##PAGE1##

D/L 1-3

19.12.2025

Court No.02

PRADIP

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 1085 of 2023

Pritam Roy

Vs.

The Bar Council of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Pritam Roy

Mr. Monisha Roy

Ms. S. Basu

… Petitioner appearing in-person.

Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rahul Mishra

…for the Siliguri Bar Association.

Mr. Amales Ray, Sr. Adv.

…Mediator

With

WPA 1090 of 2023

Prasanta Joardar & Ors.

Vs.

The Bar Council of India & Ors.

Mr. Prasanta Joardar

… Petitioner no. 1 in-person (vc).

Mr. Tapas Paul

… Petitioner no. 4 in-person.

Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rahul Mishra

…for the Siliguri Bar Association.

With

WPA 1092 of 2023

(CAN 1 of 2025)

Sri Utpal Saha

Vs.

Siliguri Bar Association & Ors.

Mr. Utpal Saha

Ms. Puja Bhupal

Ms. S. Agarwal

… Petitioner in-person.

Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rahul Mishra

…for the Siliguri Bar Association.

2

In re:- CAN 1 of 2025

1. The aforesaid application has been filed praying for

engagement of some other advocate as mediator in place

and instead of Mr. Amales Ray, Senior Advocate.

2. It appears that the order dated 25^th April, 2025 engaging

Mr. Ray to mediate the issue for finding out a solution to

the dispute that has cropped up was passed upon

consent of all the appearing parties including the Siliguri

Bar Association being the applicant in the application

CAN 1 of 2025. Despite giving consent at the time of

passing the order, the Siliguri Bar Association retracted

from its stand.

3. It has been averred in the application that the learned

advocates representing the Siliguri Bar Association

inadvertently, without knowing that Mr. Ray had in fact

represented one of the petitioners in the subject case,

consented to the engagement of Mr. Ray.

4. Though the said paragraph has been affirmed as true to

knowledge of the deponent but the same is an absolute

wrong statement. The fact that Mr. Ray appeared for one

of the parties was made known to the Court and all the

parties were aware of the same. The issue was

deliberated at length at the time of hearing and only after

all the parties including the Siliguri Bar Association gave

consent, the Court engaged Mr. Ray as mediator to find

out a solution. The mediator was engaged only in view of

the fact that the litigants are all learned members of this

noble profession and the Court expected that with the

able assistance of a senior advocate, the matter may be

resolved amicably.

3

5. The stand of the Siliguri Bar Association is not

appreciated by the Court.

6. Nevertheless, as an objection has been raised by one of

the parties, the Court recalls the direction passed in the

order dated 25^th April, 2025 and relieves Mr. Ray as

arbitrator/mediator to resolve the issue.

7. The matter will be adjudicated on merits upon hearing

all the parties.

8. As an interim measure, it is ordered that none of the writ

petitioners who are the practicing advocates will not be

restrained, inconvenienced by the Siliguri Bar

Association in any manner whatsoever while they appear

before the Judicial Officers in the course of their

profession.

9. The advocates will be entitled to practice before any

judicial forum without any restraint order from any bar

association.

10. List the matter for hearing in the next Circuit.

11. The connected application being CAN 1 of 2025 stands

disposed of.

12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all

requisite formalities.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)