Dismissed

Snehaprabha v. the Bar Association

Kerala HC10 Oct 2013WP(C)/23320/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the petitioner's expulsion from a Bar Association. The Court held that determining the factual dispute regarding misconduct and the application of association bye-laws requires evidence and pleadings from the competent authority, falling outside this Court's writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed without prejudice to moving the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of parties to move the matter before the appropriate forum.

Snehaprabha Vs the Bar Association — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/18TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23320 of 2013 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SNEHAPRABHA.V, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. LATE PRAHLADAN NAIR, VRINDVANAM HOUSE, KODUGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE BAR ASSOCIATION, KODUNGALLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAR ASSOCIATION, KODUNGALLUR - 680 664.

¶11

2. MULLUMOHAN. V,

¶12

ADVOCATE, C/O.K.N PRATHAPAN, NEAR COURT COMPLEX, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, RESIDING AT VAISYAM PARAMBIL, THIRUVALLOOR, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

¶14

SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 23320 of 2013 (L)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 04/09/2013.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/09/2013.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05/09/2013.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 07/09/2013.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION DATED 10/09/2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P6TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW OF KODUNGALLUR BAR ASSOCIATION. EXHIBIT-P7TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODUNGALLUR DATED 8/8/2012.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P8TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE TO THE SUB INSPECTOT OF POLICE, KODUGALLUR DATED 24/5/2013.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXHIBIT-R1(A)TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 9/9/2013.

¶29

EXHIBIT-R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION, KODUNGALLUR.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶34

W.P.(C)No. 23320 OF 2013

¶35

Dated this the 10^th October, 2013

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

Exclusion of the petitioner from the membership of the Association, without any regard to the rights and interests of the petitioner to practise as a lawyer, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

¶38

The case of the petitioner is that there was some difference of opinion between the petitioner and the second respondent. On the basis of Ext.P2 complaint preferred by the second respondent, which, according to the petitioner is far from the track of truth, the matter was taken up by the first respondent, who issued a notice to the petitioner, as borne by Ext.P1. On receipt of the same, the petitioner explained the position by submitting Ext.P3 reply dated 05.09.2013. This was followed by Ext.P4 notice stating that explanation was not satisfactory. Finally, the proceedings culminated in Ext.P5 order/intimation, whereby the petitioner was expelled from the Association, which fact was let known to the petitioner. This in turn is under challenge, mainly contending that the course

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C)No. 23320 OF 2013

¶41

followed by the first respondent is not in conformity with Ext.P6 Bye-law of the Association.

¶42

The first respondent has entered appearance and filed counter affidavit, pointing out that the version of the petitioner, as given in the writ petition is not correct; that serious misconduct was committed by the petitioner, which was enquired into and the matter was considered by the competent authority, who took necessary evidence; and it was accordingly that the matter was finalised, leading to Ext.P5. It is also pointed out that, Ext.P6 Bye-law has not come into operation and as such, reliance sought to be placed on Clause 28 is of no avail. It is pointed out that the Bye-law, which governs the situation is Ext.R1(b) and that no infringement or violation in any manner has been made by the first respondent in giving effect to the same. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit as well, producing some additional documents as Exts.P7 and P8.

¶43

During the course of hearing, Mr.P. Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, for the fact that

¶44

W.P.(C)No. 23320 OF 2013 3

¶45

the first respondent Association is not a registered association and further that the same is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. This is sought to be rebutted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stating that the writ petition is maintainable against the first respondent Association; more so in view of the law declared by this Court as per the decision in Abdul Azeez vs. Alappuzha Bar Association ( 1992 (2) KLT 443) .

¶46

The learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the decision sought to be relied on by the petitioner was rendered in a different circumstance, particularly with reference to issuance of 'Advocates Welfare Fund Stamps', which were being issued only to members of Association. Now, the position has already been changed by virtue of necessary amendment and that the Welfare Fund Stamps are being issued to any lawyer. Membership in an Association is not at all necessary for enabling a person to practise as a lawyer, submits the learned Counsel.

¶47

After hearing both the sides and after going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the factual

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C)No. 23320 OF 2013

¶50

position in dispute has to be decided by the competent authority on the basis of the proper pleadings and evidence to be let in. This exercise does not come within the purview of this Court, more so by invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said circumstance, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the parties to move the matter before the appropriate Forum. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything with regard to the merits of the case.

¶51

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶52

Snehaprabha v. the Bar Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snehaprabha v. the Bar Association

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pious Thomas Vs G.Vijayakumar

C.Baby Thankam Vs Sri.N.Madhusoodanan Assari

Gayathri Muraleedharan Vs the Divisional Manager LIC

K.T.Vincent Vs the State of Kerala

Latef Bin Abdul Jamil Vs the Regional Registration Officer

Babu Vs the District Collector