Bombay High Court
Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal S/O Late ... vs The Advocate General Of The State Of ... on 27 June, 2025
Author: M S Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:25618-DB 4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 6237 OF 2024
Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal, ]
Aged- 50 years, Occ- Advocate, ]
Son of Late Kishan Menghraj Gehi ]
Having permanent address at ]
300/ 1 A and 2, Rishabh Apartments, ]
Off S. K. Bole Road, Dadar (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 028. ] ...Petitioner
AMOL Versus
PREMNATH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
1. The Advocate General of the
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV State of Maharashtra, ]
Date: 2025.06.27
17:12:28 +0530 PWD Building, Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai - 400 032 ]
2. The Advocate General of Goa, ]
High Court of Bombay, Goa Branch, ]
Goa. ]
3. Mr Hiten Venegaonkar, ]
Chief Public Prosecutor, ]
PWD Building, Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai - 400 032
4. The Office of the 64th Metropolitan ]
Magistrate ]
Killa Court, ]
Mahapalika Marg, ]
Mumbai - 400 001. ]
Page 1 of 16
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 11:07:07 :::
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
5. The Commissioner of Police, ]
Crawford Market, Mumbai - 400 001. ]
6. The Joint Commissioner of Police, ]
Law and Order, Crawford Market, ]
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai - 400 001. ]
7. The State of Maharashtra, ]
Through the Ministry of Home, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
8. The Bar Council of Maharashtra &
Goa, ]
through its Secretary, ]
PWD Building, High Court of Bombay, ]
Mumbai - 400 032. ]
9. The Bar Council of India, ]
Through its Chairman, ]
Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra ]
as Secretary BCI is on long leave, ]
Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, ]
New Delhi - 110 002. ]
10. Mahesh Atmaram Vaswani, ]
Advocate & Press Reporter/Journalist, ]
Aged about 61 years, son of Late ]
Atmaram Vaswani ]
11. Dharini Narendra Nagda, ]
Advocate and Junior of Mahesh ]
Vaswani, Aged about 37 years, ]
Page 2 of 16
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 11:07:07 :::
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
12. Shaista Sharukh Hai @ Rajendra
Yadav, ]
Advocate and Junior of ]
Mahesh Vaswani aged about 30 years, ]
13. Shiv Kumar Jagdish Chander Khera ]
Advocate and Assoicate of ]
Mahesh Vaswani Aged about 69 years ]
Respondent 11 to 13 use common ]
address of Mahesh Vaswani, their ]
employer/associate as: Flat No. 1 Sunil ]
Building, Meera Baug Road, ]
Santacruz West, Mumbai - 400 054. ]
14. The Advocates Association of Western ]
India, ]
Room No. 36, Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai - 400 032. ]
16. The Bombay Bar Association, ]
Room no. 57, Bombay High Court, ]
Mumbai - 400 032. ]
17. The Bombay City Civil and Sessions ]
Court Bar Association ]
Mumbai - 400 032.
18. The Supreme Court Bar Assocation, ]
Supreme Court of India, ]
New Delhi - 100 001 ]
19. The Ministry of Law and Justice, ]
Through Secretary, Jaisalmer House, ]
New Delhi - 110 001. ]
Page 3 of 16
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 11:07:07 :::
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
20. Union of India ]
Through the Secretary, ]
Ministry of Law and Justice, ]
Shastri Bhavan. ]
21. The Senior Inspector of Police, ]
Azad Maidan Police Station, ]
Mumbai - 400 001. ]
22. API Prashant Patil ]
Azad Maidan Police Station ]
Mumbai - 400 001. ]
23. Deputy Commissioner of Police, ]
Zone 1, W H Marg, Mumbai - 400 001. ]
24. Deputy Commissioner of Police, ]
Zone 4, Matunga, Mumbai - 22. ]
25. Assistant Commissioner of Police, ]
Sion Division, CGS Sector 8, ]
Mumbai - 400 037. ]
26. The Ministry of Law and Judiciary, ]
State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai - 400 032. ]...Respondents
WITH
INTEERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 3411 OF 2025
Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal ]....Applicant
In the matter between
Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal ]....Petitioner
Versus
Advocate General, State of ]
Maharashtra & Ors ]...Respondents
Page 4 of 16
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2025 11:07:07 :::
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
______________________________________________________
Mr Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal, Present-In-person, through
(Video conferencing).
Mr Ajay Patil, APP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr Mahesh Vaswani, a/w Mr Shivkumar Khera, Respondent
Nos.10 and 13 in-person and for Respondent Nos.11 and
12.
______________________________________________________
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Reserved on: 25 June 2025
Pronounced on: 27 June 2025
JUDGMENT (Per M S Sonak, J)
1. Heard Mr Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal, Mr Mahesh
Vaswani and Mr Shiv Kumar Khera exhaustively in Writ
Petition No. 6237 of 2024 and Interim Application (ST) No.
2025.
2. This Writ Petition and about 39 other Petitions/Interim
Applications/Contempt Petitions have been specifically
assigned to this Bench, as several Benches have recused from
taking up these matters.
3. Though parties appearing in person (who are
themselves Advocates) are insistent that the Bench take up all
these matters at once, given the pressure on the docket, it is
not possible for this Bench to do so. There would be no time
left to attend to other matters on the cause list. Therefore, we
informed the parties that we would do our best to address the
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
matters one by one and try to resolve them to the best of our
ability. We most earnestly requested that the parties cooperate
with the Bench so that we can dispose of these matters.
4. By order dated June 13, 2025, we disposed of Interim
Application (ST) No. 11719 of 2025, filed by the
Petitioner/Applicant. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of our order
dated 13 June 2025, we were constrained to observe as
follows: -
"11. In short, we get the impression that by filing
repeated Interim Applications, the Applicant wants the
disciplinary proceedings to be stayed or, at the very least,
stalled. Valuable Court's time is consumed in dealing with his
repeated Interim Applications. Invariably, they are urgently
circulated, and the Applicant and some of the complainants
who appear in person invariably consume substantial judicial
time, which could otherwise be devoted to other pressing
matters.
12. Every time, the Court is informed that the dates in
the disciplinary proceedings are fixed after two or three
days; therefore, such applications should be taken urgently
lest the interim applications become infructuous. Though the
contesting parties are Advocates, they appear in person and,
therefore, rarely follow the mentioning norms. During
arguments, there are unpleasant exchanges and avoidable
interruptions on either side. Dictation of orders in the open
Court also becomes challenging. We are informed that
several Benches have declined to take up these matters."
5. On 20 June 2025, the Petitioner addressed an email in
which he requested that we recuse ourselves from taking up
these matters. In this email, he claimed that he cannot argue
the matter before this Bench as he was often restrained from
making full submissions.
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
6. The Petitioner and the Respondents were given full
opportunity to make their submissions on 12 June 2025. Only
thereafter did we pronounce the order dated 13 June 2025,
dismissing Interim Application (ST) No. 11719 of 2025.
However, since there was no point in joining any issues, we
decided not to take any serious cognisance of the email. On
June 23, 2025, the Petitioner sent yet another email. In this,
he tendered an "unconditional heartfelt apology" and sought
forgiveness. He stated that he was mentally upset, and this
has affected his personal and professional life. In this email,
he stated that the bench could proceed with the hearing.
7. The Petitioner also appeared through VC on 23 June
2025 at 11.00 am and tendered an unconditional apology. We
informed the Petitioner that we have not taken his previous
email amiss and that we have no hesitation in accepting his
apology. The Petitioner informed us that approximately 40
matters assigned to this Bench were scheduled to come up on
25 June 2025, and we could take up these matters despite his
earlier request that we recuse.
8. Accordingly, this matter was exhaustively heard on 25
June 2025, with the parties appearing in person repeatedly
being asked whether they had concluded their arguments or
had anything further to submit. The learned AGP for the State
reported no instructions. After an exhaustive hearing on 25
June 2025, we reserved the matter for orders.
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
9. This Petition seeks the following relief: -
"(01) This Honorable Court may grant a Writ or an order
or direction in the nature of Writ to the Advocate General
of the State of Maharashtra to pass appropriate orders on
the application dated 21. 08. 2019 or 22. 08. 2019 marked
as Annexure P/ 2 to Exhibit Ato this petition filed under
the Maharashtra Vexatious Proceedings Law.
(02) The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, this
Honorable Court be directed to appropriately consider the
directions given by this Honorable Supreme Court of India
from time to time as mentioned Supra. as have been
indicated in this petition, supra, order dt. 09. 11. 2012, 30.
11, 2012, 05. 02. 2018, 17. 08. 2018and 05. 03. 2021 and
strive to put a finality to the referred cases and may use its
powers to restrain parties from vexatious cases.
(03). The State of Maharashtra be given directions to
frame further rules in the presently Maharashtra Vexatious
Proceedings Law, attached as Annexure p/1 to Exhibit A.
(04). The Bar Council of India and Bar Council of
Maharashtra and Goa, may be given appropriate directions
to regulate the conduct of Mahesh Vaswani and his team of
Advocate, Dharini Narendra Nagda, Shiv Kumar Jagdish
Chander Khera, Shaishta Hadi
(05). All authorities including instrumentalities of the
police and persons mentioned in this petition, may be
given appropriate directions, in discretion of this
Honorable Court
(06). For such other directions as may be deemed fit and
proper."
10. At the very outset, Mr Chanderpal informed us that
because several Benches have recused from hearing the
Petitions in which he is involved, he had instituted Writ
Petition (Criminal) No. 121 of 2024 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. He submitted that this Writ Petition was
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7
March 2024 on the ground that the Petitioner has an
efficacious alternate remedy of approaching this Court. He
submitted that this Petition was filed on 25 March 2024 in
pursuance of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its order dated 7 March 2024.
11. Mr Chanderpal then invited our attention to orders
dated 9 November 2012 and 30 November 2012 in Transfer
Petition (CRL) No. 224 of 2012. He emphasised paragraphs 2
and 3 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 9
November 2012. He also pointed out how the order dated 30
November 2012 had clarified that the Petitioner would be at
liberty to raise all questions which he had raised in the
Transfer Petitions as well as the Writ Petitions before the
Special Bench of this Court.
12. The order dated November 9, 2012, in Transfer Petition
(CRL) No. 224 of 2012, is transcribed below for the
convenience of reference.
"1. In the six transfer petitions and one writ petition,
which had been filed by the petitioner, appearing in
person, since certain allegations have been made, we had
asked for a Report from the Bombay High Court, which has
since been filed. The said Report is to be confined only to
the purpose of disposal of these matters an is not to be
used in any other forum.
2. Having heard the petitioner in person and learned
senior counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that
since a Special Bench has been constituted by the Chief
Justice of the Bombay High Court, to hear the various
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
petitions, which have been filed by the petitioner and are
pending disposal, the transfer petitions are disposed of as
not pressed.
4. We also make it clear that none of the submissions
and observations made in these proceedings before us
shall, in any way, prejudice the outcome of the pending
matters before the said Bench.
5. If there is/are any other pending application(s) filed
by the petitioner, which are not covered by the order of the
Chief Justice, the same may also be directed to be heard
along with the said matters before the said Bench.
6. The transfer petitions and the writ petition and the
writ petition are disposed of in the above terms."
13. Regarding prayer clause (01) Mr Chanderpal invited our
attention to the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention)
Act, 1971 ("the said Act"), which is at Annexure-P/1 (pages
48 to 50 of the paper book). He submitted that he had applied
to the learned Advocate General to act under the said Act
because as many as 41 Writ Petitions and judicial proceedings
of vexatious nature were filed by some of the Respondents in
this Petition against him. He pointed out that, although this
Application was made in 2019, no action had been taken by
the learned Advocate General; therefore, relief in terms of the
prayer clause (01) should be granted by this Court. He
pointed out that his application to the learned Advocate
General was at Annexure-P/2 to this Petition.
14. Regarding prayer clause (02), Mr Chanderpal referred
us to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in
the prayer clause and submitted that this Court must 'strive to
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
put a finality to the referred cases and may use its powers to
restrain parties from vexatious cases'.
15. Regarding prayer clause (03), he submitted that the said
Act had made no provisions for framing any Rules for its
effective implementation. He submitted that the said Act had
several lacunae. Therefore, he submitted that we should direct
the State of Maharashtra 'to frame further rules in the
presently Maharashtra Vexatious Proceedings Law...'.
16. Regarding prayer clauses (04) and (05) Mr Chanderpal
submitted that we should issue directions to the Bar Council
of India and Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to give
appropriate directions for regulating the conduct of the
Advocates referred to in this prayer clause. Mr Chanderpal
submitted that similar directions should also be given to 'all
authorities including instrumentalities of police and persons
mentioned in this Petition'.
17. Mr Chanderpal, in the context of relief in terms of
prayer clause (04), submitted that the Bar Council of India
and the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa may also give
appropriate directions to regulate the Petitioner's conduct,
should these authorities find anything objectionable in the
Petitioner's conduct.
18. Mr Chanderpal then referred to the Judgment and Order
dated 07 July 2011 disposing of Criminal Writ Petition No.
1797 of 2011 instituted by him. He submitted that this
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
Judgment and Order should not come in the Petitioner's way
because of the orders made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
9 November 2012 and 30 November 2012.
19. We specifically enquired of Mr Chanderpal if he had any
further submissions to make in support of the Petition. Upon
his stating that he had concluded his submissions, we called
upon the Respondents to make their submissions.
20. Mr Vaswani and Mr Shiv Khera submitted that this Court
dismissed at least three to four similar Petitions in the past.
They placed on record the Judgment and Order dated 07 July
2011 disposing of Criminal Writ Petition No. 1797 of 2011. Mr
Khera sought time up to 03.00 p.m. to produce the orders in
three other cases. Such time was granted, making it clear that
no further extension would be granted. Mr Chanderpal was
also informed that this limited liberty was given to Mr Shiv
Khera.
21. Mr Vaswani and Mr Shiv Khera submitted that there was
no obligation on the learned Advocate General to take
cognisance of the Petitioner's Application. In any event, they
had not indulged in any vexatious proceedings.
22. Mr Vaswani and Mr Khera submitted that the orders
referred to in prayer clause (02) do not assist the Petitioner in
any manner. They submitted that no directions can be given to
frame rules, and the Bar Councils had already initiated
proceedings against the Petitioner. They submitted that the
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
prayer clause (05) was vague and frivolous. They submitted
that this Petition should be dismissed.
23. By way of rejoinder, Mr Chanderpal once again referred
to the orders made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
submitted that in terms of such orders, this Petition must be
decided on its merits.
24. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
25. However, before we address the rival contentions, we
suggest that the parties explore the possibility of an amicable
settlement. We also pointed out to them that there were
almost 40 matters on the board concerning them, which puts
tremendous stress because these matters, along with several
other matters on the cause list, must be attended to. Both
parties expressed the anguish they were going through due to
these proceedings. The parties informed this bench that
several previous benches of this Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court have tried to persuade them to explore the
possibility of settlement; however, the parties were categorical
that no settlement is possible, and therefore, we should
proceed to decide all the matters.
26. Regarding the first prayer clause, we are afraid that
similar prayers have been rejected in the past. Though we do
not wish to non-suit the Petitioner on the ground of previous
rejections, though we think that this would be a good ground,
we note that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
case, it would not be appropriate for us to issue any writ to
the learned Advocate General to dispose of Petitioner's
Application urging the learned Advocate General to take out
proceedings under the said Act.
27. This is a matter where each party is alleging vexatious
proceedings by the other. It is doubtful whether the
proceedings referred to under the said Act would include the
proceedings before a Bar Council. As noted earlier, there are
almost 40 matters on today's cause list concerning these
parties. Repeatedly, Interim Applications are filed, and urgent
circulation is sought. There is no point under such
circumstances to direct the learned Advocate General to
decide the Petitioner's Application and expand the theatre of
conflict by involving the learned Advocate General in these
disputes.
28. Regarding the second prayer clause, we have, with the
assistance of Mr Chanderpal, perused each of the orders
referred to in this prayer clause. As noted earlier, we tried to
explore the possibility of a settlement with the parties.
However, for the present, we can only note that efforts in this
direction have failed. These orders indicate, and even the
parties confirmed, that efforts were made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court to see if the parties could reach some
settlement. Therefore, we cannot grant any relief in terms of
the prayer clause (02), which is to 'strive to put a finality to
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
the referred cases and may use its powers to restrain parties
from vexatious cases'.
29. Regarding the prayer clause (03), we are concerned that
we cannot issue any writ to the State or the Legislature to
enact a law or frame rules. If, according to the Petitioner,
there are lacunae in the said Act, it is for him to pursue the
matter with some other forum. Still, we cannot issue the writ
either to the State or to the legislature to enact a law or to
remove the so-called lacunae in the law.
30. We are informed that several proceedings and cross-
proceedings are pending before the Bar Council. The Bar
Council is seized of these matters, and in such circumstances,
it is not for us to direct the Bar Council to regulate the
conduct of any Advocate. This means that the Bar Council is
addressing the issue of regulating the conduct of the parties
involved. No relief in terms of the prayer clause (04) can
therefore be granted.
31. Prayer clause (05) is very vague and widely worded. It
seeks directions to 'all authorities including instrumentalities
of police and persons mentioned in this Petition in the
discretion of this Honourable Court'.
32. This Court cannot issue such omnibus or stray directions
based on the pleadings in this Petition. There are no proper
pleadings, and the allegations lack clarity. Such omnibus
directions can cause significant harm. Each party has its
4-WPST-6237-2024 WITH IAST-3411-2025-J (F).DOCX
interpretation, which often leads to contempt petitions being
filed.
33. No separate arguments were advanced regarding
Interim Application (St) No. 3411 of 2025.
34. Accordingly, we dispose of the Writ Petition (St) No.
6237 of 2024 and Interim Application (St) No. 3411 of 2025.
No costs.
Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
