Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
Saroja - Petitioner
Versus
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary and ors. – Respondents
WP.No.19755 of 2022
Decided On : 11-06-2024
Important Points
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 Section 48A of The Advocates Act.
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Headnote
CERTIORARI - WRIT PETITION - The court addressed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash a prior order and compel an inquiry into a review petition. The court highlighted the absence of a prima facie case in the complaint, emphasizing the appropriate recourse available to the petitioner under Section 48A of The Advocates Act, which influenced the decision to dispose of the writ petition without costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash an order related to a complaint that was dropped due to lack of a prima facie case and requested a timely inquiry into a review petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint had been appropriately dismissed as no prima facie case was established. It noted that the petitioner had the option to file a Revision Petition under Section 48A of The Advocates Act.
Issues: Whether the writ petition should be allowed to quash the earlier order and compel an inquiry into the review petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the appropriate legal remedy for the petitioner was to file a Revision Petition under the Advocates Act, rather than pursuing a writ petition, as the initial complaint lacked sufficient grounds.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to file a Revision Petition before the Bar Council of India.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.C.B.Murali Krishnan
For the Respondent: Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, Standing Counsel
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Confl.No.511 of 2022 dated 11.05.2022 issued by the first respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondent 1 to 2 to conduct the enquiry in the Review Petition filed by the petitioner on 31.01.2022 within a reasonable time.
Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu brought to the notice of this Court that the complaint submitted by the writ petitioner was dropped, since no prima facie case has been established. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, she is at liberty to prefer a Revision Petition under Section 48A of The Advocates Act before the Bar Council of India.
2. With the above liberty, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
