B K VITTAL Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ Petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of Art. 17 in the schedule to the Mysore Stamp Act 1957, as amended by the Mysore Stamp (Amendment) Act, 192, which come into force on the first day of October 196 (the Amendment Act to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), primarily on the ground that the Mysore Legislature had no legislative competence to enact the said Article and consequently, the same is void, alternatively on the ground that the same being repugnant to the provisions in the Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act 25 of 1961), it is liable to be struck down. He further prays that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to the second respondent, namely, the Mysore State Bar Council, requiring the said Bar Council to enrol him as an Advocate without requiring him to produce non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 250 as provided in the aforementioned Art. 17.

(2.) The petitioner has passed B.Sc., and B.L., degree examinations of the University of Mysore. He has been practising as a legal practitioner. He has been practising as a legal practisioner. He desires to be enrolled as an Advocate. On 28-11-1963, he applied to the Mysore Bar Council to enrol him as an Advocate. Along with his application, he did not production-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 250 as required by the aforementioned Art. 17. He declined to comply with the request of the Bar Council to produce the required stamp paper. His contention has been and still is that the impugned provision is void. As the Bar Council was unable to agree with him on that point, it declined to enrol him as an Advocate. Hence this petition.

(3.) The only question that arises for decision in this case is, whether Art. 17 in the schedule to the "Act" is an invalid provision. The said Article reads: