IMPORTANT POINT
On transfer of the original jurisdiction to BCI by operation of law, BCI cannot remand the proceedings to State Bar Council.

JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, J.

The singular issue that is required to be addressed in this appeal is whether after transfer of a disciplinary proceeding, as per the mandate enshrined under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for brevity, “the Act”) to the Bar Council of India (BCI) from the State Bar Council, can the BCI, instead of enquiring into the complaint and adjudicating thereon, send it back to the State Bar Council with the direction to decide the controversy within a stipulated time. It is interesting to note that Mr. Preet Pal Singh, the learned counsel for BCI would concede that the said statutory authority has no such power. Mr. D.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the Gujarat State Bar Council would propound with all the thrust at his command that BCI has unfettered jurisdiction to pass such an order inasmuch as it is the apex statutory body under the Act and it possesses plenary powers and, in any case, the language of the statutory provision does not create any impediment for the same. Mr. Anup Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, as is expected, concurs with the proponement of Mr. Singh and further submits that the time consumed in disposal of the disciplinary authority has put the appellant in a situation of misery and, therefore, this Court should quash the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings so that efflux of time can give the appellant a healing touch and put an end to the agony he has already endured.

2. In such a situation, thinking it apposite, the Court appointed Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel, as the friend of the Court, who submitted with immense assurance that acceptance of the stand of the State Bar Council would not only run counter to the language employed by the legislature but shall cause immense violence to the same and the duty of this Court is to give full meaning to the legislative intendment.

3. We may, in brief, state the factual score. The appellant, who was enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Gujarat, got elected to the post of Secretary of Gandhinagar Bar Association in 2007 and subsequently he was elected as the President of the Bar Association in 2008. One Mr. P.D. Kanani, who was the Secretary of the Bar Association due to differences leveled false allegations and filed false civil and criminal cases against the appellant and also wrote a letter dated 04.09.2008 in this regard to the Secretary, Bar Council of Gujarat alleging that he was denied access to certain records and the accounts and there was misappropriation of huge amount of the Bar Association. The differences and the misunderstanding between the appellant and Mr. P.D. Kanani was resolved and a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 18.09.2008 and the book of accounts and other records were handed over by the appellant to Mr. Kanani.

4. When everything appeared to have been put to rest, after expiry of one year and three months, Bar Council of Gujarat vide its B.C. Resolution No. 176 of 2009 dated 06.12.2009 resolved to call for an explanation from the appellant with regard to complaint preferred by Mr. P.D. Kanani and further putting forth an allegation that it had received a letter dated 01.06.2010 from the Registrar, High Court of Gujarat regarding complaint against the appellant. On the basis of letter dated 01.06.2010, Bar Council of Gujarat took suo motu cognizance against the appellant and referred the matter to Disciplinary Committee III. The complaint was registered as DC Case No. 25/2010.

5. It is worthy to note that the Bar Council of Gujarat decided to conduct trial of D.C. case No. 25/2010 along with D.C. Case No. 15/2010 before the Disciplinary Committee No. I. The case of the appellant was again transferred to Disciplinary Committee No. XII and again to Disciplinary Committee No. IX.

6. As the factual matrix would depict, the appellant, upon filing of application, was granted time to file his written arguments but without waiting for the reply of the appellant, the Bar Cou