Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Geeta Ramanugrah Shastri, an advocate practicing since 1985 and having served as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Government Pleader, challenged an order-cum-report dated 20-09-2022 passed by Mr. Subhash Ghatge, an advocate member of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), in Disciplinary Case No. 264 of 2017. The complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent, Bansidhar Annaji Bhakad, arising from a litigation that began in the High Court and was later transferred to the City Civil Court. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order and to reject the complaint. The High Court noted that the order was passed by a single advocate member without being part of a duly constituted disciplinary committee, which lacked jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The court found that the proceedings were conducted in gross violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given proper notice or opportunity to be heard. The court also observed that the order-cum-report was cryptic and did not contain any reasoning. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the order-cum-report dated 20-09-2022, and directed the BCMG to constitute a fresh disciplinary committee to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The court also directed that the fresh proceedings be concluded within six months from the date of the order.
Headnote
A) Advocates Act, 1961 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Natural Justice - Section 35 - The order-cum-report dated 20-09-2022 passed by a single advocate member of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in DC No. 264 of 2017 was quashed as it was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that the disciplinary committee must be properly constituted and the proceedings must be conducted fairly, with notice and opportunity of hearing to the advocate concerned. (Paras 1-10) B) Advocates Act, 1961 - Disciplinary Committee - Jurisdiction - Section 36 - The order passed by an advocate member acting alone, without being part of a duly constituted disciplinary committee, was held to be without authority and void ab initio. The court emphasized that only a properly constituted disciplinary committee under Section 36 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has the jurisdiction to conduct disciplinary proceedings and pass orders. (Paras 4-8) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Article 226 - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order-cum-report dated 20-09-2022, as it was patently illegal and in violation of natural justice. The court directed the Bar Council to constitute a fresh disciplinary committee and proceed afresh in accordance with law. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order-cum-report dated 20-09-2022 passed by an advocate member of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in Disciplinary Case No. 264 of 2017 is legally valid and sustainable, and whether the proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the order-cum-report dated 20-09-2022 in DC No. 264 of 2017, and directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to constitute a fresh disciplinary committee to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The court further directed that the fresh proceedings be concluded within six months from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Advocates Act
- 1961
- Section 35
- Section 36
- Bar Council rules
- Jurisdiction of disciplinary committee
- Bias
- Reasoned order
