DURGESHWAR DAYAL SETH Vs. SECRETARY BAR COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Sim Durgeshwar Dayal Seth for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the-opposite-parties directing them to include his name in the new roll of Advocates without his paying any sum of money. The application is opposed by all the three opposae parties.

(2.) THE applicant, who was called to the Bar on 18-11-35, was enrolled as an Advocate of the high Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 23-2-38 and his name was duly entered on the roll of advocates of the same High Court under Section 8 (2) (b) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. He has been practising regularly in the High Court, In 1948 the Governor-General issued the united provinces High Courts Amalgamation Order, 1948, amalgamating the High Court of judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court of Avadh and establishing a new High Court, though bearing the old name of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, and giving a right to all Advocates, who were entitled to practise either in the High Court at Allahabad or the Chief court of Avadh to practise in the new High Court. The State Legislature of Uttar Pradesh amended the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, in 1950. The effect of the amendment was that the old Bar Councils of Allahabad and Avadh were dissolved and provision was made for the creation of a new Bar Council for the new High Court. The State Government purporting to act under Section 1 (3) of the Indian Bar councils Act, issued a notification on 24-5-1952 applying the provisions of Sections 7 to 16 of the Bar Councils Act, to the new High Court with immediate effect. The State Amendment Act provided that until a Bar Council had been established for the new high Court, the Chief Justice could establish an 'ad hoc' Bar Council. Accordingly an 'ad hoc' bar Council was established by the Chief Justice. Its Secretary Issued a notice on 6-1-1953 demanding a sum of Rs. 10/- from the applicant and other Advocates for entering their names in the new list of Advocates to be prepared by the new High Court. Another notice was issued by the Joint Registrar of the new High Court informing the applicant that unless he paid the sum of rs. 10/- his name would not be placed on the new roll of Advocates. The petitioner contends, through this application, that he has already paid the sum of Rs. 10/- when he got his name entered on the roll prepared for the old High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, that he cannot be required to pay the sum again, that it is the duty of the new High Court to include his name on the new roll of Advocates without demanding any payment from him and that he is entitled to be recognized as an Advocate of the new High Court and to practise there. It was further contended that the State Amendment Act of 1950 was 'ultra vires' the State Legislature.

(3.) THE Secretary of 'ad hoc' Bar Council, opposite-party No. 1, has filed a written statement opposing the application. He maintained that the notice demanding Rs. 10/- from the applicant is correct and that the applicant is bound to pay the amount if he wants his name to be entered in the new roll. He added, however, that his duty was simply to accept the money that was paid to him and inform the Registrar of the fact of the payment and that the roll is to be prepared by the registrar arid not by himself.