1.In the above writ petitions and series of other Writ Petitions, the Co - operative Banks and Societies have challenged S.57 (2a) and S.29 - G (6) of the Co - operative Societies Act on the ground that the same were arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

2. When the matter was resting at that, there arose a controversy before me when the Counsel for the petitioner on record Sri K. M. Nataraj had orally sought for permission to engage the services of another Advocate, Sri A. G. Holla (as he then was) to argue the matter on his behalf. Such a situation in fact arose before me time and again in some other matters too and as I was of the considered view that such a permission were to be granted only in the event a case is made out within the meaning of R.3 of Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959 (henceforth referred to as the High Court Rules) and further that in the absence of that, an Advocate not on record would be acting as a Senior Advocate designated by this Court in exercise of the powers conferred on it under S.16 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

3. This is how a sub-issue had cropped up before me in the above writ petitions. I do understand the stand I have taken might have embarrassed some of the learned Advocates who were appearing before this Court. But I could not help myself, than to invite an argument on the issue in view of the above stand I have taken and, it is thereupon, the learned Counsel for the petitioners on record Sri K. M. Nataraj in the above writ petitions had filed a memo on 7-7-99 to the effect that, he having filed Vakalath for the petitioners in the above writ petitions had engaged Sri A. G. Holla, the Advocate (as he then was) to argue on his behalf under R.3 (2) of Chapter V of the High Court of Karnataka Rules read with O.3 R.4 (6) proviso of Civil Procedure Code (Karnataka Amendment) for arguing the case before this Court.

4. On 7-7-99, I also directed the Registry to issue notices to the Karnataka State Bar Council as the said stand taken by me affected certain class of Advocates practising before this Court and upon service of notice to the Bar Council as directed, the learned Counsel Sri S. R. Venkatesh Murthy had filed power for the Karnataka State Bar Council and he being on record, Sri B. V. Acharya, the Senior Advocate had argued the matter on behalf of the Karnataka State Bar Council; besides, Sri S. P. Shankar, an advocate of good standing practicing before this Court had also wanted to assist the Court on behalf of the younger members of the Bar as Amicus Curiae and accordingly on 21-7-99, the learned Advocate Sri S. P. Shankar was permitted to enter appearance and address his side of the argument. He had since filed a Memo of Appearance before Court.

5. It is thus, I heard the learned Advocate Sri A. G. Holla for and on behalf of the petitioners in the above writ petitions, the learned Senior Advocate Sri B. V. Acharya appearing for the State Bar Council and the learned Advocate Sri S. P. Shankar appearing as Amicus Curiae before the Court.

6. The learned Advocate Sri A. G. Holla (as he then was) had led the argument. The proposition made by him is as hereunder :
'An Advocate who had filed Vakalath in a case in the High Court can engage any other Advocate to argue the case on his behalf without permission of the Court. In any event, Court cannot refuse permission if permission is sought for orally under such circumstances.'

7. At the outset, Sri A. G. Holla had argued that right to practice of an Advocate is a statutory right guaranteed under Art.19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. He had also taken me through the provision under S.29 and 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (henceforth in brief referred to as the Advocates Act) and further S.14 of the Indian Bar Council Act, 1926 (henceforth in brief referred to as the Bar Council Act). In doing that, Sri A. G. Holla had also submitted that S.14 of the Bar Council Act is on similar lines as in S.30 of the Advocates Act. According to Sri Holla, if