A writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a complaint against an advocate for professional misconduct was disposed of because the appellate bench was informed that the respondent advocate had become a judicial officer, precluding further jurisdiction over past conduct.
The writ appeal was disposed of; nothing survives for adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WA NO. 744 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2895/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
REKHA P.R.
AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAVAN, KESAVALAYAM,
SOUTH VAZHAKULAM, ALUVA, PIN-683 105.
BY ADV DILEEP VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN,
HIGH COURT CAMPUS, KOCHI-682 031.
2AMINAKUTTY P.M.,
NEDUNGADAN HOUSE, N.A.D JUNCTION,
EDATHALA NORTH, PIN-683 564.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SR.
SRI.PRANOY K.KOTTARAM (B/O)
SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.744 of 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2022
S. Manikumar, C.J.
Instant appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.2895 of 2020, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27.02.2020, by which the following reliefs sought for by the petitioner were declined and the writ petition was dismissed.
The appellant/writ petitioner is a practising Advocate at Ernakulam. She filed a complaint before the 1st respondent against the conduct of the 2nd respondent. The complaint was with respect to an incident that took place on 28.09.2017. It is stated that the 2nd respondent shouted and teased the
W.A.No.744 of 2020
3
petitioner in front of the public when she came out of courtroom after she was cross-examined as CW1 in CC No.429 of 2015 at Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakkanad, by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent made allegation that petitioner threatened and influenced Advocates appeared for the accused and demanded money from the accused. The complaint was numbered as CP.1/2018. The 2nd respondent filed objection disputing the statements made by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed a reply as advised by the 1st respondent disputing the allegations on 20.06.2018. On 07.08.2019, the 1st respondent issued a letter to the petitioner informing that by Resolution No.93 of 2019 dated 07.04.2019, complaint against the 2nd respondent was dropped. Aggrieved by the same, writ petition was filed.
of Kerala, impugned before the writ court, is reproduced:
“BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA
(Statutory Body Constituted under the Advocates Act,
Bar Council Bhavan, High Court Campus, Kochi-682 031 No: KBCCP-1/2018/3445/2014 Dated 07.08.2019
W.A.No.744 of 2020
4
To,
Adv Sri Rekha PR Kesavalayam, South Vazhakulam, Aluva – 682 005.
Sir,
Sub: Complaint petition No. CP 1/2018 filed by advocate Rekha P. R against advocate Aminakutty P. M, Aluva.
Ref (1): Remarks submitted by the respondent Advocate dated 26.02.2018.
Ref (2): Resolution No. 93/2019 dated 07.04.2019.
The above complaint along with the remarks and rejoinder came up for consideration before the Bar Council of Kerala at its meeting held on 07.04.2019. I am giving here under a copy of the proceedings of the Council on the above matter.
"Council considered the Complaint, remarks, rejoinder of the complainant and passed the following.
Resolution No. 93/2019
Resolved that Complaint No. CP 1/2018 filed by Advocate Rekha P. R., Kesavalayam, South Vazhakulam, Aluva against Advocate Aminakutty P. M., Nedungadan House, NAD Junction, Aluva for professional or other misconduct be and is hereby dropped as the Council has no reason to believe that the respondent Advocate is guilty of professional or other misconduct. Secretary is authorized to issue communication to the parties."
You are informed it accordingly. Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/Sivaraman P.L. Joint Secretary”
W.A.No.744 of 2020
5
W.A.No.744 of 2020
6
Having regard to the categorical statement of Mr. Grashious Kuriakose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Bar Council of Kerala that no action can be taken against the 2nd respondent for the past alleged conduct, we are of the view that nothing survives in this writ appeal for adjudication. Accordingly writ appeal is disposed of.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
S. Manikumar Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P. Chaly Judge
vpv
//true copy//
P.A. to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal survives for adjudication given the respondent advocate's shift to a judicial role.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and OthersReferred¶54
Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and Others reported in AIR 1981 SC 477 · Who else cites this
N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde and AnotherReferred¶54
N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde and Another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 135 · Who else cites this
Rekha P.R.
Bar Council of Kerala
Aminakutty P.M.
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court