1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.12722 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 A.Iruthayaraj : Petitioner vs. 1.The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chairman, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104. 2.The Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, High Court Campus,Chennai-600 104. 3.S.Punitha : Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 14.9.2011 passed by the second respondent in complaint No.(Enroll) 1 of 2011 and to quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents to disallow the third respondent from practising as an Advocate. For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, dismissing his complaint as against the third respondent. 2. Heard Mr.C.M.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The third respondent admittedly completed a Law Degree from the Government Law College, Tirunelveli and applied for enrolment with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. The petitioner herein who appears to be a relative of the third respondent filed a petition before the Bar Council requesting them not to permit the enrolment of the third respondent, on the ground that she produced bogus certificates and made false representations of material particulars and that therefore, the third respondent is not entitled to get enrolled. Rejecting the petition filed y the petitioner, the Enrolment Committee passed an order dated 14.9.2011, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition. 4. At the outset, I fail to understand as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the enrolment of the third respondent as a member of the Bar Council. It is a fundamental principle of law that ubi jus ubi remedy. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Unless a rejection of the request for enrolment made by the third respondent would be of any benefit to the petitioner in any way, he does not have the locus standi to question her enrolment. It must be remembered that this is not a public interest litigation. Once it is a private interest litigation, the petitioner should establish his locus standi and bona fides. 5. Apart from the above, the complaint of the petitioner even on merits, against the third respondent, would not disentitle the third respondent from getting enrolled as an Advocate, even if the contents of the complaint are true. In brief, the complaint of the petitioner is that the third respondent was born to one Albert Joseph and Amali, belonging to Christian Vellalar Community (Forward Community) and that the third respondent got all her Certificates manipulated by entering the name of one Mr.S.Shankar @ Shankaranarayanan as her natural father and consequently obtained a Community Certificate indicating that she belongs to the Backward Community. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the third respondent was already charge sheeted in a criminal case. Therefore, contending that on the basis of fake Certificates and on the basis of misrepresentation of material particulars, the third respondent cannot get enrolled, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 6. In so far as the parentage of the third respondent is concerned, it is not a matter of any consequence in so far as the enrolment of the third respondent is concerned. Even if the biological parents of the third respondent are not divorced and the third respondent's mother is living with one G.Shankar @ Shankaranarayanan, it would not curtail the right of enrolment of the third respondent. Therefore, the questionable parentage or the questionable relationship of the third respondent's mother, cannot be a ground for rejection of the application of the third respondent for enrolment. 7. In so far as the allegation of false Community Certificate is concerned, it has been repeatedly held that even the employer is not competent to challenge the validity of a Community Certificate. It is the competent authority who is entitled to take proceedings for cancellation of the Community Certificate and the Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council has nothing to do with the Community Certificate. Enrolment of a person as a member of the Bar Council, is not a matter of employment. Therefore, the enrolment of the third respondent, cannot be prevented by questioning the validity of the Community Certificate produced by her. 8. The last ground that the third respondent is already charge sheeted in a criminal case, cannot also be a ground for refusing the request for enrolment. As a matter of fact, the charge sheet has been laid at the instance of the very petitioner herein. After having filed a criminal complaint for offences under Sections 452, 294-B, 323, 324 and 506(2) against the third respondent, the appropriate remedy that the petitioner is obliged to prosecute is only to have the criminal case come to its logical end. The petitioner cannot start a collateral proceeding, to wreck vengeance on the third respondent. This writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, to harass the third respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Section 42-A of the Advocates Act, 1961, the provisions of Section 42 will apply even to Enrolment Committee and various other Committees of the Bar Council. Under Section 42(2), all proceedings before a Committee are deemed to be judicial proceedings. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the falsification of the records by the third respondent, is a serious matter which the Enrolment Committee is obliged to take note of, by conducting an enquiry. 10. The petitioner has already brought his objections before the Enrolment Committee. They have considered the same. It is not as though the Enrolment Committee did not go into the complaint. But in view of the restrictions placed upon the Enrolment Committee to limit the scrutiny of applications to a particulars level, the Enrolment Committee could not undertake a roving enquiry into the genuineness of the Community Certificate etc. The same cannot be found fault with. 11. Section 24 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, states that a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an Advocate, if he fulfils certain conditions prescribed therein. There is no dispute about the fact that the third respondent fulfils all the conditions prescribed in Section 24 (1). She is a citizen of India, having completed the age of 21 years and had obtained a valid degree in law, from the Government Law College under the regular stream. She also fulfils the other conditions specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council. Once there is no dispute about the fact that the third respondent fulfils the eligibility criteria under Section 24, there is very little that the Enrolment Committee is entitled to do. 12. Section 24-A (1) prescribes the disqualifications for enrolment. It is not the case of the petitioner that the third respondent has suffered any disqualification in terms of Section 24-A(1). In such circumstances, the request of the petitioner not to permit the third Enrolment Committee. Thus there are no merits in the writ petition and hence it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Chairman,The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104. 2.The Chairman, The Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, High Court Campus,Chennai-600 104. +1cc to Mr.C.M.Arumugam, Advocatem, SR.NO.39615 svn GH : 22.11.2011 : 3p/4c W.P.(MD)No12722/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/