Advocates:
['Palash Tiwari', '', 'Akshat Rajesh Mishra', 'SHAYON KAR', 'RAJKAMAL SINGH', '', 'vicky john', 'ANNAPURNA TIWARI', 'Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WA No. 67 of 2022

1.

State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh Through The Chairman, Bar

Council Extension Office, E Type PWD Bunglow, Near Town Hall,

Bilaspur, Tahsil- Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue, District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh 495001

2.

The Executive Council of The State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh,

Through Its President, Bar Council Extension Office, E Type PWD

Bunglow Near Town Hall, Bilaspur, Civil and Revenue District

Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001

3.

The Enquiry Committee Appointed by The Chairman, State Bar

Council of Chhattisgarh (In The Matter of Pertaining to the petitioner

Malika Bal) Through The State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh,

Extension Office, E Type PWD Bunglow Near Town Hall, Bilaspur,

Civil And Revenue, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001

---- Appellants

Versus

Mallika Bal D/o Late Shri Dilip Kumar Bal, Aged About 40 Years R/o

Nagdowne Colony, Vyapar Vihar Road, Tehsil Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue

District Bilaspur, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 495001

---- Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants

:

Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondent

:

Mr. Rajkamal Singh and

Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocates

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri

Parth Prateem Sahu

, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

21.07.2022

Heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants. Also

heard Mr. Rajkamal Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

2

2.

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 08.01.2020

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 757 of 2016, allowing the

writ petition, whereby charge-sheet dated 14.08.2015 and subsequent

termination order dated 03.03.2016 have been set aside.

3.

The writ appeal was filed on 28.01.2022.

4.

An application for condonation of delay, being I.A. No. 1 of 2022, is

filed. It is pleaded in the said application that the term of members of the

State Bar Council came to an end on 01.02.2020 and thereafter, as per

Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961, tenure of the elected members were

extended for a period of six months and thereafter, again for a further

period of six months. Subsequently, a Special Committee was constituted

on 02.02.2021 under Section 8-A of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is pleaded

that because of Covid-19 pandemic, no steps could be taken. Reliance is

placed on the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto

Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 in connection with extension of period of

limitation. It is stated that excluding the period covered in terms of the

orders passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, there is delay of

21 days in preferring the appeal.

5.

In the reply filed by the respondent / writ petitioner, it is stated that

material facts have been suppressed and that a decision was taken earlier

by the duly elected Chairman of the State Bar Council on 24.01.2020,

which was also approved by the Executive Committee, to comply with the

direction of the learned Single Judge. However, delay is sought to be

explained taking shelter of the Covid-19 pandemic and the orders passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of

3

2020. It is also pleaded that the Special Committee had been constituted

by the Bar Council of India to hold only election and further, that the

Chairman of the Special Committee also happened to be the counsel for

the appellants before the learned Single Judge. It is further stated that the

appeal has been filed only to harass the writ petitioner, who had lodged a

complaint dated 02.12.2021 against the present Secretary of the State Bar

Council and others with regard to certain audio clips and that it is the

Secretary who had signed the Vakalatnama for the appellants, though he is

not a party.

6.

Mr. Tiwari submits that no decision was taken by the Bar Council not

to prefer a