Karnataka High Court

K S Ravikumar vs S M Muniraja on 4 January, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                               -1-
                                                                NC: 2024:KHC:447
                                                               WP No. 37 of 2020




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                           WRIT PETITION NO.37 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
                  BETWEEN:
                  K.S.RAVIKUMAR
                  S/O. D.S.SIDDAPPA,
                  AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                  RESIDING AT FLAT NO.404,
                  B-8, KAILAS APARTMENTS,
                  JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE,
                  MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI,
                  BANGALORE-560059
                  MOBILE:7353986061
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                  (BY SRI. K.S. RAVIKUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

                  AND:
                  1.    S.M.MUNIRAJA
                        S/O. MUNIYAPPA,
                        AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
                        NO.85, 1ST FLOOR,
                        OPPOSITE SREE AYYAPPA TEMPLE,
Digitally signed by     SUBBAIAHANAPALYA,
PADMAVATHI B K
                        BANASWADI ROAD,
Location: HIGH          BANGALORE-560033
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               MOBILE:9916157902

                  2.    THE HON'BLE CHAIRMAN
                        BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA,
                        21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
                        NEAR BAL BHAWAN,
                        NEW DELHI-110 002.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                  (BY SRI. S.R.SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
                  SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC:447
                                            WP No. 37 of 2020




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REMAND BACK THE CASE D.C.APPEAL
NO.7/2015 BACK TO THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL FOR
PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, KSBC UNDER SECTION 42(d) (VIDE
ANNEXURE-F1) OF THE ACT ON 26.04.2015 FOR SUMMONS THE
DOCUMENTS FROM SL.NOs. 1 TO 12 AS MENTIONED IN THE SAID
APPLICATION, FROM THE ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION AND
OTHER AUTHORITIES AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to

respondent No.2 - Bar Council of India to remit the matter to

the Karnataka State Bar Council for consideration afresh.

2. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person, learned

counsel Sri. S.R. Sreeprasad representing respondent No.1 and

learned counsel Sri. Sridhar Prabhu representing respondent

No.2 - Bar Council of India.

3. The petitioner is the complainant. A complaint

comes to be registered before the Karnataka State Bar Council

on 26.04.2015 alleging professional misconduct on the part of

respondent No.1. That comes to be rejected by the Karnataka

NC: 2024:KHC:447

State Bar Council, which leads the complainant/petitioner

before the Bar Council of India by filing an appeal against the

said order. During the pendency of the proceedings before the

Bar Council of India, the petitioner had knocked at the doors of

this Court in W.P.No.13368/2018, which comes to be disposed

by an order dated 01.08.2019 with a direction of expeditious

disposal of the appeal at an outer limit of six months to the Bar

Council of India. During the pendency of the proceedings

before the Bar Council of India, the subject petition is preferred

by the petitioner. This Court on 03.01.2020 grants an interim

order of stay of proceedings before the Bar Council of India in

the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Bar Council of India not

being aware of the order dated 03.01.2020, rejects the appeal

filed by the petitioner for its non-prosecution owing to the

absence of the petitioner.

4. Though the petitioner has not called in question

those orders, the fact remains that those orders are passed

during the pendency of the subject petition and in the teeth of

the interim order so passed by this Court. It is therefore, the

matter is taken up as the challenge to the order passed by the

NC: 2024:KHC:447

Bar Council of India on 11.01.2020 though it is not challenged

in the form that it has to be presented before the Court.

5. The petitioner/party-in-person would contend that

on 03.01.2020, an interim order was granted in the presence of

the counsel representing the Bar Council of India. Therefore, it

is deemed information to the Bar Council of India.

Notwithstanding the grant of interim order, the Bar Council of

India could not have rejected the appeal for its non-

prosecution. He would seek restoration of the proceedings

before the Bar Council of India including all applications that

were filed by him before the Bar Council of India.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1

would vehemently refute the submission seeking to contend

that despite repeated opportunities being granted by the Bar

Council of India, the petitioner failed to appear and therefore,

no indulgence should be shown to the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 - Bar

Council of India would also submit that the Bar Council of India

was not made aware of the order passed by this Court and

NC: 2024:KHC:447

owing to continuous absence of the petitioner, the order came

to be passed terminating the appeal for its non-prosecution.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

issue lies in a narrow compass as to whether the Bar Council of

India could have passed an order in the teeth of pending

proceedings before this Court and an interim order being

granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it would suffice if

the story would commence from the date of filing of the subject

petition. As observed in the course of the order, the petitioner

is the complainant against respondent No.1, had knocked at

the doors of the Karnataka State Bar Council having failed at

the said attempt, reaches the doors of the Bar Council of India

in an appeal filed. During the pendency of the appeal, the

petitioner himself approached this Court for an expeditious

disposal of the appeal pending before the Bar Council of India

as according to the petitioner, the appeal was pending for the

last 3 ½ years and no order had been passed. This Court

disposed the petition on 01.08.2019 by the following order:-

"6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to

NC: 2024:KHC:447

Respondent No.2 to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.

Accordingly, Petition is disposed of."

9. After which, an appeal is said to have been taken

up for consideration. An application is filed by the petitioner

before the Bar Council of India. Pending those applications and

alleging non-consideration of those applications, the petitioner

prefers the subject petition. In the subject petition on

03.01.2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court passes the

following order:-

"Issue notice to respondent No.1. Smt. M.P.Geethadevi, learned advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.2.

Shri K.S.Ravikumar, party-in-person is also permitted to hand over a copy of this writ petition to Smt. M.P.Geethadevi, learned advocate.

As prayed for, by an interim direction, there shall be stay of proceedings in D.C.Appeal No.77/2015 pending on the file of Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, for a period of eight weeks."

NC: 2024:KHC:447

10. The order would read that the counsel for

respondent No.2 was directed to take notice and a copy

was also handed over to the counsel for respondent No.2

and thereafter, an interim order was granted on

03.01.2020. It is submitted that this order was not

communicated to respondent No.2 and the appeal owing to

the absence of the petitioner is closed by dismissing it for

non-prosecution. The petitioner was not aware of the said

order being passed as he was all along under the

impression that in the light of the order dated 03.01.2020

passed by this Court, no further proceedings would have

taken place before the Bar Council of India. He is made

aware of the order only after nine months of the dismissal

i.e., in the month of October, 2020.

11. The defence of respondent No.2 is that they

were not aware of the passing of the interim order and

therefore, no fault can be found with the rejection of the

appeal for its non-prosecution, is untenable. The

untenability springs from the order passed by this Court

dated 03.01.2020. Once an interim order is granted by

this Court of stay of further proceedings, interim order is

NC: 2024:KHC:447

deemed to have been come into effect from the date of its

grant i.e., 03.01.2020. Though the interim order is

granted in the presence of the counsel representing

respondent No.2, in the considered view of the Court,

respondent No.2 - Bar Council of India cannot feign

ignorance of the order that is passed on 03.01.2020 and

dismissed the appeal for its non-prosecution, as all further

proceedings in the appeal filed by the petitioner had been

stayed for a period of eight weeks. It is during that

period, an order is passed dismissing the appeal.

Therefore, the order runs counter to the interim order

passed by this Court on 03.01.2020. The defence of the

respondent No.2 as observed hereinabove is unsustainable

as it would run foul of the judgment rendered by this Court

in the case of Sriramapura Co-operative Bank Ltd., vs.

Shahar Banu reported in ILR 1992 KAR 838, wherein it

was held as follows:-

"4. The Advocate General has now brought to our notice only one Judgment, viz., Debabrata Bandopadhyay v. The State of West Bengal. On 13th January 1964 the High Court of Calcutta had directed the stay of the operation of the order of a Sessions

NC: 2024:KHC:447

Judge dated 23rd December 1963. In the meanwhile, the order of 23rd December 1963 had been acted upon in that a pay order had been issued as directed thereby, and the pay order had been encashed by 13th January 1964. It was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court observed that the stay order was ineffective since there was nothing to stay.

5. In the Judgment aforementioned, the stay order stayed the issuance of a pay order. The pay order having been issued and encashed by the time the stay order was issued, the Supreme Court observed that there was nothing to stay. The order which was stayed was spent by the time the stay order was issued.

6. In the instant case, the said stay order stayed the operation of the said appointment order appointing the respondent Special Officer of the Bank for the period of one year. The said appointment order was passed on 7th February 1991. It was stayed on 25th February, 1991. The said stay order was served on the respondent on 26th February 1991. The said appointment order passed on 7th February 1991 had not spent itself on 26th February 1991. It was intended to operate until 6th February 1992. As we understand the law, as and from 26th February 1991 onwards

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:447

the said appointment order stood suspended and ceased to be effective in law until the disposal of the Writ Petition or until further orders were passed by this Court or a higher Court setting aside or modifying the said stay order. The respondent was, therefore, active contrary to the said stay order for almost nine months after 26th February 1991."

The Division Bench of this Court holds that once the

interim order is granted, it is deemed to have been in

operation from the time it is granted, ignorance of the

interim order cannot be considered to be a plea for denial

of relief to the petitioner.

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings that respondent No.2 - Bar

Council of India terminates for non-

prosecution of the petitioner in D.C.Appeal

No.77/2015 in terms of its order dated