IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17630 of 2007 Date of Decision: 18.2.2008 Muqbal Chand ...Petitioner Versus The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Muqbal Chand, petitioner-in-person. Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing decision of the Enrolment Committee of the respondent Bar Council as conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 2.11.2006 (P-4), whereby his request for enrolment as an advocate has been rejected in view of Rule 2-B of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana under Section 28(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Further prayer has been made for commanding the respondents to enroll and admit the petitioner as an advocate by granting licence/enrolment certificate enabling him to start practice in the Courts. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2004 from the post of Under Secretary, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh. During the course of his employment the petitioner did his LL.B. in the year 1983. On 9.3.2006 he applied for C.W.P. No. 17630 of 2007 being enrolled as an advocate by submitting requisite documents and fee. However, the Enrolment Committee of the respondent Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, rejected the application of the petitioner in view of Rule 2-B of the Rules, which postulates that a person who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an advocate, but is of more than 45 years of age on the date of submission of application for enrolment in the Bar Council, shall not be admitted as an advocate. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 candidly states that the only hindrance in the way of the petitioner to get enrolled as an Advocate was Rule 2-B of the Rules, which came into force w.e.f. 12.2.2006. Learned counsel has further submitted that Rule 2-B of the Rules was subject matter of challenge before this Court in C.W.P. No. 4929 of 2006, which was decided on 21.9.2007, wherein the aforementioned Rule 2-B has since been struck down being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, no impediment is left in the way of the petitioner for his enrollment as an Advocate and his application for the same shall be considered as per Rules at the earliest. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is, accordingly, disposed of. The petitioner shall be enrolled as an Advocate at the earliest. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 C.W.P. No. 17630 of 2007 (T.P.S. MANN) February 18, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3