SRI. B. RATHNAKAR SHETTY v. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed-in-part
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 s. 3(1)(xi)
- Advocates Act, 1961 s. 35
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed-in-part. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2188 WP No. 27419 of 2023 ii. The other prayers that are sought is not interfered with for the present. iii. A mandamus issues to respondent No.1 to…
Judgment
SRI. B. RATHNAKAR SHETTY, S/O. LATE PADMANABHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT RISHI, OPPOSITE TO KAVERI COLLEGE, VIRAJPET, SOUTH KODAGU - 571 218. (BY SRI. AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND:
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, …PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI - 110 002. PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. M. G. DEVAIAH, S/O. M. B. GANAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEGGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.
SMT. H. U. SUSHEELA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:2188 WP No. 27419 of 2023 W/O. M. G. DEVAIAH, RESIDING AT HEGGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN BCI.TR.CASE NO.113/2010 DATED 05/11/2022 PASSED BY R1 /DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA VICE ANNEXURE-D IN THE ALTERNATIVE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and has sought an alternative prayer by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing disposal of the review petition in R.P.No.13/2023 pending before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India within a timeframe that would be fixed by this Court.
2. Heard Sri. Akshay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Sridhar Prabhu, learned - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2188 WP No. 27419 of 2023 counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.
3. A complaint comes to be lodged against the petitioner before the jurisdictional police, which becomes a crime in Crime No.172/2007 for offences punishable under Section 506 and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Based upon the said complaint and evidence let in, a complaint also comes to be registered before the State Bar Council under Section 35 of the Advocates Act 1961 ('the Act' for short). The matter then reaches the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, who pass a final order on 05.11.2022 suspending the petitioner from practicing for a period of 3 years in any Court in the country with a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh. The petitioner then prefers a review against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India invoking Section 44 of the Act. Section 44 of the Act reads as follows:
Review of orders by disciplinary committee.-The disciplinary committee of a Bar Council may of its own motion or otherwise review any order [within sixty days of the date of that order] passed by it under this Chapter: - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:2188 WP No. 27419 of 2023 Provided that no such order of review of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall have effect unless it has been approved by the Bar Council of India. " Section 44 of the Act empowers a review to be entertained at the hands of the Bar council on its own motion or otherwise.
The petitioner has preferred a review petition, and the review petition is pending consideration before respondent No.1. It is in that light the prayer for expeditious disposal of the review petition.
In the light of the prayer being innocuous for a expeditious disposal of the review, before the reviewing authority filed under Section 44 of the Act, it would suffice for the present, if the direction is issued for such expeditious disposal as is sought.
Operative part
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed-in-part. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2188 WP No. 27419 of 2023 ii. The other prayers that are sought is not interfered with for the present. iii. A mandamus issues to respondent No.1 to dispose review petition R.P.No.13/2023, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already disposed and if not earlier. iv. All contentions remain open. Sd/- JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT:SNN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed-in-part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(xi); Advocates Act, 1961 — s. 35.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.