S S MITTAL Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applies under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an order of the Bar Council of India removing his name from the roll of Advocates maintained by the Bar Council oi Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner, who at one time was a member or the judicial service, is said to have obtained his LL. B. Degree as a private candidate from the Punjab University in the year 1968 and after resigning from judicial service he applied on November 17, 1970 to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for enrolment as an Advocate under Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana was doubtful whether the law degree obtained by the petitioner could serve to qualify him for enrolment and it referred the question to the Bar Council of India for its opinion. The petitioner now applied on March 19, 1971 to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for withdrawing his application but there is nothing to show that any order was passed allowing the application to be withdrawn. On March 31, 1971 he applied to the Bar Council of Delhi for enrolment as an Advocate. The application was allowed and the petitioner was enrolled on April 5, 1971. Meanwhile, on April 15, 1971, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana made an order refusing to enrol him as an Advocate on the ground that as he had not obtained the law degree after undergoing a course of study in law for a minimum period of 2 years after graduation and has obtained it as a non-collegiate candidate he was not eligible for enrolment as an Advocate. Thereafter, the Bar Council of Delhi came to know of the proceedings before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and in May 1971, it wrote to the petitioner to explain why at the time of applying to it for enrolment he had not disclosed the fact that his enrolment had been refused by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and that he had passed the Law Examination in 1968 as a private candidate. The petitioner submitted his explanation but it was not accepted. The case was referred to the Bar Council of India under Section 26 (1) of the Advocates Act. On April 30, 1972, the Bar Council of India held that the petitioner had been guilty of suppressing material facts at the time of applying for enrolment to the Bar Council of Delhi inasmuch as he did not disclose that he had made an earlier application to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which was about to be rejected, and that his law degree was one which could not be recognised. Accordingly, acting under the proviso to Section 26 (1) of the Advocates Act it removed the name of the petitioner from the roll.

(3.) Shri D. P. Sud, learned Counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection. He urges that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition inasmuch as the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India, which passed the impugned order, is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and no part of the cause of action arises within that territorial jurisdiction. It seems to us that objection has force and must be upheld.