CHANDRA PRAKASH TRIVEDI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to quash only the underlined portion of the order dated 19.8.1993 passed by the District Judge, Agra, which reads thus : "Sri Chandra Prakash Trivedi, Pleader, had moved an application for issuing a certificate to the effect that he is an enrolled pleader. Order on this application was passed on 26.6.1993 in which it has been observed that if a person had discontinued practice, he can apply for re-enrolment under the provisions of Rule 571 of the General Rules (Civil), This observation was made because the licence of Sri Trivedi was not renewed after the year 1986 and he moved for re-enrolment in the year 1993. My learned predecessor-in-office, before whom the said application was moved by Sri Trivedi, had endorsed 'permitted' on the application and on the basis of this order, a renewed certificate was prepared by the office. I, therefore, held in my previous order that the then District Judge had committed no illegality if he renewed the licence of Sri Trlvedi to practice. I observed in the previous order that '1 find that the licence of Sri Trivedi had already been renewed by my learned predecessor-in-office as back as on March 24. 1993. Therefore, let a photocopy of that certificate be issued to Sri Trivedi as desired by him.' it may be observed that the said order was passed after hearing the Secretary of the Agra Collectorate Bar Association. Agra. The President and Secretary of the said Bar Association moved an application dated 24.7.1993. Sri Trivedi, vide order dated 28.7.1993, was called upon to file his version against it within 10 days. The version was not received in time and, therefore, 1 heard the President and Secretary of the aforesaid Bar Association on their application dated 24.7.1993. It may, however, be mentioned that the said version was filed before me on 18.8.1993 and was brought before me by Smt. Shanti Verma. Advocate. The President and the Secretary of the aforesaid Bar Association Invited my attention to Rule 579 of the General Rules (Civil) which runs as under :

(2.) The case of the petitioner is as follows : Under Rule 560 of General Rules (Civil) For Civil Courts Subordinate to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as the Rule), the petitioner got himself appointed as a Pleader by the District Judge, Etah. Under Rule 562 of the Rule, he could have continued to practise till 1963 but he joined Government service with his appointment as an Assistant Consolidation Officer and thus discontinued his practice. In 1964 he resigned from service and thereafter applied for his enrolment in the Judgeship of Etah before the District Judge, Etah who allowed his prayer and informed this Court. Thereafter he got his pleadership continued. He made an application for change of the district. The District Judge having found that he did not suffer from any dangerous disease and otherwise fit and proper, ordered his enrolment in the District Judgeship of Agra. The petitioner continued his practice in the District Judgeship of Agra from 1965 except for a period of 1 1/2 years in 1987-88. As there was some gap of his practice in the year 1987, under Rule 571, he applied for his enrolment as Pleader on 15.12.1988. His application was allowed by the District Judge, Agra. His case was also duly referred to the High Court from where no objection came to the District Judge, Agra. The petitioner continued his practice from 15.12.1988 till date. On 15.12.1989 he applied for renewal and got his enrolment for the years 1989. 1990, 1991 and 1992. In 1993 he again applied for his enrolment as Pleader before the District Judge, Agra which was again allowed. Unfortunately some advocate on account of personal enmity and professional rivalry made an application against him before the District Judge. Agra that on account of violation of Rule 571, he should be disallowed from practice. The District Judge served a show cause notice. The petitioner replied. His reply was considered vide the impugned order dated 19.8.1993 referring the matter to the High Court in accordance with Rule 571 of the Rule but as a result of the observations made therein, he stands debarred from practising under Rule 579. By the impugned order the order granting renewal of his licence could not be withheld and it also amounts to gross violation of Arlicle 19 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The record discloses that on 25.8.1993, the following interim order was passed :