CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: November 11, 2008. Parties Name Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate ..PETITIONER VERSUS Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Petitioner with counsel Mr. H.S.Bajwa, Advocate; Mr. O.P.Goel, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. G.P.Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE (oral) JUDGMENT In this petition for a writ of quo-warranto, the petitioner has CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -2- called in question the nomination of respondent No. 4 -Shri Harish Kumar Narang as Honorary Secretary of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The principal ground of challenge mounted by the petitioner is that the LL.B. degree, which respondent No. 4, claimed to have acquired, was not recognised for purpose of enrollment as a Member of the Bar under the Advocates Act, 1961. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of these proceedings, respondent No. 4 himself approached the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana seeking surrender of the licence, issued in his favour. It is also not in dispute that on receipt of the said application, the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana had appointed a Special Committee of three Members of the Council to hold an enquiry into the allegation that the said Shri Narang had managed to get himself enrolled as a Member of the Bar without being eligible for such enrollment. The Special Committee so appointed has submitted a report, from a reading whereof it appears that Shri O.P.Sharma, Chairman of the said Committee, had recommended the matter to be taken up with the Bar Council of India under Section 26 of the Advocates Act for removal of the name of Shri Narang from the rolls and registration of a criminal case for forgery and cheating against him, the other two Members, namely, Shri Raj Mohan Singh and Mukesh Berry have in their separate reports stopped short of recommending registration of a case against Shri Narang. The matter could in their opinion be left to be determined by the Bar Council of India. Upon consideration of the recommendations, made by the Special Committee, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana have by a resolution dated November 5, 2008, unanimously accepted the report of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -3- Special Committee and resolved to recommend to the Bar Council of India for the removal of the name of Shri Harish Kumar Narang, Advocate, from the rolls of the Bar Council. The resolution, a copy whereof was placed on record by learned counsel appearing for the Council, further stated that Shri Narang had by fraudulent means and by producing a fake and forged degree got himself enrolled as a Member of the Bar and that a suitable FIR against the said Shri Narang be got registered on the directions of Bar Council of India. Learned counsel for the parties submit that consequent upon the subsequent developments, mentioned above, Shri Narang has already demitted office w.e.f. December 31, 2007, when his term as Honorary Secretary expired by efflux of time. In that view, therefore, nothing really survives for consideration in this Court in the present proceedings as respondent No. 4, is no longer holding any public office to call for intervention of this Court. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Bajwa strenuously argued that respondent No. 4 had committed perjury in the course of these proceedings, for which this Court ought to direct his prosecution. He drew our attention to an interim order of this Court dated May 20, 2008, and submitted that since the description of the University as given in the application form submitted to the Bar Council was different from that given in the affidavit filed in this Court, it was evident that the statement made before this Court that the respondent has passed his LL.B. degree from Hindi Sahiya Samelan Allahabad was false . He urged that the legal profession must remain free from any mal-practices including mal-practices in enrollment of Advocates and that this Court ought to take a stringent view in the matter and direct CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -4- prosecution of respondent No. 4 to deter others, who may similarly attempt to circumvent the system by fraudulent means from doing so. On behalf of respondent No. 4, it was, on the other hand, submitted by Mr. Cheema that the affidavit, filed by respondent No. 4 in this Court and the other documents , produced in the course of the present proceedings, clearly stated that the LL.B. degree, which respondent No. 4 had acquired, had been awarded in his favour by the Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad. He also drew our attention to the affidavit, filed by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and Annexure R-3 enclosed to the same, according to which respondent No. 4 is shown to have acquired the Vidhi Visharat (LL.B.) from Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad, in June, 1992. He submitted that respondent No. 3 stood by the statement, made in the counter affidavit, as also other documents, in which the said respondent was shown to have acquired his LL.B. degree from Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad. He urged that in the application form, submitted to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, a copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit, filed by respondent No. 1, the name of the College at which the course of instructions in law was taken is no doubt shown as Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Kanpur, but the said error was inadvertent and unintended. He submitted that respondent No. 4 at no stage studied at Kanpur and had nothing to do with the institution at the said place. According to Mr. Cheema, there was no Hindi Sahitya Samelan institution or University in existence in Kanpur. The fact that a mistake had been committed by respondent No. 4 in describing the Institution, from where he had passed the LL.B. degree, did not , according to the learned counsel, amount to committing perjury so as to warrant any direction for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -5- prosecution of respondent No. 4. There is in our opinion considerable merit in the submission made by Mr. Cheema. The affidavit and the documents enclosed with the same by respondent No. 4 in the present proceedings leave no manner of doubt especially after Mr. Cheema has made a specific statement at the bar that the degree acquired by respondent No. 4 was from Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Allahabad, that any description of the institute in the application form submitted to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana is not factually correct. The mistake committed by respondent No. 4 in wrongly describing the Institution from where he acquired the LL.B. degree in the application form submitted to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, may call for action at the instance of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana or the Bar Council of India depending upon whether or not the Bar Council accepts the version of respondent No. 4 regarding the mistake being genuine or inadvertent but the same does not constitute perjury in the instant proceedings to call for any direction from us. The question whether we ought to direct any prosecution will depend entirely upon whether the statement made in the affidavit, filed by respondent No. 4, is on a question of fact false to the knowledge of the said respondent. Our answer to that question is in the negative. There is before us no material to suggest that the statement made in the affidavit, filed by respondent No. 4, or the documents enclosed therewith did not reflect the true position. In that view of the matter, there is no room for issuing any direction for prosecution of respondent No. 4 for the alleged perjury committed by him. We may hasten to add that this order shall not prevent the Bar Council of India from considering the recommendation made by the Punjab and Haryana Bar CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13398 OF 2007 -6- Council to institute appropriate proceedings for prosecution of respondent No. 4 for any offence that the Bar Council of India may prima facie find respondent No. 4 to have committed in the process of getting himself enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana or forging or fabricating any record or any valuable security or document. We leave it entirely to the Bar Council of India and to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana to take appropriate decision in that regard. We may make it clear that in case after receipt of recommendations of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Bar Council of India takes any action or institutes any proceedings against respondent No. 4, he shall be at liberty to seek redress against any such proceedings in accordance with law. With above observations, this petition stands disposed of. ( T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) November 11, 2008. JUDGE DKC