Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:062314-DB
CWP-13396-2025 -1-
148 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-13396-2025
Date of Decision : 12.05.2025
DR. GURJIT KAUR AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present: Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate and
Mr. Harinderpal Singh Ishar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners pray for
the hereinafter extracted reliefs.
Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially, a writ in the
nature of Certiorari to quash/set aside the :
i. Complaint bearing DCE No. 221 of 2024/CC-231 of
2024 dated 19.08.2024 pending before D.C. No.-II 1.e. respondent
No. 2 (P-1),
ii. Complaint bearing DCE No. 222 of 2024/CC-232 of
2024 dated 19.08.2024 before D.C. No.-II ie. respondent No. 2 (P-2),
iii. Complaint bearing DCE No. 223 of 2024/CC-233 of
224 dated 19.08.2024 before D.C. No.-II i.e. respondent No. 2 (P-3),
iv. Resolution of complaint CC-231-24 passed in the
General House meeting of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh held on 25.11.2024, whereby said complaint ordered to
be referred for disposal to D.C. No. II (P-4),
v. Resolution of complaint CC-232-24 passed in the
General House meeting of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh held on 25.11.2024, whereby said complaint ordered to
be referred for disposal to D.C. No. II (P-5).
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2025 10:42:28 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:062314-DB
CWP-13396-2025 -2-
vi. Resolution of complaint CC-233-24 passed in the
General House meeting of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana,
Chandigarh held on 25.11.2024, whereby said complaint ordered to
be referred for disposal to D.C. No. II (P-6),
And to quash all incidental, consequential, subsequent
proceedings arising out of all of the above impugned complaints and
orders/resolutions.
2. It has been averred in the writ petition that false, frivolous
and vexatious complaints (Annexures P-1 to P-3) have been filed by the
respondents/real estate builders, with an ulterior motive, malice and
personal vendetta, stemming from the petitioners' refusal to accept the
bribes offered to them by the respondents, as well as generates from a
grudge nursed against them from their steadfast refusal to not withdraw
from representing the land owners/clients in the respective cases.
3. Further, the petitioners' also seek relief for setting aside of
the resolutions (Annexures P-4 to P-6), made upon the apposite
complaints, thus by the respondent Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana,
wherebys, the respondent, in a mechanical manner, referred the
complaints (supra) to the Disciplinary Committee – II, and that too
without calling for replies from the petitioners-Advocates. Resultantly,
it is contended that the principles of natural justice become breached.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the
impugned complaints (Annexures P-1 to P-3) were referred to the
Disciplinary Committee, but without thus formation of the required
“reason to believe”, whereas, the formation(s) of “reason to believe”,
becomes ordained in Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) provision whereof becomes extracted
hereinafter, to be the prerequisite statutory requirement or a necessary
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2025 10:42:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:062314-DB
CWP-13396-2025 -3-
statutory precursor rather for subsequently a valid reference being made
to the disciplinary committee.
“35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct.―(1) Where on
receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has
reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of
professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for
disposal to its disciplinary committee.”
5. Though the (supra) statutory necessities as become
embodied in Section 35 of the Act of 1961, though are purportedly
stated to become embodied in the impugned resolutions (Annexures P-4
to P-6). However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the prior
thereto (supra) statutory necessities, as become enjoined to become
performed by the State Bar Council, inasmuch as, before it, referring
the complaints (Annexures P-1 to P-3) to the disciplinary committee of
the State Bar Council, thus the State Bar Council forming “reason to
believe”, that the present petitioners are guilty of professional or other
misconduct, but obviously remains evidently unperformed besides the
impugned resolutions are cryptically drawn orders, but without
profound application of an informed mind to the material on record.
6. The reason(s) for the incorporation of the (supra) statutory
prerequisites or the (supra) statutory precursors, for therebys a valid
relevant reference being made by the State Bar Council, to its
disciplinary committee, rather for the latter, making a hearing upon the
alleged professional misconduct or other misconduct, as becomes
indulged into by the advocate concerned, thus is to ensure, that
unnecessary and frivolous complaints, rather do not become lodged
against any counsel. If so, when the said holistic objective, thus is
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2025 10:42:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:062314-DB
CWP-13396-2025 -4-
behind the incorporation of the above statutory necessity, inasmuch as,
on receipt of the complaint by the State Bar Council concerned, the
latter initially forming “reasons to believe” about the advocate, on its
rolls being prima facie guilty of professional or other misconduct,
whereafters alone the apposite reference, to the disciplinary committee
concerned, for an adjudication being made on the relevant complaint,
but would be a validly made reference.
7. Therefore, reiteratedly since prior to the making of
Annexures P-4 to P-6, there was but the necessity of complete
compliance or the completest adherence being made to the statutory
necessity (supra). However, yet when there exists no evidence on
record, suggesting that prior to the issuance of Annexures P-4 to P-6,
the State Bar Council had formed “reason to believe”, that the
petitioners who were on its rolls, thus were prima facie guilty of
professional or other misconduct.
8. The consequent effect of the said statutory necessities
remaining unadhered to, is but that, there was no empowerment in the
disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council concerned, to issue
notices upon the petitioners. As such the issuance of the impugned
notices also are defectively issued notices upon them.
9. The reason for so stating becomes grooved in the obvious
ground, that it remains unpreceded by adherence being made, to the
(supra) statutory precursor, inasmuch as, no reason to believe becoming
formed by the State Bar Council concerned, thus unfolding that the
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2025 10:42:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:062314-DB
CWP-13396-2025 -5-
complaints (Annexures P-1 to P-3) disclose that the present petitioners
are prima facie guilty of professional or other misconduct. Resultantly,
the (supra) lack makes the show cause notices besides the impugned
resolutions (Annexures P-4 to P-6) to be completely vitiated.
10. In coming to the above conclusion, this Court finds support
from the judgment passed by Apex Court, in case Civil Appeal No.1876
of 1977, titled as ‘Nandlal Khodidas Barot V. Bar Council of Gujarat
and others’, reported in 1980 (supp) SCC 318, relevant paragraph
whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
“2. Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, reads:
xxx
In Bar Council of Maharashtra v. Dabholkar this Court
having examined the scheme and the provisions of the
Advocates Act observed: (SCC pp. 709, 711 & 712, paras
24, 29 and 31.
It is apparent that a State Bar Council not only
receives a complaint but is required to apply its mind to
find out whether there is any reason to believe that any
advocate has been guilty of professional or other
misconduct. The Bar Council of a State acts on that
reasoned belief….
...The Bar Council acts as the sentinel of
professional code of conduct and is vitally interested in the
rights and privileges of the advocates as well as the purity
and dignity of the profession.
...the function of the Bar Council in entertaining
complaints against advocates is when the Bar Council has
reasonable belief that there is a prima facie case of
misconduct that a disciplinary committee is entrusted with
such inquiry...”
11. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents No. 1 and 2 has assured, that alike the instant matter, thus
vis-a-vis the other matters subjudice before them, there would be
meteings of strictest compliance to the expostulations of law, as made
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2025 10:42:29 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:062314-DB
CWP-13396-2025 -6-
in the judgment rendered by this Court in case titled as Naresh
Dilawari Vs. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and others, to
which CWP-26166-2024 becomes assigned.
12. In aftermath, this Court finds merit in the instant writ
petition and with the observation(s) aforesaid, the same is allowed.
Resultantly, the impugned resolutions (Annexures P-4 to P-6) and all
consequential proceedings arising therefroms, are quashed and set
aside.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
12.05.2025 JUDGE
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 18-05-2025 10:42:29 :::
