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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 288766

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
SRI ASIF ALI SHAIK HUSSSAIN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 36812/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 36812 OF 2025 (GM-WAKF)

BETWEEN:

SRI ASIF ALI SHAIK HUSSSAIN

S/O LATE. SHAIKH HUSSAIN,

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

AMEENPUR STREET, GADAQ ROAD,

KOPPAL-583231.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL., SR. ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. MAHAMMED TAHIR A.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE,

HAJ AND WAQFS, VIKASA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU 560 001

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL,

Digitally signed OLD ELECTION COMMISSION BUILDING

by SHWETHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

RAGHAVENDRA

BENGALURU 560 001

Location: HIGH

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

3. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF,

NO. 6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,

VASANTH NAGAR,

BENGALURU 560 051 REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R1;

SRI. P. USMAN., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE

NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.MWD-WES/56/2024 DTD. 28.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-H AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

a. "To issue Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned order bearing No.MWD-WES/56/2024 dated 28.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1 at Annexure-H.

b. Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case. "

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that despite the Petitioner still continuing to be a member of the Karnataka State Bar Council (‘KSBC’ for short) by virtue of the order/notification dated 28.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.1, the membership of the Petitioner with Respondent No.3 has been terminated on account of his tenure as a member of the KSBC having allegedly come to an end on 03.11.2025.

3. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the election to the KSBC was held on 27.03.2018. Though the results were declared on 27.06.2018, notification was issued only on 05.11.2018, and as such, the term of 5 years of the Petitioner would expire on 04.11.2023. In terms of Section 8 of Advocates Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Advocates Act’ for short) the Bar Council of India had extended the term by a period of 6 months and as such, the term continued until 03.05.2024 and in terms of Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2015’ for short), the term of the members of the Bar Council had been extended so as to complete the process of verification within 18 months and complete the process of election within a period of 6 months therefrom.

4. On the above basis, he submits that the term stood extended by a period of 24 months and as such, will continue in force until 02.05.2026.

5. His submission is that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 on the premise that the Petitioner's term would come to an end on 03.11.2025 is misplaced since a period prescribed under Rule 32 of Rules, 2015 has not been taken into consideration by Respondent No.1.

6. Learned AGA on behalf of Respondent No.1 submits that when a notice had been issued, Respondent No.2 had indicated that the term comes to an end on 03.11.2025 and it is on that basis that the order has been passed. Rule 32 of Rules, 2015 not having been brought to notice by either the KSBC or by the Petitioner, the same could not be taken into consideration.

7. Heard Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1, Sri P. Usman, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the papers.

8. There is no dispute insofar as the election of the Petitioner is co

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top