Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
L.Deepa – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, The Bar Council of India – Respondent
W.P.No.31374 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.36557 of 2018
Decided on : 12-06-2024
Writ Petition - Quashing of Order - The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn after the petitioner sought to withdraw it following the revocation of their suspension by the Bar Council of India, indicating that the legal principle of withdrawal of petitions is permissible when circumstances change.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent, claiming it was made without following the Rule of Law.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition due to the revocation of their suspension by the Bar Council of India, which was endorsed by the petitioner's counsel.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could withdraw the writ petition after the revocation of their suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized the right of a petitioner to withdraw a writ petition when there is a significant change in circumstances, such as the revocation of suspension.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs awarded.
ORDER :
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records of 2nd respondent and quash the impugned order dated 04.07.2018 in R.O.C.No.956 of 2018 dated 07.05.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner without following the Rule of Law.
Mr.A.Ramesh Manikandan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petitioner, since the Bar Counsel of India revoked the suspension of the petitioner and he also made an endorsement to that effect in the case bundle.
2. In view of the above submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Connected MP is closed.
A petitioner has the right to withdraw a writ petition when circumstances change, such as the revocation of a suspension.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or necessary.
A writ petition under Article 226 can be rendered unnecessary if the action being challenged has been withdrawn or dropped by the authority.
The court affirmed the right of a petitioner to seek a revision under Section 48A of The Advocates Act when a complaint is dropped by the Bar Council, emphasizing adherence to due process.
A writ petition under Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy when a complaint has been dismissed for lack of a prima facie case; the petitioner may seek recourse through a Revision Petition under ....
The court affirmed that the Bar Council's decision to drop a complaint is valid and that aggrieved parties have the right to seek further recourse through established legal channels.
The court has the discretion to dispose of a writ petition as infructuous based on the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel.
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or actionable.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is rendered infructuous if the petitioner’s circumstances change such that the relief sought is no longer applicable.
Judicial review by the High Court does not extend to adjudicating the merits of disciplinary complaints against lawyers, which must be handled by the Bar Council.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
