(1.) Petitioner is a retired Class-I officer. He belongs to a Scheduled Caste. After his retirement he was enrolled as an advocate on the role of the Bar Council of Kerala. On 3.9.2012 he submitted an application to the Bar Association at Perumbavoor for membership. Respondents 1 to 8 were the office bearers of the association. After a few days, he knew that he would not be admitted as a member of the association. But he did not know the reason for it. In the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Kerala which was initiated at the instance of a neighbour of the petitioner it was observed: "Another important fact to be considered is the Perumbavoor Bar Association not to admit him as a member of the association. This shows that Bar Association is also aware of the peculiar nature and character of the petitioner." The petitioner filed a complaint before the JFCM Court-I, Perumbavoor alleging that the refusal of the Bar Association, Perumbavoor to admit him as a member of the association amounted to the offene under Section 4(iii) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. In the complaint, it is further alleged that respondents 1 to 8 compelled one Advocate K.M.Alias to relinquish the vakkalat of the petitioner, who was a party to an original suit. The petitioner alleges that this amounted to an offence under Section 6 r/w Section 10 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Its correctness is challenged.
(2.) Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person.
(3.) In the observation made by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Kerala which is quoted above the reason for the Bar Association's refusal to admit the petitioner as a member is not at all disclosed. There is no whisper that the Bar Association expressed any opinion about the character of the petitioner. It is the view of the Bar Council of Kerala that the Bar Association was aware of the 'peculiar nature and character of the petitioner'.