justice S.I. Jafri and presently Mr. Justice Girdhar Malviya who told the Chief Justice and the registry to entrust them only criminal cases. But now there is a Judge in our High Court who had no experience of any branch of law when he was in the Bar, except some experience of criminal law, and he sits in all important jurisdictions as a Judge except the Criminal. But now there is a Judge in our High Court who had no experience of any branch of law when he was in the Bar, except some experience of criminal law, and he sits in all important jurisdictions as a Judge except the Criminal. The result is that there remains a long queue in his Court of those litigants who wait for their fresh cases. Why the Chief Justice be not made aware by the bar that services of such a Judge can be more usefully utilised if he sits in criminal matters.........’ (iii) Ravi Kiran Jain, distributed pamphlet for creation of Meerut Bench, supporting bifurcation of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (Pr. 8). (iv) Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate has been instrumental in distribution of pamphlet dated 22.11.2006 under the title “Jagrit Samaj” (Pr 9 to 14 of the application). It is stated that ‘by means of said pamphlet a blatant attempt is made to attack the dignity and decorum of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court to gain cheap popularity and on the other hand scandalizing the High Court........’(Annexure 2 to the application). One of the member of Jagrit Samaj, Prof. Ranjana Kakkar, of Allahabad University contradicted and condemned the contents of the act and action of distributing said letters amongst the members of Bar of High Court, Allahabad and resigned as per resignation letter dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure 3 to the application). Prof. Ranjana Kakkar mentioned I, disapprove of the circulation of the letter in question in the Hon’ble High Court more so because I was at no stage consulted and also because I find the entire exercise very undignified........’. I shall be happy if you could very kindly exclude me as member Steering Committee, Jagrit Samaj......’ (v) Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate participated in meeting held at Subhash Crossing, Allahabad on ‘Human Rights Day’, as speaker, ignoring all traffic rules and norms which hampered and disturbed law and order/traffic as per report appearing in daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure 4 to this application). (vi) In the last, in para 21 of the application it is stated that Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate while filed an Intervention Application No. 130413 of 2006 in the Writ Petition (PIL) 2547 of 2005, Anand Mohan v. Union of India and others, he signed and distributed pamphlet dated 22.11.2006 costing aspersion on the working of the Court and on that basis in para 22 of the application this Court is being requested for restraining Ravi Kiran Jain to appear in the said Intervention Application filed on behalf of Jagrit Samaj and 2 others and further to de-recognise him a Senior Advocate of Allahabad High Court. 3. On the application Division Bench (A.K. Yog and K.N. Ojha, JJ.) passed order dated 21.12.2006 which reads : “This is an application for intervention filed by Sri L.M. Singh, Advocate, practicing in High Court, Allahabad with the prayer “...to pass appropriate orders restraining Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, a designated Senior Advocate to argue the intervening application proposed to be argued by him and further be pleased to pass such orders de-recognizing as Senior Advocate of the Hon’ble High Court...... A copy of the Application has been served upon Sri R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, as per endorsement dated 19.12.2006 made by his clerk on this Application. Counter-affidavit be filed on or before 4.1.2007. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed on or before 9.1.2006. This application shall be listed for final disposal alongwith the Writ Petition on 9.1.2007.” 4. No counter-affidavit has been filed by or on behalf of Sri Ravi Kiran Jain or Sh. K.K. Roy (assisting said Senior Counsel) to controvert averments in the 1st application quoted above. 5. A counter-affidavit (sworn by Shri Ballabh Convener, Socialist Front, Allahabad) has been filed to opposite the said 1st Application. 6. L.M. Singh filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating that distribution of pamphlet, with the consent and/or under his signature in High Court, has not been denied. The contents of these letters/pamphlets circulated by and on behalf of Sh. Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate, contains most improper and indecent language against functioning of the High Court Judges and working of the High Court. L.M. Singh filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating that distribution of pamphlet, with the consent and/or under his signature in High Court, has not been denied. The contents of these letters/pamphlets circulated by and on behalf of Sh. Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate, contains most improper and indecent language against functioning of the High Court Judges and working of the High Court. Distribution of pamphlet by advocate/lawyer specially by Senior Advocate designate cannot be permitted/appreciated, the pamphlet annexed with the application said to be distributed by and on behalf of Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate not only clearly speaks of malafide intention of the said Senior Advocate but scandalize functioning of the Hon’ble Judge and Courts and in addition maligning image and reputation of the Courts. From the fact that Sh. Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate made indecent remarks against lawyers of Uttaranchal High Court while appearing in a case before that Court. Sri P.S. Adhikari, a Senior Advocate of Uttaranchal High Court informed the applicant that indecent remark/behaviour of Sh. Ravi Kiran Jain was promptly objected, he was stopped by the members of Bar of Uttaranchal High Court from appearing in the case. Lastly, the averments made in the original application has been reiterated. 7. U.P. Bar Council and Advocates Association has no role to play therein. Jurisdiction and power of High Court to declare Sr. Advocate inheres itself the power to de-recognise as is specifically mentioned in Chapter XXIV of Rules of Allahabad High Court. 8. The Intervention Applications filed by U.P. Bar Council and Advocates Association it is to be noted that in the matter of ‘de-recognition of Sr. Advocate’ these applicants have no locus standi. 9. Sri D.S. Mishra, Advocate opposing 1st Intervenor Application filed by L.M. Singh Advocate submitted that said application is not maintainable primarily on two grounds namely,- 1. It is not within the scope of Public Interest Litigation and that the prayer made in the application cannot be considered on judicial side. 2. Application is not supported by affidavit. 10. On behalf of the applicant/L.M. Singh (who filed 1st application) it is argued that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India while hearing Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation is competent and should take cognizance of a ‘conduct of a Counsel’ appearing in a case. 11. 2. Application is not supported by affidavit. 10. On behalf of the applicant/L.M. Singh (who filed 1st application) it is argued that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India while hearing Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation is competent and should take cognizance of a ‘conduct of a Counsel’ appearing in a case. 11. Secondly, it is argued that contents of the application have been reiterated by means of Rejoinder Affidavit and also that ‘Public Interest Writ Petition’ can be entertained without requiring affidavit and merely by filing of letter or simple application. 12. The issue/s raised in these applications are of general importance and wide implications as far as functioning of the Court as a whole is concerned. 13. These applications, therefore, should be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for consideration by larger Bench and necessary orders as may be deemed appropriate for being heard separately and independently of pendency of Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2005, Anand Mohan v. Union of India and others. ————