Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Seth vs Secretary / Registrar ... on 12 July, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138305-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11345 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rakesh Seth
Respondent :- Secretary / Registrar Disciplinary Committee And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bakhteyar Yusuf
Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Singh,Amit Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, who accepted notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following main reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice dated 29.01.2022 contained in letter no.745/22, issued under the Signature of respondent no.1 (Annexure No.7).
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the proceeding of review initiated in Case No.125 of 2018 (Ashok Kumar Vs. Rakesh Seth) by the Disciplinary Committee, Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, Prayagraj.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 and stay the further proceedings of reviewing the order dated 18.09.2021 passed in favour of the petitioner in Case No.125 of 2018 by the respondent no.1."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Advocate and a complaint had been filed against him by the respondent no.2 before the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council in which notices were issued against him. The petitioner appeared before the Committee and filed his written statements. Thereafter, the Committee vide its order dated 18.09.2021 rejected the complaint filed by the respondent no.2.
4. Against the order dated 18.09.2021 passed by the Committee, the respondent no.2 filed a review application in which notice has been issued to the petitioner on 29.01.2022. Feeling aggrieved by notice dated 29.01.2022 issued by the Secretary/Registrar Disciplinary Committee, Uttar Pradesh Bar Council, Prayagraj, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. Sri Bakhtiyar Yusuf, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already entered appearance before the disciplinary committee by filing his memo of appearance. He further states that the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner is per se not sustainable as the disciplinary committee can not sit in appeal over its own order. In support of his submission he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderchand Jain (D) through L.Rs. vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs reported in 2009 (2) ARC 671. For ready reference paragraph no.10 of the said judgement is quoted hereunder:-
"It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
Review is not appeal in disguise.
In Lily thomas v. Union of Idia [AIR 2000 SC 1650], this Court held :
"56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that once the petitioner has already entered appearance before the disciplinary committee, it is always open to him to take the aforesaid objection/plea before the disciplinary committee by filing an objection against the impugned notice.
7. With the aforesaid leave, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023
S.P.
