2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN
T.SUNDAR RAJAN – Appellant
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.11.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P.No.30262 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.29864 and 29865 of 2023
1.T.Sundar Rajan
2.Bhargavi Sundar Rajan ... Petitioners Vs.
1.Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, Represented by its Secretary, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.
2.The Disciplinary Committee No.IV, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry, High Court Campus, Chennai - 600 104.
3.K.Jayalakshmi
4.R.Susheela
5.The Bar Council of India, Rep. by its Secretary, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, to transfer the Disciplinary Proceedings D.C.C.No.62 of 2023, pending on the file of the respondents 1 and 2 to the file of the fifth respondent or to the Bar Council of Karanataka or Andhra Pradesh for continuation of enquiry.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Thiagarajan Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Gunaseelan For Respondents : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar Standing Counsel for R1, R2 and R5 Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar for R3 and R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
Seeking transfer of the case in DCC No.62 of 2023 from the file of the respondents 1 and 2 to the file of the 5th respondent or to the Bar Council of Karnakata or Andhra Pradhesh, the petitioners who are practising advocates, have preferred this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The respondents 3 and 4 herein made a complaint dated 03.11.2022 before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, alleging that without proper authorization and by forging their signatures in the vakalat in collusion with their brothers viz., V.Palanivel and V.Soundararajan, the petitioners appeared for them in C.R.P.Nos.2564 and 2565 of 2017 and thereby, committed professional misconduct. The said complaint was taken on file as Complaint No.508 of 2022, which, vide resolution no.67 of 2023 dated 03.02.2023, was forwarded to the disciplinary committee for enquiry and the same was numbered as DCC No.62 of 2023. Pending the same, the petitioners preferred WP.No.10653 of 2023 seeking to quash the said disciplinary proceedings and by order dated 06.04.2023, the writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds along with the material documents before the disciplinary committee.
3. According to the petitioners, there are various proceedings pending before the civil court between the complainants and their brothers, in respect of their family properties. The brothers preferred suits in O.S.No. 610 of 2022 and O.S.No.208 of 2023 before the District Court, Chengalpet, against their sisters / 3rd and 4th respondents, for specific performance of the family arrangement, whereas the fourth respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No. 142 of 2023 against her brother V.Palanivel and others, in which, the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Mr.P.S.Amalraj appears for her. In such circumstances, the petitioners have a reasonable apprehension that there may not be any fair justice and there is a likelihood of bias in the disciplinary proceedings. It is also alleged that the complaint is being proceeded by the Disciplinary Committee, with undue haste and without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their objections. Therefore, this writ petition came to be filed for the relief as stated supra.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is a dispute between the respondents 3 and 4 / complainants and their siblings, namely Mr. V. Palanivel, Mrs. Selvarani, Mr.V.Soundararajan, and Mrs. Vijayakumari, who are the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th petitioners in C.R.P. Nos. 2564 and 2565 of 2017. This dispute arose, when a release deed was sought by the brothers as