J SUDERSHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the Writ Petition for the issue of a Writ of mandamus, directing the first and second respondents to cause an enquiry to the circumstances that made the third respondent to file a petition before the fourth respondent, when the matter is pending before the Supreme court of India.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that in his enrollment form dated 11. 4. 1990 he has not mentioned about the pendency of certain Criminal cases, since he was not involved in any criminal case in his individual capacity. But, however, on this ground the second respondent removed the petitioner from the rolls of advocates on 12. 2. 1994.

(3.) MR. K. Venkatakrishnan, took notice on behalf of the third respondent and contended that the statement made by the petitioner's counsel that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court is totally false and the matter was already over in the Supreme Court and the order of the Bar council of India removing the petition from the rolls of Advocates had been confirmed by the Supreme Court and inspite of the order, under the guise of the legal Aid Cell and Legal Services Center, the petitioner is in active practice as a Lawyer. Hence the complaint has been given by the third respondent to take suitable action against the petitioner under Section 45 of the Advocates Act. Moreover, the first and second respondents are not legally bound to hold any enquiry with regard to the circumstances that made the third respondent to file the complaint before the fourth respondent. When a criminal complaint was given to the fourth respondent, he is the competent authority to hold an enquiry after registering the case and take suitable action. The first and second respondents cannot interfere in the investigation of the fourth respondent, though they are superior authorities. Hence the writ petition is not maintainable. Further he has contended that on an earlier occasion W. P. 7237 and 7238 of 1995 were filed, raising similar issues. Those writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 17. 5. 95. When those writ petitions were pending, the present writ petitions has been filed on 8. 5. 95. the action of the petitioner is nothing but vexatious and virtually he is trying to avoid any prosecution action that would be taken against him by the fourth respondent on the basis of the complaint given by the third respondent, any action of the petitioner to stall the investigation cannot be entertained. Further in W. P. No. 17145/93 this court has made an observation that it is open to the respondent 3, 4, 10 and 11 therein (Secretary Bar counsel, Tamil Nadu, Madras), Secretary, Bar Council of India, Secretary, madras High Court Adv ocates'Association and Secretary, Bar association, Madras) to file complaint against the respondents 1 and 2 therein (Legal Aid Cell and Legal Services Center) and all other persons connected with respondents 1 and 2 therein before the appropriate authorities for taking suitable action under the criminal law and the respondents 8 and 9 therein (Director General of Police, Madras and Commissioner of Police, Madras) were directed to proceed further with the investigation of the matters which were said to be already pending, complete the investigation and initiate proceedings of necessary with in a period of two months from 26. 4. 95 and in that the Bar council had already given a complaint to the Commissioner of Police and the commissioner of Police is directed to take appropriate action on the said complaint and complete investigation there on within two weeks from 26. 4. 1995. This order was passed on 26. 4. 95 by a Division Bench of this court. Now the relief sought for in the present writ petition is only to give a goby to the order of the Division Bench in W. P. 17145/93 as well as the order of the single judge in W. P. Nos. 7237 and 7238 of 1995.