Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M A Hameed, an advocate enrolled with the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) under enrollment No. KAR/387/1989, had practiced for over 25 years. He filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the KSBC to accept his representation dated 19/09/2023, add his name to the practicing advocates list, return his Sanad (certificate of practice), and enter his name in the Raichur Bar Association. The petitioner had made the representation to the respondent, but it was not acted upon. The Court noted that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation to have his representation considered. The respondent, represented by Sri G. Nataraj, did not oppose the petition on merits but submitted that the representation would be considered. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the representation, directed the respondent to consider and dispose of the representation by a speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Right to Practice - Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, an advocate with over 25 years of practice, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Karnataka State Bar Council to consider his representation dated 19/09/2023 for adding his name to the practicing advocates list and returning his Sanad. The Court held that the Bar Council is bound to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as the petitioner has a legitimate expectation and right to practice. (Paras 1-4)
B) Legal Profession - Bar Council's Duty - Consideration of Representation - Advocates Act, 1961 - The Court directed the respondent Bar Council to consider the petitioner's representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, as the petitioner had made a representation which remained unresponded. The Court emphasized that the Bar Council must act fairly and in accordance with law. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Karnataka State Bar Council is obligated to consider and decide upon the representation made by the petitioner for reinstatement in the practicing advocates list and return of his Sanad.
Final Decision
The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 19/09/2023 by a speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus
- Right to practice
- Bar Council's duty to consider representation
- Natural justice
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 39
WP No. 1949 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Sri.Md.Akram Uppin for Sri.R.Kothwal (for petitioner), Sri.G.Nataraj (for respondent)
Karnataka State Bar Council
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Karnataka State Bar Council to consider the petitioner's representation for reinstatement in the practicing advocates list.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to accept his representation dated 19/09/2023, add his name to the practicing advocates list, return his Sanad, and enter his name in the Raichur Bar Association.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, an advocate with over 25 years of practice, made a representation to the Karnataka State Bar Council which was not responded to or acted upon.
Issues
Whether the Karnataka State Bar Council is obligated to consider and decide upon the representation made by the petitioner for reinstatement in the practicing advocates list and return of his Sanad.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that he had made a representation dated 19/09/2023 which was not considered by the respondent.
Respondent's counsel submitted that the representation would be considered in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ of mandamus can be issued to a statutory body like the Bar Council to consider a representation made by an advocate, as the advocate has a legitimate expectation that his representation will be considered fairly and in accordance with law.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of mandamus/direction to the respondents to accept the representation given by the petitioner dated 19/09/2023 to add the name of the petitioner in the practicing advocates list and give back his Sanad and enter his name in Raichur bar association.
Petitioner was a practising advocate who had practised for more than 25 years, having registered himself with the respondent, Karnataka State Bar Council.
The respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19/09/2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed WP No. 1949 of 2024 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition came up for preliminary hearing in 'B' group before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. After hearing both sides, the Court disposed of the petition with directions.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Advocates Act, 1961:
