254 of 1954
Under article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights
The petitioner in Person
M C Setalvad Attorney General for India G N Joshi and PG Gokhale with him for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J
This is a petition under article 32 of Constitution and raises the same question on the merits as in the connected summons case in which we have just delivered judgment
The facts will be found there
In the present matter it is enough to say that no question arises about the breach of a fundamental right
But as a matter touching the jurisdiction of the Bar Council Tribunal and that of the Bombay High Court was argued we will deal with it shortly
Mr G s first objection is that the proceedings before the Tribunal were ultra vires because there was no proper order
of appointment
At a very early stage he applied to the Registrar and also to the Prothonotary for a copy of the order of the Chief Justice constituting 502 the Tribunal
He was told by the Prothonotary that the order was oral
Mr  G  put in two written statements before the Tribunal and did not challenge this statement of fact in either
He contented himself with saying that the order was not judicial and so was not valid
He took up the same attitude in the High Court
The learned Judges said The record clearly shows that when it came to the notice of this Court it was decided to refer this case to the Bar Council under section 102 and accordingly a Tribunal was appointed under section 111 by the learned Chief justice of this Court
 In his petition to this Court he did not challenge this statement of fact but again confined his attack to the question of the validity of the order
It is evident from all this that the fact that an oral order was made was not challenged
We cannot allow Mr G  to go behind that
The next question is whether an oral order is enough Bar Councils Act does not lay down any procedure
All it says is Section 102    the High Court may of its own motion so refer any case in which it has otherwise reason to believe that any such advocate has been so guilty and section 11 2 says The Tribunal shall consist of not less than three  members of the Bar Council appointed for the purpose of the inquiry by the Chief Justice
 We agree it is necessary that there should be some record of the order on the files but in our opinion the order itself need not be a written one it can be an oral order given to a proper officer of the Court
In the present case the letter No G 1003 dated 29th April 1953 of the Prothonotary to the Registrar and the letter No E 41 0953 dated the 1st May 1953 of the Registrar to the Bar Council office copies of which were retained on the files are a sufficient record of the making of the order
Mr G  was supplied with copies 503 of those letters and so was aware of the fact that orders had been issued
As a matter of fact we have seen the originals of the High Court s office files and find that the names of the three members of the Tribunal are in the Chief Justice s handwriting with his initials underneath
That is an additional record of the making of the order
We hold that an order recorded in the manner set out above is sufficient for the purposes of sections 102 and 112 of the Bar Councils Act and hold that the Tribunal was validly appointed
Mr G s next point is that there was no complaint to the High Court and so it had no jurisdiction to refer the matter to the Tribunal
This ignores the fact that the High Court can refer a matter of this kind of its own motion under section 102 of the Bar Councils Act
We have dealt with the merits in the connected case
This petition is dismissed but here again we make no order about costs
Petition dismissed


Summary:
The order under section 102 of the  given to a proper officer of the Court may be an oral order and need not be a written one
The High Court can under section 102 refer a case on its own motion