P.C.

1. We have heard Mr. Santosh Paul, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner appears in person. At the outset we may observe that the petitioner stated before us on the earlier occasion, that as the proceedings are against the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) and as also against the Bar Council of India (BCI), she could not engage the services of an advocate who would be willing to file vakalatnama on her behalf. Mr. Paul, Senior Advocate has appeared for the petitioner. He intends to make submissions through Video Conferencing. Considering the well settled principles, as also recognised under the Advocates Act, a litigant needs to be permitted to be represented by a person of his/her choice in court proceedings. Accordingly we intend to hear Mr. Paul, learned Senior Advocate.

2. The writ petition is served on the Respondents. On 14th January 2025, we had issued notice when the following order was passed:-

1. Petitioner has filed this petition in-person. She states that she intends to be represented by an Advocate on record. Let Vakalatnama on behalf of petitioner be accordingly entered.

2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 21 January 2025.

3. In addition to Court notice, the petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by private service by all permissible modes and place on record an affidavit of service before the returnable date.

4. In the event, despite service the respondents are not represented, the Court shall hear the appearing parties and pass appropriate orders.

5. Ms. Sairuchita Chowdhary appears and states that Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, usually appears as counsel for Respondent No.2-Bar Council of India. She waives service for Respondent No.2. A copy of the petition be served on the Advocate for respondent No.2 during the course of the day.

6. Stand over to 21 January 2025.

3. The present proceeding was listed yesterday at Sr. No. 52, however as it did not reach it’s turn for hearing, an application was made by the petitioner at the time, of rising of the Court for the day, when the respondents were also present through their Advocates that the proceedings be taken today for hearing on interim reliefs, considering the urgency.

4. At the outset we may note that no reply affidavit in opposition, either to the admission of the writ petition or on interim reliefs is filed by any of the respondents, although, in our opinion when there was sufficient notice for a short affidavit to be placed on record.

5. Be that as it may, as submitted by Mr. Paul yesterday as also today, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is praying for urgent ad-interim relief of a stay to the impugned order which is stated to be passed by Respondent No.2 Bar Councel of India (for short “BCI”), although the complaint against the petitioner was filed before Respondent No.1- Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (for short “BCMG”) under Section 35 of the Act.

6. Mr. Paul has drawn our attention to the record, more particularly to contend that three advocates (the complainants), who are stated to be the members of the Advocate Association of Western India (for short “AAWI”) were aggrieved by certain actions of the petitioner in respect of an incident which was alleged to have taken place in Room No.18 -Bar Room, provided to the AAWI, in the premises of the Bombay High Court. The alleged incident is dated 4 April 2016 which is inter alia to the effect that the petitioner had thrown on the floor the briefs of the complainants and that such actions were videographed by one of the complainants. It appears that in this regard there are complaints and cross complaints on such incident. The complainants contended that they being the members of the AAWI, they were sitting at a particular place in Room No.18, and their place was sought to be used by the petitioner to their inconvenience. It appears that on such issue, there were quarrels and disputes between the petitioner and these complainants wh