Disposed

Aarif S/O Yusuf Sayed v. the Registrar District and Sessions Court Buldhana Tq. and Dist.Buldhana and 2 Others

Bombay HC24 Jan 2023WP/48/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition filed by a practicing advocate impugning a show cause notice under Rule 9B of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The Court declined to entertain the petition at the preliminary stage but directed the Principal District Judge to conduct an inquiry and provided for a two-week stay on any adverse order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Principal District Judge directed to proceed with inquiry; supply of time for two weeks if adverse order passed by Principal District Judge.

Aarif S/O Yusuf Sayed Vs the Registrar District and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 5wp48.23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 48/2023

¶4

(Aarif s/o. Yusuf Sayed Vs. The Registrar, District & Sessions Court, Buldhana & ors.)

¶5

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. A. S. Mardikar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V. R. Deshpande, Advocate
for petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶9

CORAM: VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES JJ.

¶10

DATED : 24/01/2023.

¶11

 Heard.

¶12

2. On oral request, the petitioner is permitted to
delete respondent No. 3.

¶13

3.Considering peculiar issue involved in the
petition, by consent of both side, we have take it for final
disposal.

¶14

4.The petitioner is practicing Advocate, usually
practice in District Court, Buldhana. The petitioner has
filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in Crime
No. 691/2022 which was registered as Criminal Bail
Application No. 292/2022. The matter was assigned to
the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions
Judge, District and Sessions Court, Buldhana for disposal
in accordance with law. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge has heard the bail application and reserved it for the
orders. According to the petitioner since for considerable
time order was not passed, the applicant has filed a pursis

¶15

2 5wp48.23

¶16

(page 13) to the same Court bringing factual aspect on
record. In the said pursis, besides factual aspect, it has
been commented that, the learned Judge has not passed
the order in the matter for the reasons best known to the
learned Judge. Considering said remark, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has applied to the Principal
District and Sessions Judge seeking to take cognizance
against the applicant-Advocate in terms of Rule 9B of the
Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (‘Rules of
1960’). In pursuance of said communication, the petitioner
has received a show cause notice dated 16.12.2022 issued
by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge which
is impugned herein.

¶17

5.The learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that bare reading of relevant
portion of pursis, nowhere suggests any kind of
misconduct as enumerated under Sub-clause (a) to (f) of
Rule 9A of the Rules of 1960. Our attention has been
invited to Rules 9D of Rules of 1960 which contemplates
that the orders passed under Rule 9B or Sub-rule (1) and
(2) of the Rule 9C of the Rules of 1960 shall be final and
shall not be questioned in any proceeding in any Court.
He would submit that the consequence of order is quite
harsh that there is provision of debarring Advocate from
appearing before the High Court or any Court.

¶18

6.Rule 9C(4) empowers the Principal District Judge
conduct an inquiry in pursuance of notice and pass an
order within a period of eight weeks of service of such
notice.

¶19

3 5wp48.23

¶20

7.We find that there is inbuilt provision of giving
right of hearing to the applicant before passing an order.
At present, besides the contents of pursis, nothing is before
us to adjudicate as such. The learned Principal District
Judge is competent to inquire into the matter and by
considering all contentions would pass appropriate orders.
Therefore, at this preliminary stage, we are not inclined to
entertain the petition. However considering the nature
and impact of order, which the learned Principal District
Judge is permitted to pass, we deem it appropriate that the
learned Principal District Judge shall proceed with the
inquiry, pass order in accordance with law and for giving
an opportunity to the petitioner, if adverse order is passed
by the Principal District Judge, it shall not take effect for
the period of two weeks thereafter.

¶21

8. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶22

(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶23

Gohane

¶24

Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARAT BHARAT GOHANE GOHANE Date: 2023.01.30 10:30:49 +0530

Aarif S/O Yusuf Sayed v. the Registrar District and Sessions Court Buldhana Tq. and Dist.Buldhana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarif S/O Yusuf Sayed v. the Registrar District and Sessions Court Buldhana Tq. and Dist.Buldhana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram S/O Rajaramji Gulhane Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Shendurjana Ghat Tq. Warud Dist.Amravati and Another

Sweta Shrikant Mamidpalliwar and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Chandrapur City, Ps Chandrapur and Another

Rupesh Babnrao Kapse Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar Nagpur and Another

Ankur S/O Ganesh Gir Goswami and 4 Others Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Rajura Dist.Chandrapur

Amit S/O Gajanan Gandhi Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Nagpur

Ganesh S/O Dyandeo Fand Vs State of Maha., Thr. Pso., Ps., Jalamb, Dist. Buldana and Another