Dismissed¶35

Brundaban Ch.Barik v. Orissa S.Bar Counci

Orissa HC24 Jul 2024WP(C)/22022/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) No. 22022 of 2012, High Court of Orissa (Cuttack), decided 24.07.2024 by K.R. Mohapatra, J. Keywords: enrolment as advocate; unapproved law college; Vivekananda Law College Angul; LL.B. 2005; admission 1999; Bar Council of India Circular Cir.No.4/dt.27.5.2002; Odisha State Bar Council resolution dt.09.09.2001; letter No.1258/11 dated 11.03.2011 (Annexure-4); Advocates Act, 1961; Bar Council of India v. Rabi Sahu, C.A. No. 8571 of 2013 (relied upon); writ petition dismissed; petitioner unrepresented at hearing; counsel: Pravat Ranjan Ranjan Dash for Opposite Party.

What did the court decide?

Since none appeared for the petitioner and in view of the clear finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Rabi Sahu (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Brundaban Ch.Barik Vs Orissa S.Bar Counci — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Designation: AR-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA C UTTA CK Date: 25-Jul-2024 19:53:50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 22022 of 2012

¶4

Brundaban Chandra Barik

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

None

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack

¶9

…. Opp. Party Mr. Pravat Ranjan Ranjan Dash, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

24.07.2024

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

None appears for the Petitioner at the time of call. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Odisha State Bar CouncilOpposite Party is present.

¶17

Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to set aside the letter No.1258/11 dated 11^th March, 2011 (Annexure-4) of the Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack, whereby the following decision of the Enrolment Committee was communicated to him. The resolution reads thus:-

¶18

“ Considered the application of Sri Brundaban Chandra Barik for enrolment. On verification of the certificate, it is seen that Sri Barik has completed LL.B. Degree in the year 2005 from Vivekananda Law College, Angul an unapproved Law College of Bar Council of India. It is also seen that, he has undertaken course of study in law during the period 1999 to 2002 from Vivekananda Law College, Angul and completed LL.B. degree in the year 2005, as such, he is not coming under the purview of the Bar Council of India Cir.No.4/dt.27.5.2002 which stipulates that, "Candidates who have completed LL.B. Degree within the academic year 2001-2002 from unapproved law Colleges shall be entitled to be enrolled." and he is also not coming under the resolution of this Council dt.09.09.2001 which reads

Page 1 of 3

// 2 //

that" Candidates who have taken admission prior to such refusal in 1998 shall be entitled to be enrolled." "Since Shri Barik has taken admission during the year 1999 1999 in the unapproved law college and completed LL.B. Degree in 2005, he is not entitled to be enrolled."

¶23

Assailing the said letter rejecting the request of the Petitioner for enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961, Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶24

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Opposite Party placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8571 of 2013 ( Bar Council of India Vs. Rabi Sahu and another ), wherein, it is held as under:-

¶25

“7. Viewed thus, the rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid, as was held in the impugned order.

¶26

8. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the Division Bench was not justified in directing the enrolment of respondent No.1 as an Advocate, despite the fact that he secured his law degree from a college which was not recognized or approved by BCI.

¶27

The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No.32506 of 2011.

¶28

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶29

4.1 He, therefore, submits that since the Petitioner passed out from Vivekananda Law College, Angul, which is neither a recognized nor affiliated to Bar Council of India, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted.

¶30

Since none appears for the Petitioner to pursue the matter and in view of the clear finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Sahu (supra) , this Court has no

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

hesitation to hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. As such, I find no infirmity in the communication under Annexure-4.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶36

s.s.satapathy

¶37

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Brundaban Ch.Barik v. Orissa S.Bar Counci

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brundaban Ch.Barik v. Orissa S.Bar Counci

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimbadhar Panda Vs Sanghamitra Panigrah

Manoj Kumar Sahu Vs Saraswati Pradhan

Manoj Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Ku.Patra Vs Orissa State Bar Co.

Shiva Shankar Picture Palace, Jharsuguda Vs State of Odisha

Shiva Shankar Picture Palace Vs State of Orissa