W THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILA5PUR(CHHATTISGARt 'rirlt Pet-Ltlon No PETITIuNER -'^'.'••" \^'y .^ ^' "".£^ ^^. ^ Kumarl Ashalata Sonl, B.A.L.L.B., aged 32 years D/p K.R« Soni, R/o Balodabazar, Distt. Raipur (Ghhattisgarh). ?" ^i?y^7 V E R SU : (1) PrcsJIdonta State Bar CouncJ.1 of '3:ai3alwu; M.p . -4-<^T-~X !-3 ^-"-- ^ o ~ ~ i (2) State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, Body Corporate cons&ltuted under f^)^-/ Advocate Act 1961 Hj.gh Court Building, Jabalpur, M.P. ^^--'"^^Q c"^j c^1-^^-.^.^-^^ s'^Lf Cio- \^<<^,;via ^^ a^^^U-'C^g^^^ T;SRS-EES'IT50N-^NDER-&RT;[S£.33S^222-9F-COS§S;:S2?J9S. OF INDXA FOR ISSUE OF I'lR-IT 3N FORM OF 1-ISNDAMUS OR &NY OTHER APPROPRIATE WROT OR DIRECTION : XI-HC-22 3'sr '^nw^, s'tdti'is, Riciitiy 3TT^ t<wwi sn*iich OTtl^^ .^.'.T^Sfj. W[ 200 ( f^s sn^TW f^iwan^r ^HW^lIsfl ^i^w 3< 1^1 ^Wig«rf?tT chi^Ffi'fl-f tii*idTffte^l'<Rit<i< ^>3I^q'3n^T 26-7-2005 M.r. 6,S, A9rawal, Senior the petitioner. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advoc| respona'ents. Tne petitioner has 227 of the Constitution of Indid 6-10-1998 and 20-1-2000 sent Jaba!pur, whereby Ths pstitio"ier| Advocate to practice lcw was passed law deQpee cour'se as a Brief facts ieading to fii^ writ petition, are that the lacheior of Ans m *he veor 193 ftaipur, applied for ddmission int^ ffrdvoeo.te with Mr. K.R. Nair, Adyoea.te for Advoc|aTe wiTh Mr. Suni! Sahu, Advocate for the rte !|ig int^ oo'/ernment D.K. Coiiege, Saio^ia admission, The peTitionsr couid course, however, she was allowecj of the 1 year and the petition^r Law de9ree course. A cer+ifii toovt. &.K. CoHe.ge, Sa.mda. Bazaa!^ attended the ciasses and this writ petition under nrticie 226/ , quest'oning the yo.lidi+y of lette.rs dated |by the Bar Councii of AAadhyc Prade.sh, \'s application for snroln'isn* To rsgiste" as rfeiected on the around that she has not reduiar candidate. of this writ petition, cs 5et out in the p^titionar after completing gradua-f'ion in |2 froiTi PT. Ravishankcr Shukia Universitv', 1 year of S-'/ears L.L.B. course in the Bazaap. On account of closure of |noT get cdmission in The 1ST ysar L.L.B. bv the Princioal to at+end the iaw classes atTended oi! the ciasses of the 13T yeor to that effect issued by the Principa!, is Annexure P-2. Tne petitioner r'eguicriy in 1tie 1 year L.L.B. exafflination as a XI-HC-22 3^ '<ii<ii<i'ii, Btfl+i'Ks, Rfcfiyy 311^1 <^aeb t<i*ipti sbw* •^•'•'••••"•••^•••'•y---^ 2oof lcjfc^ •••••• 3:n^?TW R:IR;3T|^T SbtliqXlRd 341^1 ^•WIWflf^cT 2- +i'iitci'ifl-< 4i><<-iTffte^)'<Ri+iii< ^3lRtIT3in^T privdte student cnd she was dee!|ii Th®.syllo.bus for private and regul issued by the Principal to that ef peTitione" Took admission inTo 2 ^ reguiar studsnt, shs Oippesred in the L.L.B.. mark sheet is Annexuife took admission as a reaular studerl tha year 1996-97, finai year mark The pstitioner was conferred degr^s Shukla Univer'sity without mention( coliegiate student. degr'ee course, the petitioner apptied for 24 of ths Advoca+es Act, 1961. H, on the qround ThaT she was no1( circumstances, action of the respondents be directed to enroli •^1 ftelurn has been fiied on bt been mentioned that ois tha petiti4 as a private candidate, she is n^ releyoint eiause of Sec+ion 24 of +h< (1) (c) (Section-B) of the Bar Cou^ judgment of Apex Cour't in 1'he) dee!|ired pass, mark sheet is ^nnexure P-3. ^* )ar eandidatcs^ the Siame and certificate Ffect is Annexure P-4. Thereafter, the jfeas' of L.L.8. 3-Years degree course as a the examination and passed 2 year of P-6. In finai year also the petitioner' t and she passed 3'' year examination in ^heet is Annexure P-7. On 1 May, 1999, '^e of Sachelor of Lcw by Pt. Ravishca-ikai" |ng the fact that the petitioner wds non- ^nexure P-8. nfter eompletion of law lenrolment as an Advocate under Sectio" owever, th®petitioner has been deprived a regulor student. Therefore, in the sspondenta is not iegai as .such, the petitioner as an Advocate. ^half of the respondsnts in which it has nec appeared in the 1 year L.L.B. course jpt enritled for registrutlon as per the Advoeat&s Act, 1961, reo.d with ftuie 1 (cil or India Ruies, and aiso in view of the marrer of Bar Councti of Indic and rt •the ttie OK XI-HC-22 '3:3( '<||t||<1A|, eiTfly'Kc, fslclKHy 311^1 MDttl . ^.T,S^ci H|l|f[Tai*1!ch •W^ 200/ f^s 3fi^rq>r R-fi+sn^i St)*) Hf^(T ai*iw 'shl'ilfct'ifl-f Hlt«'lTfrTsl<fl<Rf^K ^siRn'sn^T anothep vs. Aporna Basu MaiIicK vs. Bar Councii of India and othe I ha'/e heard learned counsei Learned counsel for the upon by ths respondents is not ap certificate issued by the PrincipaJ of 1 year L.L.B. course. As the year L.L.B. coursa, therefore, sh^ privcTe student and she arrended and 3'" vecir sh®studied iaw as ^ concerned, the Principal issued cel 2 saying that the petitioner satisfied the requirement of Ruy Council of Indla Rules. On the other hand, learned since the petitioner was not a n therefore, she is not entiTied for the above Supreme Court judgmsn Having heard tearned relevant ruies. Under Seetion 24: person shall be qualified to be he fuifils The condition of havini others with Rati'an 5jngh, I.A.S. ^rs wported in <4IR 1994-SC 1334. for the parties. pe^itioner argued ThaT The Judgment rsiied ap^piicabis in ths present cass. Aa per the I. the petitioner attended ail the ciasses jietitioner could not gst admission into 1 was aiiowed to attend the cicsses as a |ai! 1+se lectures. ThereafTer, in 2"° yea" regular student. As fcr os 1 year is •tificate issued on 2-6-1999 Annexure P- aii the ciasses. The petitioner had jle|s 1 (1) (c) cnd 3 (Section-B) of ths Bar atl-erlided eounsel for the reapondents arqued that '^guiar student in 1 year- L-L.B. course, Iher enrolment as an Mwca.la. 'm yiew of fr coun^ei for the parties, I have perused the |(1) (c) (iii) of the Advocates Act, 1961,a adbitted as an advocate on a State roli, if linderaone a Three vears' course of study & XI-HC-22 3^ '<)1<11<'1<1, »Tfl«'IS,R«11'M^< H11MI sbqrai 311^1 <<5|ch ^^K^.S^/. TR; 200/ f^e% a:n^r^r f^ifesn^T ~vt?HI=b :S^S 3n^r?THTWflf5(T -^ »bitif?i41.iHiidTffte^tA^K ^srf^lTSn^T in law from any UniverSity in Indi of India. Seetion 49 (1) (d) of th^ Councii of India to make rules, wr| education To be observed by Un| Universities for +hat ouroose. 3n Council of India framed the Rule; Lega! Education ond fteco9nition^ advocates. Rule 1 (1) (c) (Secti^n prsscribes Tha* a degres of iaw recognissd fsr purposes of Sect condition stated in clause (c) ar{ degree of iaw shall not be recogn| been by requiar a+tendanca a+ or moot courts in a colleae recoohi; has been incorporated with a vi^ ciasses. In the iighT of aboye pi petitioner, in 1 yecr L.L.B. cour's^. a private student, it has been admission, sh®eouid not get admfsi Pr-incipai of Law College, Baloda ^02 "equlariy, arsd Therefore, she i^i, which is recognized by -1-he Bar Counci! Advocotes Aet, 1961, empowera the Bar ich may prescribe the standards of iegai Iversities In India and the inspection of 1p pursuancs of the said powsr, the Bor I, Part-IV whereof is about Standards of of begrees in Law for admission as i-B) of the Ear Councii of India Rutes 4btained from The Universi'ty' shall not be jon 24 (1) (c) (iii) of the Act unless the fulfiited, and' under the said clause. a jzed unless the course of study in iaw has reguisite number of lec+ures, tu+oriais og|iized by a University. The said provision i^w to ensure regular a+tetldance of law irc^visions, if we examine the case of The :. even l+iough ths petitioner cppeared as ritentioned fiiat on accounT of closur-e of imtssion aes s requiar studcnt, however, the BazQflr, aiiowed her to attand the ciasses at-rended ali The ciasses. A cerTificaTe +He adm(s XI-HC-22 'SSt •<11<IICI<4, (STfly'l^, RlClWy HIICTI a»<i<*» Sll^l ^^tft ^.U3..<P...^5^. V^ 200 Rl'b4 3T1^T?iT (^IRiSII^T s»>ti 'afsa w^.w swiwvS^ -5- *i<<tM'in-i KiiciT ff tecA' <Ri<-ii< ^3:rf^IT3TI^T (Annexure P-2) to that effect Co!lege, After passing 1 yeni admission in 2" year L.L.B- cours 2 year, thereafter, agaln she year, ondi ahe passed +he said the iaw degree. Therefore, in view of the ths eonsidered oplnion that the The requirement of Ruies 1 (1) Q Indifi Rules, because ths regwre^ seen by regular att'endance at or moot courts in a coiiege re<] "equtarly attended the classes o she was a regular student of the| the petitioner had not attended candidate. As far as The Jud9ement Couneil of India (supra) is entirely differenT in comparison sntisfied the requiFement of Ru!^ and that is why they had chal insTant case no vires has be^ |ias been issued by the Principal of ^ L.L.B. cxisimination, the petitioner took ^ as n regular student, s-he aiso quaiified in took admission as a regular sTudent in 3 e|><amina+ion aiso. Uitiwateiy. she obtained ^tbove facts of the present case, I om of petitioner has successfuily compiiec! wi.th (t) and 3 (SecTion-B) of The Bar Councfl of rerhent is thct the course of studv' in law hsj.9 Ifie requisite numbar of iectures. tutorials re<(ogn!zed by a UniversiTy. The petitioner |f 13T yea", 2"° yea" and 3r'ti year L.L.B. cyid IColiege. TTierefore, iT cannot be Suid that the classes and she appeared as a pnvate conternad ientea of Supreme CourT in the matrer of Bar I, the case of those candiciates was •o the present petitioner and they had no' 1 (l) (c) of the Bar Couneil of Indiia Rutea, led the vires of the Rules also. But, !n the n chaitenged. In The case of flparna --&AA&AV (^ XI-HC-22 3^? •<<l<IIC1i|, tSTflti'IS, (s|C1IUy NIICTI sn*iiw 311^1 ^iach ^.^...^ysilV^ 2001 (d<i«A 3n^ST?iT f?:TR;3n^r Shli°hHf^T 3)1^1 «<IIWflf?tT »bi'iit<-<41-) *iiH<-il ffte^t<Ri«i< ^srf^iTsn^r sHal Biksu Basu Maltick, she obtalned degree a condition imposed by the Univer: dated 14Tn December, 1979 that non-coiiealate snjdents at the U. advance that thev shall not be elii degrees to be awarded to them they have obtained the de9ree as case of Rattan Singh, who was m regular SovernmenT servant and h( facts of the cases of Apar'na different. as such, the sdiid judgi the present case. Th®emphasis of the Bar iegal education and That can be cia.sses re9uiarly at th®requisite^ courts. In the present case, as ati-ended a!l the ciasses of 2nd student and only in 1 year she es-i Therefore. I am of the consider^d Bar Counei! i3 not in eonsonanes of India emd the saroe is liabie to qijiashed. bs a non-colteoiate student and there was ity vi.de proviss added to th.e Re9uiation^ |women candidates aiiowed to Qppear as U..L.B. Examination shat! be informed in lible for enrolment as advocates ond ths bear an inscription to tlie effe.et thst non-collegiate studsnts. Simihrly, in the ~..A.S. Officer of Haryana cadre, he was a did not arrend The ciasses. Therefore, Mailick & Rattan Singh are entirely t^ent js of no help to the respondents in HfllS Cduncil of India 18 to maintain stoOTdards of tatisfted onlv when the students atTend number of lectures, tutoriala or moot been mentioned above, the petitioner |ind 3 year L.L.B. course as a regulcr I'tended the classes as a orivate student. opinion that the action of respondent wl'ith the Ru!®sframed bv +he Bar Council (ift^^is^) ^ XI-HC-22 3^'-<IKII<'1<1, SiTn<rl'IS, IslOWy ii*ictrB>*iitn 3il^llach ^."^ss^] V^ 200 ? R'b< SD^T^T (?=(N;3fl^r shli*(lfi?T •M M 3)l2;SlgWIWHf5sT -7 qyest|on Now, coming .tq the Councii pf Indio 's a neeessary L'ouncit of India, I do not find reason ThaT yires of The Rules case, the State Bar Council of petitioner as ah Advocate in Counc-il of Madhya Pradesh (riow •theaime hcs been arrayed as a pa] Iri The resylt, THe writ Communications dated 6-10-1998 are quashed. The Sftrte Bar' Coun| •riie appliGcrt'ion- of ,^he petition| accordanc®with law. hioorder'as ParTies are enTitled for p<|rty htive consohance .m B.»Ba^'ai»a *g iii'MTyfl-f HwctTff.te^ <Ri't<;i< ^ail^Hsri^r raised by the respQndents that Bar ', as the Ruies are framed by the Bar jmy' subst^mce in this argument for the not been challenged and here in this Madhvc Pradesh refused tb enroil the with the Ruies. Therefore, the Bar phhattisgarh) rs the rwcessnry party gnd j»tyresppndent. petition Qf The peTitioner is aiiowed. 1 and'20-1-2000 SentbytheBcr&uncil :il of Ghhattisgarh is directed t6 .consideri ;r for enrohTient as cn Advocate, in tocosts. ; • ' ' . .•, ^ ~ cer1|ified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C.BHADQO JUdge