DURGESHWAR DAYAL Vs. SECRETARY BAR COUNCIL ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Durgeshwar Payal Seth, an advocate, practising in this Court, praying that his name may be ordered to be included in the new roll of advocates which is being prepared without payment of any sum of money. The facts briefly are as follows :

(2.) The petitioner was called to the Bar on 18-11-l935 and was enrolled as an advocate of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 23-2-1938. The petitioner's name was duly entered on the roll of advocates of the Court under Section 8 (2) (b), Bar Councils Act, and the petitioner has been practising in the Court since the date of his enrolment. By an order made by the Governor General of India called the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order 1948, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court in Oudh were amalgamated and a new Court called the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was created. The first proviso to Article 8 of the said Amalgamation Order provided :

(3.) There were separate Bar Councils attached to the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Chief Court of Oudh. By the amalgamation the anomaly of the existence of two Bar Councils had to be remedied. With that object, the Indian Bar Councils (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act of 1950 was enacted. By this Act, the Bar Councils of Allahabad and of Oudh' were abolished and a provision was made for the creation of a new Bar Council for the new amalgamated Court. By a notification dated 24-5-1952 issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 1, Bar Councils Act, 1926, and published in the U. P. Gazette dated 31-5-1952, the provisions of Sections 7 to 16 of the Bar Councils Act were made applicable to the new High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. A fresh list of advocates is being prepared under Section 8, Bar Councils Act. Sub-section (2) of that section directs the High Court to prepare and maintain a roll of advocates of the High Court in which shall be entered the names of