1 wp1454.98.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.1454 OF 1997 Shri Eknath Shankarrao Pagar aged 48 years, Occ. Service/Advocate R/o. Tapasya, Near Ketki Hsg. Society, Mhasrul, Nashik - 422 004. ...Petitioner Vs. 1. Bar Council of India through its Secretary having office at 21, Rouse Avenue, Industrial Area, Near Bal Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 002. 2. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Through its Secretary, having office at 2nd floor, High Court Extension Mumbai-400 032. 3. The Enrollment Committee 2 wp1454.98.sxw Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa having office at 2nd floor, High Court Extension, Mumbai- 400 032 ..Respondents. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. V.A.Gangal i/by S.S. Hardikar for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 14TH MARCH 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. ) :- 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision taken by the Bar Council of India in Revision Petition No. 27 of 1996. By the impugned order, the Bar Council of India, while exercising the powers under section 48A of the Advocates Act, 1961 allowed the revision petition by exercising suo motu powers by the Secretary,Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, which was amounting to cancellation of the decision taken by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa granting Sanad to the petitioner. 3 wp1454.98.sxw 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was discharging his duty as part time Law Professor in T.Y. B.Com faculty. He had applied for Sanad as he wanted to practice as an Advocate. The Enrollment Committee of the Bar Council of State of Maharashtra and Goa admitted the petitioner on the roll. The Bar Council of Maharashtra while taking decision of enrollment of the petitioner on the roll of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa further resolved that the Secretary may file revision against the order of Enrollment Committee enrolling the petitioner on the roll. The State Bar Council accordingly by resolution allowed the petitioner to be enrolled on the roll and permitted the Secretary of the Bar Council of the State to file revision against the decision taken by the Bar Council of State. The Secretary of the State Bar Council accordingly filed revision application against the petitioner being Revision Petition No. 27 of 1996. The aforesaid revision application was clubbed with another revision application filed by some other person, to which this Court is not concerned. By the impugned order, the Bar Council of India having held that the revision at the instance of the Secretary of State Bar Council is not maintainable but while exercising the suo motu powers the said revision petition was allowed as it was held that the petitioner should not have been enrolled as an Advocate as he was serving at that time as part time Professor. This petition was admitted by 4 wp1454.98.sxw this Court as back as on 5th August, 1997 and ad interim order is also granted by this Court by which the petitioner is allowed to practice as an Advocate. 3. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel Mr. Bandiwadekar that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has also retired as part time professor and he is now no more in service as a part time professor in College. It is submitted that at the relevant time when the matter was kept for hearing before the Bar Council of India, the petitioner had already sent a telegram requesting the Bar Council of India to adjourne the matter and intimate the next date on the ground that he is having personal difficulty as his son was to be admitted in MBBS Course. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that inspite of request for adjournment and intimation about the next date, the next date was not informed to the petitioner and the matter was decided ex-parte. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel Mr. Bandiwadekar that in any case, when the Bar Council of India found that the revision at the instance of the Secretary of State Bar Council was not maintainable, a show cause notice was required to be given to the petitioner pointing out as to why suo motu powers should not exercised. It was submitted by Mr. Bandiwadekar that the College in which the petitioner was discharging his duties as Part Time Professor in fact had 5 wp1454.98.sxw already given no objection certificate, which is at page 24 to the petition. The petitioner has produced the said no objection certificate dated 7th December, 1993 pointing out that the petitioner was teaching Mercantile Law, Industrial Law and Business law at T.Y.B.Com. level and these subjects are related to law faculty and teaching hours are from 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. and his work load was 2 hours and 15 minutes a day and that the college has no objection, in case the petitioner is enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. It is submitted by Mr. Bandiwadekar that the said certificate is already submitted to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa at the time of giving application to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for Sanad. It is pointed out by Mr. Bandiwadekar that as per the rules framed by the Bar Council of India, the petitioner was allowed to be enrolled as an Advocate. The relevant rules are annexed at page 49 of the compilation. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Bandiwadekar for the petitioner and learned Counsel Mr. Gangal for the respondent-Bar Council of India. It is required to be noted that the Bar Council of India came to the conclusion that the revision petition at the instance of the Secretary of the Bar Council of Maharashtra is not maintainable and Bar Council of India to exercised suo motu powers. At the time when the petitioner received notice 6 wp1454.98.sxw from the Bar Council of India, he filed detailed reply at page 40. In our view when the Bar Council of India came to the conclusion that the revision was not maintainable at the instance of Secretary, then Bar Council of India was required to inform the petitioner as to why suo motu power should not be exercised. However we would not like to remand the matter asking the Bar Council of India to follow the procedure, as we have examined the issue on merits. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner has already retired and throughout his service he was allowed to practice by virtue of an interim order granted by this Court about 14 years back. As per certificate granted by the College the petitioner was discharging his duty as part time professor and was teaching in morning hours between 7.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. and his duty hours were less than 3 hours at the relevant time. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner was attached with law faculty as Law Professor and was also teaching law subjects even though it was a T.Y. Com. course and he was teaching Mercantile law, Business law and Industrial Law. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that at the relevant time, as per rules, particularly rule framed under Section 28 (2) (d) read with Section 24 (1) (e) of the Advocate Act, 1961, which provide that a person who is otherwise qualified to be admitted as an Advocate but is either in full or part time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or profession is not entitled to be admitted as an Advocate, provided however that this rule shall not 7 wp1454.98.sxw apply to (iv) Any person who is in part-time service as a Professor, Lecturer or Teacher-in-Law. As per Advocates (Right to take up Law Teaching) Rules, 1979, sub-rule 3 provides as under:- "Right of practicing advocates to take up law teaching- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rule made under the Act, an Advocate may, while practicing, take up teaching in law in any educational institution which is affiliated to a University within the meaning of the University Grant Commissions Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) so long as the hours during which he is so engaged in the teaching of law do not exceed three hours in a day." Reading the said rule, it is clear that if an Advocate who is teaching law in Educational Institute which is affiliated to a University within the meaning of the University Grants Commissions Act, 1956, he is entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate so long as the hours during which he is so engaged in teaching of law do not exceed three hours in a day. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's enrollment application was required to be considered as per aforesaid rules prevailing at the relevant time. On the relevant date when the petitioner applied he was teaching in the law subjects and his working hours were in the morning and his duty hours were also less than 3 hours per day as per certificate granted by the college. Reading the aforesaid provisions of 8 wp1454.98.sxw Rule 1979 it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was rightly enrolled as an Advocate as there was no conflict between his teaching hours which were less than three hours as an professor. Considering this aspect, at the relevant time and as per rules prevailing at that time, the petitioner was rightly enrolled by the Bar Council of State of Maharashtra and Goa as per Rule 1 of the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa Rules Framed under Section 28 (2) (d) with Section 24 (1) (e) of Advocates Act 1961. Perhaps no objection certificate might not have been brought to the notice of Bar Council of India at the relevant time. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in our view, the petitioner was rightly enrolled as an Advocate by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. Even otherwise as pointed out the petitioner has already retired from the college and now he is practicing full time advocate by virtue of interim order granted by this Court. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The decision taken by Bar Council of India is quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner was rightly enrolled by the Bar Council of State of Maharashtra and Goa. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)