K S IYER Vs. BAR COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is; an appeal from the judgment of Veeraswami J. refusing to issue a writ of certiorari prayed for by the appellant to have the order of the Slate Bar Council, madras, dated 27-6-1962, quashed. The appellant is a First Grade Pleader, practising till recently in the district of Kanyakumari. He applied to She Bar Council under S. 25 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (which will hereafter be referred to as the act) for admission as an advocate on the State roll. The Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council not being satisfied with the appellant's qualifications as prescribed by Section 24 (1) (c) and (d) of the Act, took action Under Section 26 and by its letter dated 27th June 1962 referred the application to the Bar Council of India for its opinion. It was on the basis, that that letter amounted to a final order rejecting his application that the appellant applied to this court under Article 226 of the constitution to quash it. Veeraswami J. dismissed the application and hence this appeal.

(2.) AFTER the appeal was argued fully, we pointed out to the appellant that the letter sought to be quashed was only in the form of a tentative opinion by the Bar council and that no final order of the State Bar Council rejecting his application had yet been passed and that it would only after the Bar Council of India had expressed its opinion that final order on his application could be passed. The learned Advocate General as well as the appellant then agreed that we might defer our judgment till that opinion. was obtained, presumably for the reason that if that opinion were to be in favour of the appellants there would be no necessity for pursuing the appeal. We acceded to that request. We are now informed that: the bar Council of India has given its opinion agreeing with the State Bar Council that the appellant does not possess the qualifications requisite to be admitted as an advocate Under Section 24 of the Act. No final order has yet been passed by the state Bar Council wider Section 26 (3) of the Act. Learned Advocate General, however, did not want to contest the appeal that no certiorari will lie in the circumstances of the case as it would always be open to this court to issue an appropriate writ if the circumstances warranted such a course.

(3.) THE only question then is whether the appellant will be entitled to be enrolled as an advocate Under Section 24 of the Act. That provision so far as is material for the purpose of this case runs thus :