IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR >l-f WritPetitionNo. J of 2001 <,. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA B.PrabhakarRao, S/o Shri. Bh.V.Satyanarayana, Aged about 42 years HouseNo. 12/243, Sikolabhata, Prem Nagar, DURG -491002 (CHHATTISGARH) ^•^^^ ^., w'^ 'f.-^'^ ^^ ' ^ ^:>:':---' .PETITIONER -VERSUS - StateBarCouncilofM.P. through The Secretary, High Court Campus^ JABALPUR fM.P.) The Enrolment Committee, of StateBarCouncilofM.P. through The Secretary, State Bar Council ofM.P. High Court Campus^ JABALPUR (M.P.) RESPONDENTS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ORDER/DIRECTION AND WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC. T XI-HC-22 ~3~^r ';4Ri^R, '^ft^FT^, 'i^irey W»P,NO, 313/2001 ^R^T^'^T^" "W^ 200 3TT^T'^{ 'i^T[^^T?i^T '^~RW^'{t7[ 18<.4«200l »N ^n^r^CT^RTrft^ pendjtng distoissal belfore Petitioner by Shri A»S|, Respondents by Shri Heard, Sole grievance of tfoe his application £or earolmen^ 16.3.2000 has been Ksept matter pertaiaing to the l^e i^tifeioner tx pexsdihg industri.al Tritewaat (GGTT) • said -/mat-fcer i Is.; pendAnQ ^: S^etpr|^;| The BQrolmenfe G@minifcttee hag petitiOEBer that. feis request fiaally ^onsideretSiloefore^ c©rr» Severai,,l<^gal^.iasues. ^et^tion reg^dt|tg^apBl^cat.i|on Bar counell of Indta^ so and.applicatxon;of^Sectioa la' the repreaeritation made provlsions under wh4.ch Enrolment Gommxttee has also! Rules 140 and 141 of the COUHCil, j^bdishek jwrj-t petitioner is that as Advocate submltted on oi^ the gcound that the order issued against eiie Gentral Qoveirnment tNe al^6 reeo^cs^ Rixljea '^Frf^N 'RPI^ff ^ feTZt 'rf^RZK ^T 3?f^ ^STT^T Gaharbar^ Advocate^ Sinha^ Advocate<» It %ay be stated tbat the '^^•;_' •../;- ,to. ; tia$. .GG-3ET;...: Stei: r.eference/ajk it^ jeoimwiaAa^ts^ to the wrxt Ifor enyolm^xit cannot be disposal of the naatter toy h|av<8 214-^ b@en raised in the present pf Rule To^ fccamed by the ^s ^egards the irifceffpretation of. the:Advocates-'Xefe< ' " ^y the writ petitioner certain —4^^^'. C^v-^-^-^' ^iiade^by the been j^erifeioned^ In feerms of framed by the M»P*State Bar [T{t^^f^4 ^H -4-- •^^^.i^ -3T[^I -^T feN >3:n^i 'iT^r^t^ Thakur e 317t?T^^? (^f^^l) ^N^PN -iTF^ff ^ 'fe^?T Tf^ZK ^ •3T?^R On careful perusal jof the sutenissioQS and the legal prepositions m4de on behalf of the parties • ! and the pleadings^ I am ^f the view that since the request for enrolment ha^ not been disposed of it will nofc be proper for ttj as regards interpretatio^ or applicatioa of the Rules/Provisions of law^ It is contended on that once application to^ should 3se deeided and authority in terms, o-f is Court to express opinion [referred to by fch^ rarties<> |behalf.,of the writ pet.A.tioner erurolment is made^ the sarae di^poaed o.f,by. tt^ conc^rned 2^^>f the Aeto Se^tioa. la' my^ view;. the cp%<pe^ae<I- Bnrolm^rtfc ^Commtttee aeed. not ^ait for the.;4is{)o^al- ot -:€he- case'pending / before-"fciae';GG2T<- -.. 2fa: •fche.|r:^ul€-• fchls- - pefcition is dJ.spoae€--©f':?;wittitfae- iatr^2tl6n- tto^t -the respondents sfaali- 6xamtAe- feKe "appi.ic^tloii- o£":the-writ pefeitioner for eiarolment aad dispos^ of the matter on merits afc tfae earllesfe aa^ o^t tater than 'S^m-Jwo months from the date odE reQeipt ^f tAAs c^der^ Certxfxed copy^ to<3 Sd/- Chief Justice GRPRJ--FS.G 11—.1/200 i —50.000. c-7^