SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
J.Jayapaul Mohan - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.9303 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.9853 of 2019
Decided On : 11-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.T.K.Sathiaseelan
For the Respondent: Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, Mr.G.Gopinath

IMPORTANT POINT
A writ of mandamus is not maintainable when the matter has already been adjudicated by the appropriate authority.

Headnote:

MANDAMUS - ENROLMENT OF ADVOCATES - The court addressed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to initiate criminal proceedings against an enrolled advocate. The court highlighted that the Bar Council had already conducted an inquiry and passed a final order, rendering the petition infructuous. This interpretation of existing legal proceedings influenced the court's decision to dispose of the writ petition without further action.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus to direct the Bar Council to initiate criminal proceedings against the 2nd respondent, an enrolled advocate, based on a complaint by the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Bar Council had already taken action on the complaint, conducted an inquiry, and issued a final order, thus negating the need for further proceedings.

Issues: Whether the writ petition for mandamus was maintainable given that the Bar Council had already addressed the complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the Bar Council had already resolved the matter, the writ petition was rendered infructuous and could not proceed.

Result: The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous, and no costs were awarded.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against the 2nd respondent Enrolment as an Advocate in Ms.No.958 of 2018 dated 27.06.2018 in speedy manner and punish him in accordance with law and remove the 2nd respondent from the enrolment on the file of the 1st respondent and pass any other suitable orders.

Mr.G.Gopinath, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent would submit that the complaint submitted by the writ petitioner was taken on file, the enquiry was conducted and final order has been passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in T.N.E.C.R.No.32/2021 dated 13.12.2022.

2. Thus, the cause did not exist and Consequently, the Writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top