Allowed

K.T. Mathew v. the Bar Council of India

Kerala HC11 Apr 2024WP(C)/7792/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the demand for a special fee for advocate enrollment post-retirement. Following a prior single bench judgment, the fee demand was quashed and the fee was declared unconstitutional, permitting the petitioner's enrollment without payment.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the demand for Special Fee in Ext.P3; declared the fee illegal and unconstitutional; permitted enrollment without payment.

K.T. Mathew Vs the Bar Council of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7792 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.T. MATHEW AGED 58 YEARS S/O. THOMAS,KURUVANTHANATHU HOUSE, KOLANI P.O. THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685608.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 21 ROSE AVENUE, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2 THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, NEAR HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.T.T.RAKESH

¶12

SRI.RAJITH, S.C, FOR R1

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P. (C) No.7792 of 2018

¶15

¶16

EASWARAN S. , J.

¶17

W.P. (C) No.7792 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 11th day of April 2024

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

i) to call for the records which lead to the issuance of Ext.P3 to the extent it demanded payment of Special Fee under different heads in Column 5 Additional Fees for the Candidates if applicable and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same;

¶22

ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to accept the application for enrollment submitted by the petitioner without insisting payment of Special Fee and permit the petitioner to enroll as an advocate in the next enrollment function;

¶23

iii) to declare that the Special Fee prescribed in Ext.P3 is illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Advocates Act, Bar Council of India Rules and Kerala Bar Council Rules.

¶24

The petitioner states that he was a permanent employee of the Idukki District Cooperative Bank Ltd. and, while

¶25

in service he had obtained graduation in law. After his

¶26

W.P. (C) No.7792 of 2018 3

¶27

retirement on 31.01.2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for admission as an advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of Kerala, but, the same was not accepted by the 2^nd respondent stating that the petitioner has not remitted the spcial fee prescribed as per Ext.P3.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the demand of special fee apart from the general fee is illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶29

The question as to whether, for enrollment as an advocate – post-employment/retirement, levy of the special fee is proper or not came up for consideration before this Court in

¶30

Koshy T v. Bar Council of Kerala, Ernakulam and Another

¶31

[2017 KHC 553] wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that levy of the special fee is ultra vires and unauthorized.

¶32

I am in respectful agreement with the dictum laid down by the Single Bench in Koshy T. (Supra). Accordingly, following the aforesaid judgment, Ext.P3 to the extent of insisting special fee on the petitioner is quashed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has enrolled as a lawyer on

¶33

W.P. (C) No.7792 of 2018 4

¶34

16.12.2018 pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 8.3.2018. Since this Court has held that levy of special fee is ultra vires under the Constitution of India it is declared that the petitioner need not remit such fee.

¶35

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/- EASWARAN S.

JUDGE

W.P. (C) No.7792 of 2018 5

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7792/2018

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE DTD. 19.12.2000 ISSUED BY BANGALORE UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.HRM/26/0001/RETIREMENT TO STAFF/201718 DTD 01.01.2018 EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF ENROLLMENT FEE STRUCTURE DTD. NIL PUBLISHED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN ITS OFFICIAL WEBSITE. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ENROLMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 03.03.2018 EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.4990 OF 2017 DTD.16.02.2017

K.T. Mathew v. the Bar Council of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T. Mathew v. the Bar Council of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jibin Joseph Vs the Union of India

Sebastian Vs the Authorized Officer, Wayanad District

Promodkumar Vs the Director (Complaint & Litigation) Central Organization

The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise Vs the Chief Manager, Federal Bank

M.R.Ramakrishnan Vs Union of India

Sayed Mohammed Koya Vs the Administrator