1 Leave granted.

2 A short but an interesting question falls for determination in the present case. It runs as under:
"Whether the respondent State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa was justified in refusing enrolment of the appellant as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 as he is a medical practitioner who does not want to give up his medical practice but wants simultaneously to practice law.
In order to appreciate the contours of controversy centering round this question, a few relevant faces leading to these proceedings are required to be noted at the outset.

3 The appellant is a permanent resident of Bombay. He is a medical practitioner (colorectal surgeon) since 1970. During the continuance of his said profession as a medical practitioner, the appellant joined LL.B. Degree Course and obtained Degree of Bachelor of Laws on 4th March. 1991. Thereafter the appellant applied to the respondent State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa for being enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This application was moved by the appellant on 26th July 1991. The appellant insisted that even though he is a medical practitioner he is entitl