Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 1320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
P. Naveen Rao, J.
Chillagundla Venkatanarayana - Appellant
Vs.
The Government of India - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 17676 and 24760 of 2014
Decided On: 12.11.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Satyam Reddy, Senior Counsel and M. Rajender Reddy
For Respondents/Defendant: Asst. Solicitor General for Government of India, D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel for Nanda, S. Sriram and G.M. Mohiuddin
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 - Section 34(2) - Seeking guidelines from Bar Council of India regarding enrolment of law graduates and continuation of proceedings pending before Disciplinary Committee - Petitions challenge is to proceedings Council of India directing Andhra Pradesh Bar Council to continue to exercise power of disciplinary control and to enroll persons belonging to State of Telangana as advocates - As issue for consideration in both the writ petitions is same both writ petitions are disposed of by common order - Petitioner intends to enroll as Advocate on rolls of Bar Council of State of Telangana and practice as an Advocate in State of Telangana - Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council wrote a letter - Request of Andhra Pradesh Bar Council was placed before the General House of Bar Council of India in meeting held on as item Bar Council of India passed resolution - Contended that question of having combined Bar Council for States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh after does not arise and decision of Bar Council of India impugned in this writ petition is contrary to provisions of Advocates Act with is without power or jurisdiction – Held, Bar Council of India traces its power to give directions to State Bar Councils to Advocates Act said provisions have to be read in consonance with all other provisions of Advocates Act - Bar Council of India being a creature of Advocates Act has to work within four corners of said enactment - A reading of provisions of Advocates Act it is clear that no delegation is conferred on Bar Council of India either expressly or impliedly to authorize Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council also to act as Bar Council for State of Telangana - As per scheme of Advocates Act no such implied power on Bar Council of India can be inferred - Advocates Act does not envisage extra territorial jurisdiction to any State Bar Council and in absence of conferment of extra-territorial jurisdiction on any State Bar Council Bar Council of India cannot confer extra territorial jurisdiction to any State Bar Council - Decisions impugned amount to conferring extra territorial jurisdiction on Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council which is Bar Council for State of Andhra Pradesh to State of Telangana also - It is without power and competence and contrary to scheme of Advocates Act - Petition allowed (Para 46)
P. Naveen Rao, J.
1. In these two writ petitions the challenge is to the proceedings BCI:D:2942/2014 dated 21.6.2014 of Bar Council of India, directing the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council to continue to exercise power of disciplinary control and to enroll persons belonging to the State of Telangana as advocates. As the issue for consideration in both the writ petitions is the same, both writ petitions are disposed of by common order.
2. Petitioner in W.P. No. 17676 of 2014 is a practicing advocate in High Court at Hyderabad, enrolled in the State Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh (undivided) on 19.04.1995 bearing enrolment No. 1352 of 1995. Consequent to the formation of State of Telangana, on 16.6.2014 petitioner submitted a representation to the Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council expressing his intention to opt to Telangana Bar Council from that date and requested to transfer his name to the rolls of the Bar Council of Telangana with effect from 16.6.2014 as per Section 34(2) of Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act, 2014 (Act 6 of 2014). No reply was given to the petitioner.
3. Petitioner in W.P. No. 24760 of 2014 was awarded LL.B. Degree in August, 2014. Petitioner intends to enroll as Advocate on the rolls of Bar Council of State of Telangana and practice as an Advocate in State of Telangana.
4. Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council wrote a letter dated 10.6.2014 seeking guidelines from the Bar Council of India regarding enrolment of law graduates and continuation of proceedings pending before the Disciplinary Committee. The request of the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council was placed before the General House of the Bar Council of India in the meeting held on 17.6.2014 as item No. 179 of 2014. The Bar Council of India passed resolution No. 117 of 2014. The resolution, inter alia, seeks to mandate Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council to continue to exercise the disciplinary jurisdiction as well as enrolment of law graduates as Advocates in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. It has further mandated to take option from the persons seeking to enroll as advocates to the rolls of State of Telangana or State of Andhra Pradesh as and when bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council takes place and further directed Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council to maintain two separate registers for two states as per the option given by the candidates. On 21.06.2014, proceedings bearing No. BCI:D:2942/2014 was issued by the Bar Council of India communicating the resolution of the Bar Council of India. In these two writ petitions the decisions of Bar Council of India communicated vide proceedings dated 21-06-2014 are challenged.
5. With the consent of learned counsels representing the petitioners, Government of India, Bar Council of India, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh, these writ petitions are finally disposed of.
6. Heard Sri. Satyam Reddy, senior counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 17676 of 2014, Sri M. Rajender Reddy, counsel for petitioner in W.P. No. 24760 of 2014, Assistant Solicitor General for Government of India, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, senior counsel for Mrs. Nanda, counsel for the Bar Council of India, Sri S. Sriram, counsel for High Court at Hyderabad and Sri G.M. Mohiuddin, counsel for Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh.
7. Learned senior counsel Sri Satyam Reddy contended that the Advocates Act, 1961 mandates to have separated bar council for each of the States mentioned therein. By virtue of Section 34(1) of Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, (Act, 6 of 2014), Section 3(1)(a) of Advocates Act, 1961 is amended and Telangana is also added to the said provision. Section 3(1)(a) of Advocates Act has to be read in conjunction with the Section 34(1) and Section 30(1) of Act 6 of 2014. The appointed day is notified by the Government of India as 2nd June, 2014. Thus, consequent to the formation of State of Telangana, there has to be a separate Bar Council to the State of Telangana. He, therefore, contended
