Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10503 HP
Judgement Date : 29 July, 2024
( 2024:HHC:5977 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Review Petition No. 54 of 2024
.
Reserved on : July 18 , 2024
Decided on: July 29 , 2024
Abhimanyu Rathore ...Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar General,
High Court of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Petitioner in person.
For the respondents : Nemo
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Writ petition instituted by the petitioner was dismissed on
16.05.2024 being not maintainable. Petitioner seeks review of the
said decision on the grounds that:-
i) Section 58B of the Advocates Act, 1961 could not be referred during hearing of the case. As per this provision, it is only the State Bar Council that has
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
the jurisdiction to take penal action against an Advocate on its roll. Therefore, it was beyond the
.
domain of the respondent - Bar Association or its
Disciplinary Committee to impose any penalty or to take any action against the petitioner.
ii) Writ petition did not suffer from non-joinder of necessary parties.
2. Both the above grounds are not tenable for maintaining the
review petition. r
3. Following questions were deliberated in the writ petition:-
(i) "whether disciplinary action initiated by an unregistered Bar Association against one of its members could be subject matter for consideration by
this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?" and
(ii) "Is there any public element involved for this Court to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against the office bearers or members of the HP High Court Bar Association?"
Both the above questions were answered in the negative.
In terms of the decision dated 16.05.2024 (sought to be reviewed), it
was held that there was no public law element involved in the case;
The Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association was not a
registered Society; Disciplinary action against a member of the High
Court Bar Association as per norms/bye-laws of the Association is
under the realm of private law. There is no public law element
.
involved in the dispute between a member of the H.P. High Court
Bar Association such as the petitioner and the said Association and
since the said Association is not a registered Society; Merely
because its members are Advocates, who appear in the High Court
and assist in the administration of justice, it cannot be said that the
writ petition against its office bearers in their personal capacity is
maintainable. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as not
maintainable.
4. By pleading that only the Bar Council of Himachal
Pradesh has power to take action against the Advocates on its
rolls, the petitioner wants this Court to hold in review petition that
action cannot be taken against him by the High Court Bar
Association. Suffice to observe we have already held that the writ
petition against the Himachal Pradesh High Court Bar Association
will not be maintainable. For that reason there is no need for us to
go into this question as well as the other question about non-joinder
of necessary parties.
5. There is no error apparent on the face of record in the
judgment sought to be reviewed. No case for review within the four
corners of law in terms of established parameters is made out. As
such, review petition is dismissed.
.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand
disposed of.
( M.S. Ramachandra Rao ),
Chief Justice
July 29 , 2024 (PK)
r to ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua),
Judge
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!