In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh [163]

D ate of Decision: 27 .02.2025 JAGMAL SINGH JATAIN ..... PETITIONER VERSUS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, 21, ROUSE ENCLAVE, INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS ......RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Manav Dhull, Advocate, Ms. Niharika Singh, Advocate Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate, Ms. Anu Chaudhary, Advocate and Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate for respondent No.2.

None for respondent No.4.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J. (ORAL)

1. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who had earlier appeared on behalf co-respondent No.4, was requested to seek instructions from the said co-respondent No.4, for his appearing on his behalf in the instant writ petition. However, Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Counsel, after having cellular communication with co-respondent No.4, apprised this Court, that he has not been instructed by the said co-respondent, thus to appear on his behalf in the instant petition, but the said co-respondent No.4, has re- quested him to beseech this Court that about 10 minutes, being granted to him, to make arrangements for a representation on his behalf becoming made today, before this Court.

2. However, despite almost more than half an hour elapsing, since Shri Kanwaljeet Singh, learned Senior counsel making the said intimation, neither co-respondent No.4 has appeared in person, nor has caused any valid representation on his behalf. Therefore, it appears that the said co-respondent is not interested to appear today before this Court. As such, this Court proceeds to decide the instant petition in the absence of co-respondent No.4.

3. Prima facie, in the passing of the impugned order, a blatant breach is caused, to the directions passed by this Court as embodied in para- graph No. 14, in the verdict rendered by this Court, in CWP No.3072 of

2025, on 04.02.2025. The said directions are extracted hereinafter:-

“14. However, without making any further detailed examination of the validity of the said reference, the larger interest of justice, do require, that unless the Special Committee which is engaged in making a probe into the allegations raised by one Mr. Jagmal Singh, Advocate, relating to the bungling of funds at the instance of the concerned in the apposite undertaken construction activity, thus, thereupto the reference which is, pri- ma facie, preceded by reasons to believe, as ordained by Section 35 of the Act, 1961, be not be actioned upon by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. In consequence, the ends of justice also require that the present petitioner be directed to to produce all the relevant records if the same are in his possession, or if not in his possession, he is thus directed to ensure that the custodian thereof, ensures production of the relevant records be- fore the Special Committee of the Bar Council concerned. The said be done within five days from today. Moreover, it is also open to the present petitioner to give a plausible reason or an ex- planation for non-production thereof. If the said reason is found to be unwarranted, thereupon, it is open to the Disciplinary Com- mittee of the Bar Council, to whom a reference has been made by the Bar Council, with thereins occurring the ordained reasons to believe, thus to proceed with the said reference. However, in the drawing of all the proceedings complete adherence be made to the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the Special Commit- tee of the Bar Council is directed to conclude the proceedings as drawn against the present petitioner, hence, in terms of Section

35 of the Act of 1961, but within 15 days from today.”

4. Moreover, it is also necessary to extract the contents of the impugned An