1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (140) CWP-3072-2025(O&M)

Date of Decision: 04.02.2025 SANDEEP CHOUDHARY ...Petitioner Versus PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Rana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate Mr. Manav Dhull, Advocate Ms. Anu Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents No.3 to 8.

Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Returning Officer.

*****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (Oral)

1. Mr. Manav Dhull, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 and filed vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the hereinafter extracted reliefs:

“for issuance of writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned complaint dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), Order dated

2-

18.12.2024 (Annexure P-5), order dated 21.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), order dated 05.01.2025 (Annexure P-14), order dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure P-15) and the order dated 22.01.2025 which was conveyed vide letter dated 25.01.2025, (Annexure P-21) and the order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-22) which was passed by the Special Committee whereby certain directions have been issued in defiance to the provisions of Section 35 of the Advocate Act, 1961 and also in defiance to the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India applicable to respondent Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and for staying the operation of the impugned complaint dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure P- 3), Order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-5), order dated 21.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), order dated 05.01.2025 (Annexure P-14), order dated 14.01.2025 (Annexure P-15) and the order dated 22.01.2025 which was conveyed vide letter dated 25.01.2025, (Annexure P-21) as well as order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-22) or in the alternative further proceedings before the Special Committee as well as before the Disciplinary Committee may kindly be stayed qua the petitioner, in the interest of justice or issue any other direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

3. Mr. B.S. Rana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits, that the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-21), rather is only an interim order passed on a complaint filed by one Jagmal Singh, Advocate, alleging therein, that there were large scale bunglings in constructing the chambers for the Advocates of

3-

the District Bar Association, Karnal, inasmuch as, thereins the hereinafter extracted recommendations were made, but thus in terms of Section 6-D of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1961’) provisions whereof as well as the apposite recommendations become extracted hereinafter:-

“6. Functions of State Bar Councils.―(1) The functions of a State Bar Council shall be― (a) to admit persons as advocates on its roll; (b) to prepare and maintain such roll; (c) to entertain and determine cases of misconduct against advocates on its roll; (d) to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates on its roll;”

Recommendations “(i) The Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana is custodian of the advocates enrolled under it and is duty bound to safe guard their interest as legislated in section 6(d) of Advocates Act, 1961. Large scale bungling has taken place on account of act and conduct of Sh. Sandeep Chaudhry in floating and inviting tender causing a loss of more than Rupees one crore which eventually would make a bigger hole in the pockets of allottees and later refusing to produce the relevant record by assailing the authority of Bar Council speak volume about the picture hidden behind it. Leaving aside the question of authority of Bar, at least a transpare