L M MAHURKAR Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant claims that he was a Sales Tax Practitioner in 1949 when the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was in force in the State of Madhya Pradesh and, thereafter, he continued his practice in sales tax matters at Nagpur under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The appellant claimed that when the Advocates Act, 1961 came into force, he was entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra.

(2.) It has been contended by Mr. Ganpule appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant was entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (3) (aa) of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. There is no dispute that he does not have a degree in law or for that matter any degree, but he is a person who was entitled to practice the profession of law before 1st December, 1961 by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Therefore, his right to be enrolled as an Advocate could not be denied.

(3.) We shall have to examine whether the appellant's case comes within the provisions of sub-section (3) (aa) of Section 24 of the Advocates Act to justify the claim made by Mr. Ganpule. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 lays down the qualifications which must be acquired by a person who wants to be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll. Sub-section (2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a vakil or a pleader who is a law graduate may be admitted as an Advocate under certain circumstances. Sub-section (3) deals with cases of persons who do not fall either under sub-section (1) or (2). Sub-section (3) of Section 24 is as under:-