N T RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is an Advocate practising in the subordinate courts at Nagercoil , as against the Order dated 24th July, 2000, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 12324 of 2000, whereby and whereunder , observing that the letter of the Bar Council of India, dated 26th May, 2000, was not addressed to the writ petitioner/appellant, and holding that the Court cannot quash the impugned letter dated 31. 05. 2000, sent by the Secretary, Bar Association, Nagercoil , the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.

(2.) AS the appeal can be disposed of on the short point viz. , whether the third respondent Bar ASsociation has the authority/jurisdiction to declare the appellant ineligible to practise as an Advocate, it is not necessary for us to discuss all other points raised.

(3.) IN the above circumstances, reiterating the proposition that the Bar Association of Nagercoil has no jurisdiction/authority to decide as to whether the appellant, who got enrolment with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu , is eligible or ineligible to practise as an Advocate, we hold and declare that the observation made in the letter dated 31. 05. 2000, viz. , the appellant is ineligible to practice as an Advocate, is illegal and without jurisdiction. We make it clear that till such time an adverse order is passed against the appellant by the Bar Council of INdia on the recommendation of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu , no authority or court can prevent the appellant from practising in any court of law as long as he remains enrolled with the State Bar Council; and that this order shall not stand in the way of the Bar Council of INdia and the bar Council of Tamil Nadu acting in accordance with law on the eligibility of the appellant to practise as an Advocate. The Writ Appeal is allowed with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. .