1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA Writ Petition No.13082 of 2010 Prof. Narinder Singh Poonia and another. Vs. Adv. Prem Kumar Saxena and another. ********** Writ Petition No.13083 of 2010 Prof. Narinder Singh Poonia and another. Vs. Adv. G.M. Chaphekar and another. ******* Prof. Narinder Singh Poonia, petitioner in person. O R D E R ( Passed on this 25 th Day of April, 2011 ) Regard being had to the similar controversy involved in these two cases, they have been heard analogously together and a common order is being passed in the matter. Facts of writ petition No.13082/10 are narrated as under: 2. The petitioner before this Court, appearing in person, has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in respect of the withdrawal of designation of senior advocate, which has been conferred upon respondent 2 No.1 in the present case. The petitioner in the present writ petition has alleged various incidents of misconduct allegedly committed by the respondent No.1 and his contention is that the respondent No.1 is not observing the norms prescribed for a senior advocate. It has been further argued before this Court that the respondent No.1 was engaged in a case by the petitioner and he has accepted fees from the petitioner and Wakalatnama was also filed in M.A. No.275/96 by the senior advocate. The petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards annexure P-10 at page No.39 and his contention is that the senior counsel has filed Wakalatnama in this case, however, fact remains that the Wakalatnama as enclosed does not bear signature of the senior counsel/respondent No.1 in the present writ petition. The petitioner has alleged other various misconducts against the respondent No.1 and has prayed for following reliefs; “7-Relief Sought:- Being expedient in the interest of the justice-delivery and for safety to the image of the very HC, the Honb'le Court be pleased to pass the orders as under; (i) An order for a reference of the issue, for consideration of the MP HC (Full Court), recommending senior advocacy of advocate PK Saxena (respondent-1) to be stripped off, and (ii) An order directing Respondent-1 to pay to the petitioners the loss of their income from the mentioned land, for the period 1999 to- date @ of Rs.60,000/year with 12% yearly interest, or merely for 1999- 2000 in case Hon'ble HC in FA 3 Nos.685- 87/2007 directs advocate Chaphekar for payments relating 2001 and after. (iii) An order directing Respondent-1 for refund of the fees, Rs.35,000/- to the petitioners, with 12 percent interest from July 1997 to the date of actual payment. (iv) Any other order, writ or direction deemed fit. 3. Heard the petitioner at length and perused the record as well as the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. 4. The Advocates Act, 1961 provides for admission and enrollments of the advocates and Section 16 of the Act, 1961 provides that there shall be two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and other advocates. The section 16 of the Act, 1961 reads as under:- “Section 16- Senior and other advocates. – (1) There shall be two classes of advocates namely, senior advocates and other advocates (2) An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High court is of the opinion that by virtue of his ability [standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law] he is deserving of such distinction. (3) Senior advocates shall, in the matter of their practice, be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of India may, in the interest of the legal profession, prescribe. (4) An advocate of the Supreme Court who was a senior advocate of that 4 Court immediately before the appointed day shall, for the purposes of this section be deemed to be a senior advocate: [Provided that where any such senior advocate makes an application before the 31 st December, 1965 to the Bar Council maintaining the roll in which his name has been entered that he does not desire to continue as a senior advocate, the Bar Council may grant the application and the role shall be altered accordingly.] 5. The aforesaid statutory provision of law empowers the High Court to designate an advocate as a senior advocate. If High Court is of the opinion that by virtue of ability (standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law) he is deserving of such distinction. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 is a senior advocate as designated by the High Court of M.P. The Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides for punishment of advocates for misconduct and the same also provides for lodging a complaint against an advocate as well as against a senior advocate as a senior advocate is also a class of advocates. Section 35 reads as under:- “35- Punishment of advocates for misconduct – (1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee. [(1A) The State Bar Council may, either of its own motion or on application made to it by any person interested, withdraw a proceeding pending before its 5 disciplinary committee of that Stat Bar Council.] (2) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall fix a date for the hearing of the case and shall cause a notice thereof to be given to the advocate concerned and to the Advocate-General of the State. (3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate concerned and the Advocate- General an opportunity of being heard, may make any of the following orders, namely:- (a) dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State Bar Council, direct that the proceedings be filed; (b) reprimand the advocate; (c) suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit; (d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates. (4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause (c) of sub- section (3), he shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from practising in any court or before any authority or person in India. (5) Where any notice is issued to the Advocate-General under sub-section (2), the Advocate-General may appear before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council either in person or through any advocate appearing on his behalf. 6. Section 37 provides for an appeal to the Bar Council of India. In case, any person is aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of State Bar Council and finally an 6 appeal lies before Supreme Court of India only under the Advocates Act, 1961. 7. The petitioner while arguing the matter before this Court has informed this Court that he has filed a complaint before State Bar Council and the same has been rejected. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, in case, the petitioner's complaint has been rejected by the M.P. State Bar Council, he does have a remedy to prefer an appeal before the Bar Council of India and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under Section 37, no relief can be granted in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to mention here that if the petitioner prefers an appeal against the order passed by the M.P. State Bar Council as stated by the petitioner, the Bar Council of India shall take an appropriate action in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. With the aforesaid, both the writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the orders passed by M.P. State Bar Council. (S. C. Sharma) Judge N.R.