PRAGJIBHAI KESURBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which confronts the Court is whether a pleader enrolled under the Bombay Pleaders Act of 1920 hereafter called the Pleaders Act who has been removed from practice can be reinstated under the general powers of superintendence exercisable by the High Court subsequent to the enforcement of the Advocates Act of 1961.

(2.) A few facts require to be mentioned in order to understand the point at issue. The petitioner Pragjibhai Kasturbhai Patel was practising as a Pleader at Sinor in the Baroda District. It appears that one Mavjibhai Govindbhai a client of petitioner Pragjibhai made an application to the learned District Judge of Baroda under sec. 36 of the Pleaders Act. In pursuance of the report submitted by the learned District Judge the matter came up before a Division Bench of this High Court by way of Misc. Civil Application No. 293 of 1965. By an order dated March 8 1966 the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct and that he was not a fit person to be retained on the roll of Pleaders. Accordingly he was removed from practice and it was directed that he should surrender his Sanad. This order was passed on March 8 1966 The petitioner appears to have felt contrite and to have reformed himself. Though he was till then practising as a Pleader he joined the office of Shri Kantilal Ambalal Joshi an advocate practising at Rajpipla as a Clerk. For about last five years the petitioner had been working for advocate Shri Joshi in his capacity as a Clerk. The affidavit sworn by Shri Joshi on 12th April 1972 shows that the petitioner has attended to the legal affairs entrusted to him to the entire satisfaction of Shri Joshi and that the petitioner has been found to be honest upright and sincere in his the discharge of duties. In the course of his work as a Clerk attached to a senior advocate like Shri Joshi large sums of money came to be entrusted to him and Shri Joshi declares on solemn affirmation that the petitioner has scrupulously accounted for all the monies entrusted to him and that he has been quite diligent and industrious in his work. This is what Shri Joshi has to say in his affidavit; He has done utmost to make amends for his previous misconduct and conducted himself honorably during the last years since he came in contact with me. I sincerely believe that he would justify clemency that may be shown to him and will act with integrity and honour and he deserves to be admitted to the rank of pleaders. Substantially to the same effect is the affidavit of advocate Shri Mahendrasinh Umengsinhji Mahida of Rajpipla. The petitioner has been working for Shri Mahida for the last five years. Initially the petitioner had joined the office of advocate Shri Prahladbhai Pandya who died about 2 years back. Thereafter he joined the office of Shri Mahida. Shri Mahida has also expressed the opinion that the petitioner was found to be upright honest and sincere and has discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of Shri Mahida. He has also stated that in the course of his duties the petitioner was entrusted with large amounts and that the petitioner has been found to be honest in his dealings diligent in his work and industrious. Shri Mahida has also expressed the opinion that if clemency is shown to the petitioner he would justify the trust reposed in him and that he deserves to be reinstated. He has expressed a high opinion about the integrity and honesty of the petitioner. His affidavit is supported by the affidavit of Shri Umenginhji Dolatsinhji Mahida who has also made similar statements in regard to the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred this application for reinstatement supported by the aforesaid three affidavits.

(3.) Now ordinarily in order to ascertain the suitability of the petitioner at the present moment we would have called for the opinion of the learned District Judge of the concerned district. In the present case however having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned earlier and having regard to the nature of the affidavits filed by the three senior respectable advocates of Rajpipla we feel safe in making a departure from this principle and in deciding this petition on the basis of the aforesaid three affidavits. It is of importance to realise that Shri Joshi a leading senior advocate of Rajpipla aged 66 with whom the petitioner has been working as a Clerk has filed an affidavit in the terms mentioned earlier. Human nature being what it is one would not be very anxious to have a rival in ones own field of practice. Therefore there is if at all an inbuilt bias against swearing an affidavit merely to secure the reinstatement of the petitioner who has been removed from practice as a pleader. Even so Shri Joshi as is expected of a member of this noble profession has come forward and placed before the Court the true facts as regards the conduct of the petitioner as noticed by him in the course of his employment for the last five years as a Clerk. Same is the case with regard to the affidavit of Shri M. U. Mahida. We feel safe in relying on their affidavits.