CWP No.8374 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8374 of 2008 Date of decision : 5-11-2009 Jai Parkash and others .... Petitioners VERSUS Bar Council of India and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for respondent no.1. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) By this common order, four writ petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petition No.8374 of 2008 titled as Jai Parkash and others versus Bar Council of India and another, Civil Writ Petition No.16325 of 2008 titled as Harbans Singh versus Bar Council of India & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No.17563 of 2008 titled as Sunil Kumar and others versus Bar Council of India and another and Civil Writ Petition No.12428 of 2009 titled as Ravinder Kumar and another versus Bar Council of India and another shall be decided. It is not disputed that all the petitioners had obtained degree of LL.B. from Baba Mungipa College of Law, Pilani. This college is CWP No.8374 of 2008 -2- admittedly affiliated to Rajasthan University. Petitioners on basis of egree obtained by them applied for grant of licence to Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The licence was refused to them on the ground that even though Rajasthan University is recognized but the particular college Baba Mungipa College of Law, Pilani was not granted approval of affiliation by Bar Council of India after academic Session 1996-97. These writ petitions raise following question for the consideration of Court:- 1. Whether the Bar Council of India is to grant approval and recognition to the University or to each particular college affiliated to the recognised University? This question was considered by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Smt. Manjula B.R. and others versus Karnataka State Bar Council and others, AIR 2002 Karnataka 274. Their Lordships of Karnataka High Court had examined the controversy in detail, and considered various provisions of Advocate’s act and the rules framed thereunder and concluded as under:- “The Learned Counsel for BCI next contended that the requirement under Section 24 (1) (c) (iii) that the person seeking admission as Advocate should have undergone a three year course of study in law from “any university in India which is recognized, for the purposes of this Act, by BCI,” shall not be read as “any university and college in India which is recognized for the purpose of this Act by the Bar Council of India.” We are afraid that such an interpretation is wholly unwarranted and impermissible. The CWP No.8374 of 2008 -3- words “any University in India” refer only to a University constituted under any Central or State Act and does not include or refer to any independent private college which is affiliated to such university.” Petitioners to writ petition No.8374 of 2008 had specifically placed reliance upon the case of Smt. Manjula (supra) and has pleaded as under:- “The question regarding this matter was also completely answered by the Hon’ble Karnatka High Court in Smt. Manjula & Ors. Vs. Karnatka State Bar Council and others reported as AIR 2002 Karnatka 274 and as such, the action of the respondents is illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” In the counter affidavit filed, Bar Council of India has submitted as under:- “So far as the case cited by the petitioners in case of Smt. Manjula and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Bar Council and others is concerned, the Answering Respondent has already filed a Special Leave Petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the same is pending adjudication.” I have perused the judgment of Smt. Manjula (supra) though I am prima facie in agreement with the reasoning given in that judgment but shall refrain to give final opinion as the abovesaid judgment is subject matter of Special Leave Petition. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, petitioners had obtained degree in year 2007 and since then they are not being allowed to practice and are being denied their livelihood. CWP No.8374 of 2008 -4- Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that they are ready and willing to furnish undertaking that in case the ratio of law propounded in Smt. Manjula’s case (supra) is set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court, they will accept the same and will not pursue their claim for grant of licence provided till Hon’ble the Supreme Court give its verdict they are permitted to practice. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present writ petitions can be disposed of with a direction that the respondent – Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana shall grant provisional licence to the petitioners on furnishing of undertaking as noticed above by the petitioners. The provisional licence so granted shall remain valid till decision of SLP. In case ratio of law initiated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court go in favour of the petitioners, the provisional licence granted to them will be converted as a regular registration of petitioners with Bar Council and they shall be entitled to grant of licence. In case, if Hon’ble the Supreme Court opine otherwise the provisional licence granted to the petitioners shall stand withdrawn, in terms of undertaking furnished by the petitioners. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 5-11-2009 JUDGE manju