Chattisgarh High Court
State Bar Council Of Chhattisgarh vs Mallika Bal on 21 July, 2022
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. 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
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 any appeal and therefore, there is no bar in preferring the appeal.
He submits that though a number of grounds have been urged in the writ
appeal, the only direction that is sought for by the appellants is to permit
the appellants to conduct enquiry as the order of termination had been set
aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
7. Mr. Singh submits that while it is correct that Covid-19 pandemic had
intervened in the interregnum and period of limitation has been extended
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by passing various orders in Suo Moto Writ
Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, present is not a case where because of Covid-
19 pandemic, the appellants had not filed the appeal earlier. Present is a
case where because of a conscious decision taken by the Executive
Committee of the State Bar Council, which is the disciplinary authority, the
respondent / writ petitioner was reinstated in service and back-wages have
been paid in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge and the same
signifies that preferring an appeal was far from contemplation. Change of
guard will not facilitate filing of appeal, more so, in absence of any
averment that the appellants had reviewed the earlier order of the
Executive Committee. Rather, there is a deliberate suppression of material
facts and therefore, the delay ought not to be condoned.
8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the materials of record.
9. A perusal of the order dated 24.01.2020 goes to show that based on
a legal opinion, the Chairman had taken a call to ensure compliance of the
order of the learned Single Judge and the note of the Secretary also goes
to show that the members of the Executive Committee had also endorsed
for compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge.
10. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, had noted
that the suspension order, the charge-sheet and the termination order did
not have the approval of the Executive Committee, which is the disciplinary
authority, and all orders had been unilaterally passed by the Chairman of
the State Bar Council.
11. In the application for condonation of delay, there is no whisper that a
decision was earlier taken to ensure compliance of the order of this Court,
which signifies that there was no intention of preferring an appeal. It is to
be noted that the elected body had continued for more than a year after the
decision dated 24.01.2020 was taken. Even otherwise, charge-sheet
having been quashed, the submission advanced by Mr. Tiwari that
disciplinary proceedings be allowed to continue as the order of termination
was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, is
not tenable.
12. In view of the above, notwithstanding the fact that the delay is said to
be of 21 days (excluding the period of limitation due to order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 ), we are of the
opinion that delay ought not to be condoned as the appellants have not
made true and correct disclosures of relevant factual matrix in the
application for condonation of delay.
13. In that view of the matter, I.A. No. 1 of 2020 is dismissed.
14. In view of the above, writ appeal also stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
