IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.01.2025 Date of Decision : January 29, 2025 Naresh Dilawari ...Petitioner V/S Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present : Mr. Naresh Dilawari (Petitioner in person)

Mr. B.S. Rana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate and Mr. Manav Dhull, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 3.

Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for respondent No.5 (in person)

Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.6 (in person)

Mr. Vipul Goel, Advocate for respondent No.7 (in person).

***

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for the quashing of the complaint No.CC/162/2022 (Annexure P-1) titled as ‘Om Parkash V/s Naresh Dilawari, Advocate’. The (supra) complaint became filed before DC VIII i.e. respondent No.2. He further seeks the quashing of the impugned notice dated 12.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) and of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The petitioner received notice dated 12.11.2022 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.1, calling for reply/comments within fortnight, thus on a complaint filed by respondent No.4 (Om Parkash). The petitioner filed reply (Annexure P-3) which was duly received in the office of respondent No.1, and the petitioner received notice from respondent No.3 i.e. Disciplinary Committee VIII, asking the petitioner to appear before it, as the complaint titled ‘Om Parkash V/s Naresh Dilawari’, had been referred to it for hearing.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that there is no relationship of counsel and client between the petitioner and the complainant. In fact, the complainant is proxy of Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate who is blackmailing the petitioner, since the year 2018, owing to his influence in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association and in the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. As such, the complainant has filed, the instant complaint, without any locus standi.

4. He further submits that the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) was referred to the Disciplinary Committee, but without thus formation of the required “reason to believe”, whereas, the formation(s) of “reason to believe”, becomes ordained in Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) provision whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, to be the pre-requisite statutory requirement or a necessary statutory precursor rather for subsequently a valid reference being made to the disciplinary committee.

“35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct.―(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.”

5. Though the (supra) statutory necessities as become embodied in Section 35 of the Act of 1961, though are purportedly stated to become embodied in the impugned notice (Annexure P-2). However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the prior thereto (supra) statutory necessities, as become enjoined to become performed by the State Bar Council, inasmuch as, before it, referring the complaint (Annexure P-1) to the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council, thus the State Bar Council forming “reason to believe”, that the present petitioner is guilty of professional or other misconduct, but obviously remain unperformed.

6. The reasons for the incorporation of the (supra) statutory pre- requisites or the (supra) statutory precursors, for therebys a valid relevant reference being made by the State Bar Council, to its disciplinary committee rather for the latter, making a hearing upon the alleged professional misconduct or other misconduct, as becomes indulged into by the advocate concerned, thus is to ensure that unnecessary and frivolous complaints, rather do not