G A SENIOR ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT Vs. HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF HIGH COURT OF JUDICSTURE AT BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and raises the same question on the merits as in the connected summons case in which we have just delivered judgment. The facts will be found there. In the present matter it is enough to say that no question arises about the breach of a fundamental right. But as a matter touching the jurisdiction of the Bar Council Tribunal and that of the Bombay High Court was argued, we will deal with it shortly.

(2.) Mr. G's first objection is that the proceedings before the Tribunal were 'ultra vires' because there was no proper order of appointment. At a very early stage he applied to the Registrar and also to the Prothonotary for a copy of the order of the Chief Justice constituting the Tribunal. He was told by the Prothonotary that the order was oral.

(3.) Mr. 'G' put in two written statements before the Tribunal and did not challenge this statement of fact in either. He contended himself with saying that the order was not "judicial" and so was not valid. He took up the same attitude in the High Court. The learned Judges said