Rahul Singh, Advocate And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 22 June, 2010
powered by |  |
Allahabad High Court
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36296 of 2010
Petitioner :- Rahul Singh, Advocate And Others Respondent :- Union Of India And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Shiv Sagar Singh,Ravindra Singh Respondent Counsel :- Asgi
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra who appeared for the respondent no. 3.
Petitioners before this Court are stated to pass their L.L.B examination. They are registered with the Bar Council of Delhi. Petitioners seek quashing of Section 1 (3) of the Advocates Act 1961 which according to them is discriminatory, unconstitutional and therefore, voilative of article 14 and 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution of India. They further seek quashing of the resolution of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh dated 18.04.2010 wherein it has been provided that no advocate shall be permitted to practice in any Court within the State of Uttar Pradesh unless he his registered as such with the bar council of Uttar Pradesh.
Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Aeltemesh Rein V/s. Union of India and others reported in (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases Volume 4 Page 54 submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued a direction to the Central Government to consider the enforcement of Section 30 of the Advocates Act. More than 22 years have lapsed since then the Central Government has not taken any decision to either enforce Section 30 of the Act or not to do so. He therefore, submits that an advocate registered with Bar Council at Delhi cannot be restrained from practicing in the Courts of U.P. even if he is not registered with the bar council of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, they challenge Section 1 (3) of the Advocates Act.
We are of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 1 (3) of the Advocates Act which requires registration with the Bar Council before having a right to practice in Court of law is granted, cannot be said to be arbitrary or voilative of Article 14 or 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution of India. Section regulates the right to practice in Courts such regulation are regulating neither harsh nor arbitrary.
For ensuring that an advocate who is registered in a particular State Bar Council gets a right to practice in other State also. Legislature had add Section 30 to the Advocates Act, but for the reasons known to the legislature it provided that the same would come into force as and when the Central Government issues a notification for the purpose. It is in this background that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Aeltemesh Rein had issued certain directions requiring the Central Government to consider the enforcement of Section 30, and for the purpose the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted six months time to the Central Government to consider the issue of enforcement of Section 30.
According to the petitioner till date Central Government has not issued any notification for bringing into force Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Two conclusions follow (a) either the Central Government considered the matter in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and decided not to enforce Section 30, or (b) The central Government has not taken any decision in respect of enforcement of Section 30.
If the Central Government has decided not to enforce Section 30, then in absence of any challenge to the said decision of the Central Government, this Court finds no good ground to permit the petitioner to claim benefit of Section 30, which has not been enforced.
In alternative if the Central Government has not taken a decision despite the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aeltemesh Rein, the remedy lies before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of contempt application.
The power conferred upon the Central Government to enforce various provisions of the Advocates Act by notification, and for the purpose different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Act as per Section 1(3) cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 and 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution of India. The challenge made is totally unfounded.
In these circumstances, we find no good ground to grant the relief prayed for in the present writ petition. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.6.2010 वकील अब सभी जगह पेरवी कर सकेंगे
