An advocate's surrender of sanad can be withdrawn, and refusal to reinstate registration without clear statutory authority is unconstitutional, impairing the fundamental right to practice law.

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of mandamus/direction to the respondents to accept the representation given by the petitioner dated 19/09/2023 to add the name of the petitioner in the practicing advocates list and give back his Sanad and enter his name in Raichur bar association. As mentioned in Annexure-G.

b. To grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Petitioner was a practising advocate who had practised for more than 25 years, having registered himself with the respondent, Karnataka State Bar Council.

3. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner had submitted an application for surrender of his Sanad (right to practice) and requested the respondent to make payment of the monies as provided for under the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983. The said application was accepted by the Bar Council and an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- was paid to the petitioner by way of deposit in his bank account and the surrender of Sanad (right to practice) was accepted by the respondent.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner apparently having a change of heart and mind has submitted a representation on 12.07.2022 and 19.09.2023 for cancellation of the withdrawal. However, the said representations were not considered by the respondents and in that background the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is ready to withdraw his surrender and on the same being accepted the amount which has been received by the petitioner would be returned to the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for KSBC/respondent firstly contended that there is no provision for withdrawal of the surrender made by an advocate and secondly, he submits that the respondents having returned the money have lost income on that money which forms one of the incomes for running of the Bar Council.

7. The submission of Sri.G.Nataraj., learned counsel for respondents, is that the petitioner, having surrendered his Sanad and retired from practice voluntarily, cannot now seek to withdraw his retirement and come back into practice and that there is no provision which enables such withdrawal of the surrender.

8. Heard Sri.Md.Akram Uppin., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Nataraj., learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused papers.

9. The points that would arise for consideration are;

1. Whether on a surrender of Sanad by an advocate, he can seek the withdrawal of the said surrender and re-registration or restoration of the registration under the Rules of the Karnataka State Bar Council?

2. Whether the Karnataka State Bar Council can refuse the withdrawal on the grounds that there is no particular provision available under the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983?

3. What order?

10. I answer the above points as follows;

11. Answer to point No.1: Whether on a surrender of Sanad by an advocate, he can seek the withdrawal of the said surrender and re- registration or restoration of the registration under the Rules of the Karnataka State Bar Council?

11.1. The right to practise any profession is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Courts have consistently held that this right includes not merely the right to enter a profession, but also the right to continue in such profession, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law under Article 19(6). Insofar as the legal profession is concerned, enrolment with the jurisdictional State Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1