148 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision : 12.05.2025 DR. GURJIT KAUR AND ANR. .....Petitioners Versus BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS.

.....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate and Mr. Harinderpal Singh Ishar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate and Ms. Seema, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

****

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J .

1. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners pray for the hereinafter extracted reliefs.

Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially, a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash/set aside the :

i. Complaint bearing DCE No. 221 of 2024/CC-231 of

2024 dated 19.08.2024 pending before D.C. No.-II 1.e. respondent No. 2 (P-1), ii. Complaint bearing DCE No. 222 of 2024/CC-232 of

2024 dated 19.08.2024 before D.C. No.-II ie. respondent No. 2 (P-2), iii. Complaint bearing DCE No. 223 of 2024/CC-233 of

224 dated 19.08.2024 before D.C. No.-II i.e. respondent No. 2 (P-3), iv. Resolution of complaint CC-231-24 passed in the General House meeting of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh held on 25.11.2024, whereby said complaint ordered to be referred for disposal to D.C. No. II (P-4), v. Resolution of complaint CC-232-24 passed in the General House meeting of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh held on 25.11.2024, whereby said complaint ordered to be referred for disposal to D.C. No. II (P-5).

vi. Resolution of complaint CC-233-24 passed in the General House meeting of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh held on 25.11.2024, whereby said complaint ordered to be referred for disposal to D.C. No. II (P-6), And to quash all incidental, consequential, subsequent proceedings arising out of all of the above impugned complaints and orders/resolutions.

2. It has been averred in the writ petition that false, frivolous and vexatious complaints (Annexures P-1 to P-3) have been filed by the respondents/real estate builders, with an ulterior motive, malice and personal vendetta, stemming from the petitioners' refusal to accept the bribes offered to them by the respondents, as well as generates from a grudge nursed against them from their steadfast refusal to not withdraw from representing the land owners/clients in the respective cases.

3. Further, the petitioners' also seek relief for setting aside of the resolutions (Annexures P-4 to P-6), made upon the apposite complaints, thus by the respondent Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, wherebys, the respondent, in a mechanical manner, referred the complaints (supra) to the Disciplinary Committee – II, and that too without calling for replies from the petitioners-Advocates. Resultantly, it is contended that the principles of natural justice become breached.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the impugned complaints (Annexures P-1 to P-3) were 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 prerequisite 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 resolutions (Annexures P-4 to P-6). However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the prior thereto (supra) statutor