Muniyappa. M. Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Muniyappa. M. Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief adjudicated: prayers (i)-(iii) held not to survive upon Respondent No.4's withdrawal of the suspension resolution dated 06-12-2025, with membership continuing as never terminated; liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach Respondent No.2 (Bar Council of Karnataka) for disciplinary action regarding Advocate Anjan Gowda/FIR No. 0244/2025, to be considered expeditiously in accordance with law; concerned Authorities to follow the necessary procedure on FIR No.244/2025

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ of certiorari should be issued quashing the suspension resolution dated 06-12-2025 passed by Respondent No.4 without notice or enquiry, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 and ultra vires Bye-Laws 33 and 34 +4 more

Court's answer

Prayer No.(i) (quashing the suspension resolution dated 06-12-2025) does not survive for consideration, the suspension having been withdrawn by Respondent No.4

Ratio / Principle

Prayer No.(ii) (restoration of membership) does not survive since the suspension order has been revoked; the membership, never having been terminated, continues to be in force

Key takeaways

Prayer No.(iii) (declaration regarding Bye-Laws 33 and 34 procedure) does not survive for consideration following withdrawal of the suspension made vide resolution dated 06.12.2025ratio¶52
On prayer Sl.No.(iv), liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file such complaint and/or representation as they wish before Respondent No.2, which shall be considered by Respondent No.2 and necessary orders passed thereon as expeditiously as possible in accordance with lawratio¶56
On prayer No.5, which concerns FIR No.244/2025, the necessary procedure in relation thereto would have to be followed by the concerned Authorities

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 by five members of the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru (Respondent No.4) challenging its suspension resolution dated 06-12-2025 as passed without notice or enquiry, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 and ultra vires Bye-Laws 33 and 34 of the Common Bye-Laws, and seeking restoration of membership, a declaration on the Bye-Laws procedure, disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act against Advocate Anjan Gowda for misconduct recorded in FIR No. 0244/2025, and protection under the SC/ST (POA) Act. Before orders, Respondent No.4 filed a memo dated 19.12.2025 stating that its Governing Council had resolved to withdraw the suspension resolution and to proceed with disciplinary proceedings under its bye-laws, which its Senior Counsel confirmed with a commitment to file the withdrawal resolution with the Registry the same day. The Court held that prayers (i), (ii) and (iii) did not survive, noting the membership was never terminated and continued in force; reserved liberty to the petitioners to file a complaint/representation before Respondent No.2 (Bar Council of Karnataka), to be decided expeditiously per law; and left the procedure on FIR No.244/2025 to the concerned Authorities. Petition disposed. (Suraj Govindaraj, J.)

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ of certiorari should be issued quashing the suspension resolution dated 06-12-2025 passed by Respondent No.4 without notice or enquiry, in violation of Articles 14 and 21 and ultra vires Bye-Laws 33 and 34¶34
The court held
Prayer No.(i) (quashing the suspension resolution dated 06-12-2025) does not survive for consideration, the suspension having been withdrawn by Respondent No.4ratio¶51
2.
Whether Respondent No.4 should be directed to restore the petitioners' membership with all consequential benefits and access rights¶37
The court held
Prayer No.(ii) (restoration of membership) does not survive since the suspension order has been revoked; the membership, never having been terminated, continues to be in forceratio¶51
3.
Whether a declaration should issue that the impugned action violates the mandatory procedure prescribed under Bye-Laws 33 and 34 of the Common Bye-Laws¶38
The court held
Prayer No.(iii) (declaration regarding Bye-Laws 33 and 34 procedure) does not survive for consideration following withdrawal of the suspension made vide resolution dated 06.12.2025ratio¶52
4.
Whether Respondent No.2 (Bar Council of Karnataka) should be directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Section 35 of the Advocates Act against Advocate Anjan Gowda for the misconduct recorded in FIR No. 0244/2025¶39
The court held
On prayer Sl.No.(iv), liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file such complaint and/or representation as they wish before Respondent No.2, which shall be considered by Respondent No.2 and necessary orders passed thereon as expeditiously as possible in accordance with lawratio¶56
5.
Whether Respondent Nos.1 and 3 should be directed to ensure fair investigation of FIR No. 0244/2025 and provide protection to the petitioners under the SC/ST (POA) Act¶40
The court held
On prayer No.5, which concerns FIR No.244/2025, the necessary procedure in relation thereto would have to be followed by the concerned Authoritiesratio¶57