Allowed

Bar Council of Kerala, v. P.Prakash

Kerala HC4 Jul 2022WA/530/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order directing the Bar Council of Kerala to enroll a bank employee as an advocate. The High Court found evidence showed the petitioner attended only for exams while regularly signing in at work, not fulfilling regular course requirements. The appeal was allowed, and the lower judgment setting aside the enrollment refusal was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; judgment of the single judge set aside; writ petition dismissed.

Bar Council of Kerala, Vs P.Prakash — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.A. No. 530/2022

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶9

WA NO. 530 OF 2022

¶10

JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2022 IN WP(C) 7413/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶11

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2-4:

¶12

1 BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶13

2 THE CHAIRMAN

¶14

BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶15

3 THE ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE OF BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

PRANOY K.KOTTARAM SIVARAMAN P.L

¶18

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1:

¶19

1 P.PRAKASH

¶20

AGED 58 YEARS

¶21

S/O.LATE C.P.MENON, RESIDING AT 'HALASYAM' K.B.ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 682 019.

¶22

2 THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

¶23

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 21, ROSE AVENUE, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI – 100 02.

¶24

3 ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED.

¶25

W.A. No. 530/2022 : 2 :

¶26

HR MANAGER, ICICI BANK.ZONAL OFFICE,EDAPPALLY P.O.,KOCHI,PIN-682 021.

¶27

[ADD.R3 IS SUO-MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.25.5.22 IN W.A.530/2022.]

¶28

BY ADVS. R3 BY SRI. ANZIL SALIM SRI. SURESH SUKUMAR SRI. LAL K.JOSEPH SRI. P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) SRI. SANJAY SELLEN SRI. T.A.LUXY

¶29

R2 BY SRI. RAJIT, SC R1 BY SRI. B.MOHANLAL

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

W.A. No. 530/2022

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

S. MANIKUMAR, CJ & SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.A. No. 530 of 2022

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2022.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶40

The Bar Council of Kerala, the Chairman of the Council and the Enrollment Committee of the Bar Council of Kerala have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 04.04.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 7413 of 2022, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to consider the application for enrollment submitted by the writ petitioner/first respondent, if it is otherwise in order, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶41

The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner/first respondent seeking the following reliefs:

¶42

“(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P3 from the Respondents and to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order declining to enroll the Petitioner as an Advocate in the Rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala.

¶43

W.A. No. 530/2022

¶44

: 4 :

¶45

(ii) To Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to enroll the Petitioner as an Advocate in the rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala taking into consideration of Ext.P3 Application submitted by the Petitioner within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶46

(iii) To declare that the Petitioner is entitled to enroll the Petitioner as an Advocate in the rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala taking into consideration of Ext .P3 Application submitted by the Petitioner.

¶47

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order direction commanding the 2nd Respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 and P8 within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court and to enroll the Petitioner as an Advocate in the rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala taking into consideration of Ext.P3 Application submitted by the Petitioner.”

¶48

The learned single Judge, after appreciating the rival submissions, found that the writ petitioner completed the course, as is evident from Ext. P1 certificate dated 13.11.2017 issued by Dr. Ambedkar Global Law Institute, Tirupati and Ext. P2 degree certificate dated 09.10.2018 issued by the Controller of Examination, Shri Venkateswara University.

¶49

It was also found that a perusal of Ext. R2(c) certificate issued by the HR Manager, Human Resources Management Group of

¶50

W.A. No. 530/2022

¶51

: 5 :

¶52

M/s. ICICI Bank shows that the writ petitioner was working in the Bank since 06.06.2005 at its Edappally Zonal Office and he has completed the LLB course during the period 2014-2017.

¶53

After finding so, it was held by the learned single Judge that in the light of those documents, there need not be any technical grounds on the side of the Bar Council of India to disallow the writ petitioner for enrollment. It was accordingly that the directions were issued. The subject issue relates to the requirement of the Bar Council of India that in order to enable a student to enroll in its rolls, he should have been a regular student of 3 year LLB course for the academic year 2014-2017.

¶54

The contentions advanced by the writ petitioner in the writ petition was that he pursued the regular course by availing leave from the ICICI Bank and therefore, he was undergoing a regular course and accordingly, entitled to enroll as a lawyer. On 25.05.2022, when the appeal came up for admission, taking into consideration the contentions advanced by the writ petitioner that he was undergoing regular course, irrespective of his employment, we suo motu i mpleaded the ICICI Bank and the following directions were issued:

¶55

“11. Issue notice to additional respondent No.3 returnable in ten days.

¶56

Additional respondent No.3 is directed to produce the

¶57

W.A. No. 530/2022

¶58

: 6 :

¶59

leave particulars of the 1st respondent, purpose for which it is sought for, salary particulars drawn by the 1st respondent during the period 2014-2017, acquittance register and such other particulars, as referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶60

Mr.Pranoy K.Kottaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellants is directed to serve copies of all documents, along with the writ appeal and communicate the orders of this court to the impleaded party, so as to facilitate production of documents as directed. Post after two weeks. Interim order is extended till then.”

¶61

Accordingly, the ICICI Bank, additional respondent No.3, has

¶62

filed a counter affidavit along with the supporting documents. Relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted hereunder for convenience:

¶63

“2. As per order dated 25.05.2022, I was suo motu impleaded by this Hon'ble Court as the additional respondent No.3 for producing certain documents and particulars in respect of the Ext. P8 certificate dated 15.09.2021 issued by the Bank. It is submitted that this Honourable Court had also directed this respondent to produce the leave particulars of the 1" respondent, purpose for which it is sought for salary particulars drawn by the 1^st respondent during the period

¶64

W.A. No. 530/2022

¶65

: 7 :

¶66

2014-17 and acquaintance register.

¶67

It is respectfully submitted that the word 'mandatory programmes” had been used in the Certificate in utmost good faith, as the reasons submitted by the 1st respondent while submitting the privileged leave applications were to attend LLB Exams. It is revealed from the leave particulars that application for privileged leave and casual leave were submitted for the period 28.02.2017 to 6.3.2017, 22.08.2016, 17.08.2016 to 19.08.2016, 09.08.2016 to 12.08.2016, 11.04.2016, 06.04.2016, 31.03.2016, 29.03.2016, 05.10.2015 to 07.10.2015, 29.09.2015 to 01.10.2015, 25.09.2015, 27.05.2015, 20.05.2015 to 23.05.2015, 15.05.2015 and 05.05.2015 to 06.05.2015 to attend the LLB examination. The true copy of the leave particulars of the 1^st respondent for the period from 01/01/2014 to 31/12/2017 is produced herewith as Annexure R3(a).

¶68

It is respectfully submitted that the 1^st respondent was drawing a salary of Rs.47,626/- in the month of January 2014, Rs.54,347/- was in the month of January 2015, Rs. 69,934/- in the month of January 2016 and Rs. 71,615/- in the month of January 2017. The pay slips for the respective months revealing the salary particulars for the period from 2014 to 2017 is produced herewith as Annexure R3(b).”

¶69

From the affidavit filed by the ICICI Bank, it is clear that the

¶70

W.A. No. 530/2022 : 8 :

¶71

writ petitioner was not pursuing a regular course of study; however, he has taken leave to attend the LLB examination. In spite of the affidavit of the Bank, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that he was attending the regular course and was also working with the Bank through online and therefore, no interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge.

¶72

We have heard Shri. Pranoy K. Kottaram for the appellants, Shri. B. Mohanlal for the first respondent/writ petitioner, Shri. Rajith for the Bar Council of India, the second respondent and Shri. Lal K. Joseph for the additional third respondent, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶73

In our considered opinion, the sole question that emerges for consideration is as to whether it could be deduced from the records that the writ petitioner was attending a regular course of study in the LLB course conducted by Dr. Ambedkar Global Law Institute, Tirupati during the period 2014-2017. It is true that the writ petitioner has produced Ext. P1 study and attendance certificate dated 13.11.2017 and Ext. P2 LLB degree certificate dated 09.10.2018.

¶74

In order to understand the circumstances under which the writ petitioner pursued a regular course of study while working with the ICICI Bank, at the appellate stage, we impleaded the Bank and directed to file an affidavit along with the supporting documents.

¶75

W.A. No. 530/2022

¶76

: 9 :

¶77

The affidavit filed by the ICICI Bank and the documents produced along with the same would clearly show that the writ petitioner was working with the Bank and was receiving salary from the Bank. It is also clear from the attendance details furnished, that, apart from causal and other leave availed by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was signing in and out of the ICICI Bank, Edapally Branch, Ernakulam during the period 2014 to 2017.

¶78

It is also clear from the documents as well as the affidavit that the writ petitioner has availed leave to attend the examination on various dates from 2015 onwards. Therefore, it is convincingly clear that the writ petitioner did not attend a regular course of study,so as to enable him to enroll with the Bar Council of Kerala as a lawyer. In that view of the matter, we are of the definite opinion that interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge.

¶79

Accordingly, writ appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and consequently, the writ petition would stand dismissed.

¶80

sd/-

¶81

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶82

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶83

Bar Council of Kerala, v. P.Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bar Council of Kerala, v. P.Prakash

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

Remya Haridas Vs State of Kerala

The Secretary Vs Ananthan

The Inspector General of Registration Vs Riyasudheen K

The Parent Teacher Association Vs the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited

M.Hassankannu, Vs the Secretary, Poovar Grama Panchayat

Faizal Kulappadam @ Faizal N Vs State of Kerala