AVADHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Shri Avadhesh Kumar Sinha has made an application for enrolment as an advocate of this Court. The petitioner does not fulfil the requirements laid down in Rule 1(v) or Rule 2(i) of the rules made under Sections 9 and 15, Bar Councils Act, The petitioner does not fulfil the requirements of those two rules because he has not practised in a district Court or in a sub-divisional Court in the province of Bihar or Orissa continuously for a period of three years; nor has he undergone a course of training for one year in the chambers of an advocate on the roll of the Patna High Court whose name appears on a list prepared by the Bar Council and approved by the High Court. Therefore, the petitioner asks for exemption under Rule 11 of the rules made under the Bar Councils Act. The application has been objected to by the Bar Council. Therefore, the matter has come before us for hearing in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Bar Councils Act.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bar Council. The main grounds on which exemption is claimed by the petitioner are (1) that he practised in the Courts at Gaya for over five months in the year 1944, the petitioner having been admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Law of the Old Patna University on the 26-11-1943; (b) thereafter, the petitioner was appointed a Market Inspector in the department of Supply and Price Control and worked as such Inspector from 2-8-1944, to 12-3-1948. Then, the petitioner was appointed temporarily as a Rent Commutation Officer and, on the abolition of that post, he was appointed a Supply Inspector at Gaya in which capacity he worked from 6-10-1948, to 28-2-1954; on 1-3-1954, the petitioner was retrenched consequent upon the policy of gradual retrenchment of officers in the Supply Department, The ground on which the petitioner claims exemption is that while working in his capacity as Market Inspector, Rent Commutation Officer and supply Inspector, the petitioner looked after the cases of the Supply Department and rendered assistance to many lawyers, some of whom have given good certificate to the petitioner. It is also stated that as Rent Commutation Officer, the petitioner had to decide many cases for commutation of rent under Section 40, Bihar Tenancy Act.

(3.) These are the grounds on which the petitioner claims exemption from the rules in question. Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bar Council, we do not think that sufficient grounds have been made out for granting ah exemption in this case. We do not think that the assistance which the petitioner might have rendered to lawyers in respect of cases of the Supply Department- is a sufficient ground for granting exemption from the rules made under the Bar Councils Act.