Writ petition filed against Bar Council of Rajasthan admitted proceedings by disciplinary committee dismissed as withdrawn after Bar Council of India rejected allegation of professional misconduct.
Writ petition allowed to be withdrawn; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5068/2012
Abhinav Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
The Bar Council Of Raj Thr Secy
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Abhinav Sharma, Petitioner present-in-person. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pritam Solanki
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
05/12/2022
The matter is listed on the application (01/2022) for withdrawal of the present writ petition.
The petitioner present-in-person submits that the order dated 09.11.2022 has been passed by The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in the following terms:-
“The transfer is taken up through V.C. mode.
Complainant is absent. Respondent is present. On query we gathered that the complainant has been duly noticed by the office intimating about the fixing of the case. This being a year old case we thought it proper to hear the case instead of adjourning it. Here we want to mention that the Hon’ble apex court time and again seriously viewed the long pendency of cases before the council instead of taking due steps for its disposal. We heard that respondent in extenso and perused the record. On an analysis of the material available we found that accepting the entire case of the complainant no case is made out which can be brought under the ambit and
(2 of 2)
[CW-5068/2012]
scope of section 35 of the Advocates Act. Rather the case shows it is the outcome of personal dispute between husband and wife and where the father in law of the respondent has come with the present complaint. Nowhere any averment has been made in the complaint which will indicate that the respondent has committed any professional misconduct to be punished under section 35 of the Act. We reached at the conclusion that the complainant has knocked the door of the state Bar Council for wreaking vengeance and to score his personal enmity. Under the aforesaid scenario, we dismiss the complaint giving a caution to the complainant not to waste the valuable time of State Bar Council as well as Bar Council of India with this type of frivolous allegations.”
The petitioner, therefore, submits that in view of the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, he wants to withdraw the present writ petition.
In view of the submissions made and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Stay petition as well as other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
144-/Vivek/-
Abhinav Sharma
The Bar Council Of Raj Thr Secy
"VINIT KUMAR MATHUR"
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
