C DINAKAR Vs. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, party-in-per-son, questioning the legality or otherwise of the notice dated 26th September, 2005 bearing No. D. C. E. 19/2005 on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure-C, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, he has sought for a direction, directing the respondents not to conduct disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner on the allegations made by respondent No. 4 in his complaint dated 23rd August, 2003 vide annexure-D and to order payment of costs and damages by respondents in view of unnecessary harassment and damage caused to the reputation of the petitioner and pass any order including the sanctioning of costs of the writ petition, considered appropriate by this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case of petitioner, party-in-person in a nutshell are as follows respondent No. 4 herein gave a complaint against the petitioner, party-in-person on 23rd August, 2003 to the State Bar Council alleging professional misconduct by the petitioner. In pursuance of the complaint given by fourth respondent, the first respondent herein has issued the notice dated 1st September, 2003 vide Annexure-A. After receipt of the said notice, petitioner has sent a reply dated 9th September, 2003 vide Annexure-B , stating that, the complaint is a false and malicious and the malice of fourth respondent against petitioner dates back to the year 1963 and can be seen in his complaint lodged in Indira Nagar Police Station and that, he has not committed any misconduct and hence, the question of taking action against him does not arise. Further, he requested the State Bar Council to dismiss the said complaint and close the matter. The second respondent issued another notice to petitioner on 26th September 2005, intimating the date of hearing for inquiry to the petitioner. In the complaint given by fourth respondent, he has made three allegations against the petitioner which are as follows :

(3.) IT is the case of petitioner that, none of the above three allegations in the complaint relate to professional misconduct of the petitioner as an Advocate and the action of second respondent in issuing the impugned notice violates Section 36-B of the advocates Act, 1961. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 do not have the jurisdiction to take action against the petitioner nor the fourth respondent has cited any witnesses in support of the said allegations. It is the further case of petitioner that, the fourth respondent was motivated by malice against the petitioner and is aimed at harassing the petitioner as can be inferred from the very complaint given on 31st May, 2003 in Crime no. 213/2003 registered at the Indira Nagar police Station by fourth respondent, wherein it is stated that, it is a well known fact that, the petitioner harbours ill-will and animosity towards him right from 1963 when they were batch-mates at Central Police Training College, Mount Abu, Rajasthan. Therefore the impugned notice dated 26th September, 2005 issued by second respondent violates Section 36-B of the Advocates Act. Further, it is the case of petitioner that, the proceedings of inquiry ought to have been concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt of complaint, i. e. 25th august, 2003 or one year from 1st September 2003, on which date, disciplinary proceedings were started by second respondent herein. With this back ground, petitioner - party- in-person has presented the instant writ petition, assailing the correctness of the impugned notice vide Annexure-C and seeking other reliefs, as stated supra.