Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3007 (MAD)

A. Sethu v. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamilnadu

2017-09-04

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, RAJIV SHAKDHER

body2017
ORDER : RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. 1. We have asked the petitioner as to how the writ petition can be sustained, in view of the fact that the impugned resolution passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (in short, "Council"), is directed against respondent No.4. 1.1. To be noted, the impugned resolution is dated 09.09.2015, and is passed in R.O.C.No.2685 of 2015. As per the averments in the writ petition, the said resolution prohibits respondent No.4, that is, one, Mr. Manikandan, S/o. Vathan Chettiar (Enrollment No.MS.981/2000) and, his junior, one, Mr. R.Mathan Kumar (Enrollment No.2613/2013), from practising as Advocates in any Court of law, Tribunal, etc. till the disposal of the suo moto (sic, suo motu) complaint initiated by the Council and the disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. 2. The petitioner says that he had engaged respondent No.4, as an Advocate, and that, the impugned resolution was passed by the Council, without notice to him. 2.1. The petitioner has also adverted to the integrity and the professional skills of respondent No.4, in his written note, to buttress his case. 2.2. Furthermore, the petitioner contends before us that fees has been paid to respondent No.4, and because of the impugned resolution passed by the Council, his interest are getting impacted. 3. We had, at this stage, queried the petitioner as to whether he would want to prefer a complaint against respondent No.4 for not returning the fees paid by him, since, pending the operation of the impugned resolution, respondent No.4 cannot act as an Advocate on his behalf. 3.1. To this query, the petitioner's clear and unequivocal response was that he did not intend to file a complaint against respondent No.4 for retaining the fees made over to him for prosecuting his matter. 4. Clearly, this is a got up proceedings. Respondent No.4, as it appears, is using the petitioner to further his cause. 5. To be noted, the substantive prayer made in the writ petition is as follows : "..... 4. Clearly, this is a got up proceedings. Respondent No.4, as it appears, is using the petitioner to further his cause. 5. To be noted, the substantive prayer made in the writ petition is as follows : "..... to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, by callined for the records and quashing the impugned ex-parte resolution dated 09.09.2015, in ROC No.2685 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent and all consequential proceedings arising there-from pertaining to the prohibition of the 4th respondent which are pending on the file of the 1st and 2nd respondents, and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to list the petitioner's cases namely WP numbers 12052/10, 24299/11, 19171/14, and permit the 4th respondent to argue them, and thus render justice." 6. In furtherance of his submissions, the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in : Supreme Court Bar Association V. Union of India, 1998 (4) SCC 409 . 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner. 8. As indicated above, these are proceedings, which appear to have been initiated at the behest of respondent No.4. 9. The prayer made in the writ petition, according to us, cannot be granted at the say so of the petitioner, who is only at best a client of respondent No.4. 9.1. The petitioner, in our view, has no locus standi, to assail the impugned resolution, passed by the Council against respondent No.4. 10. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of : Supreme Court Bar Association V. Union of India, 1998 (4) SCC 409 , would not help the cause of the petitioner, as, in sum, it holds that the power to suspend the license vests with the Council. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.