HARESH K JANI Vs. SARABHAI RAMANBHAI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications are filed by some Advocates Bar Associations the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Gujarat. They want to intervene and be impleaded as parties-respondents in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 2729 of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the main application). The main application is directed against Kersup Jehanbux Shethna the respondent therein who is the President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association and Chairman of the Special Action Committee and is for moving this Court to take suo motu action against the respondent therein under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for having committed various acts referred to in the main application. There is a further prayer to the effect that the respondent therein and the Special Action Committee as well as the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association should be restrained from boycotting work of courts etc. in the entire State. Pending the admission hearing and final disposal of the main application it is prayed that the respondent i. e. Kersup Jehanbux Shethna be restrained from continuing the boycott of any court whatsoever and to direct him to make a public statement that no call for boycotting of any court whatsoever is in operation. In the body of the main application the petitioner has referred the action of the respondent therein which allegedly amounts to contempt of Court. This petition came up for hearing on 31-12-1986 before the Division Bench of oUr High Court hearing contempt petitions. On that day the said Division Bench passed the following order:

(2.) In the main application number of Miscellaneous Criminal Application have been filed wherein the petitioners seek to get themselves impleaded as parties-respondents in the main application. Those applications were heard by us on 29-1-1987 Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 170 of 1987 is filed by the Bar Council of Gujarat. In the said application it is mainly averred that the Bar Council is vitally concerned with the outcome of the proceedings in the main application as the issues pertaining to the conduct of the legal profession are involved in the main application and it is one of the functions of the Bar Council to safeguard the rights privileges and interests of the Advocates. Therefore it wants to participate in the proceedings in order to oppose the main application. Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 169 of 1987 is filed by the Bar Council of India on similar grounds and it also wants to intervene as a respondent in order to oppose the main application. Mr. V. B. Patel has filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 128 of 1987 on behalf of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association wherein it is stated that the allegations made in the main application are against the entire class of lawyers and the members of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association having passed the resolutions referred to in the main application it is vitally concerned with and directly involved in the subject matter of the main application. Other applications filed by the individual advocates or associations of advocates contain similar averments and on that basis they want to implead themselves as parties-respondents for the purpose of opposing the main application.

(3.) Mr. Vakil the learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Gujarat contended that the Bar Council of Gujarat is vitally interested in safeguarding the interest and independence of the legal profession and it is one of its functions to safeguard rights privileges and interests of the Advocates. In view of the questions arising for consideration of this Court in the main application it has passed a resolution to intervene and oppose the main application. It was further contended by Mr. Vakil that inasmuch as in paragraph 16 (B) of the main application there is a prayer for restraining the Special Action Committee as well as the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association from boycotting the work of the Court etc. in the entire State the Bar Council of Gujarat is vitally interested in opposing the said prayer. Mr. Vakil elaborated it by stating that the Court has power to grant injunction and as such the Bar Council in order to protect the interest of the Advocates aid Associations should be impleaded as party-respondent to oppose the said prayer for interim relief. Mr. Vakil drew our attention to various decisions of the Supreme Court for the purpose of stressing his contention regarding the locus standi of the Bar Council to get itself impleaded. Mr. Vakil further said that in case the Bar Council of the State is allowed to intervene it will be in a position to advance various arguments opposing the proposed action. We do not consider it necessary now to set out the various arguments which the Bar Council of the State proposed to advance in case it is allowed to intervene. Mr. H. B. Shah learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India adopted the arguments of Mr. Vakil. Mr. Kansara the learned counsel appearing for the Ahmedabad Bar Association after adopting the arguments of Mr. Vakil contended that though the main application is ostensibly against Mr. Shethna in fact it is against the whole class of lawyers practising in the-State of Gujarat. Thus according to Mr. Kansara if at all anybody is guilty for passing any of the resolutions which is said to the contempt of Court it is the entire class of lawyers who have passed the said resolutions and as such all those who participated in the meetings in which the said resolutions were passed should be brought on record. Mr. V. B. Patel the learned counsel appearing for the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association submitted that the Association must be permitted to put forth its reply in detail and it cannot be said that it is sufficient to permit the Association to put forth its arguments alone. Mr. Raval the petitioner in person who is an Advocate and who has filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 155 of 1987 stated that if it is held that the acts referred to in the main petition amount to contempt the petitioner will smilingly accept any punishment that will be given by the Court. All other counsel have adopted these arguments.