- ticket title
- Gujarat HC Passed An Order Stating That Practicing Chartered Accountant Cannot Enroll As A Lawyer .
- SC stays Bombay HC order restricting the use of loudspeakers
- JOB POST: Litigation Associate @ MNSA Legal, Delhi [PQE: 2 Years]: Apply by Sept 10
- Despite The Orders Of Court The Ads Of Sex Determination Is Not Banned In India.
- SC Stays Bombay HC Order Banning Use Of Loudspeakers By Granting Interim Stay.
In The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad a Special Civil Application of No. 6394 Of 2017 was filed by the petitioner Mam Raj Goel and Bar Council Of Gujarat &Ors. appeared as respondents in the court. The petition was heard by Honorable Mr. Justice Rajesh H. Shukla.
The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Sections 24 and 28 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for the prayers as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to the Bar Council of India to enroll the petitioner as a Member of the Bar Council for practice of law as an advocate on the grounds stated in the petition.
Shri Goel has referred to the pleadings in his affidavit, which has been given and also the provision of the Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules and submitted that it does not in any manner restrict the membership as an Advocate. He has referred earlier petition and submitted that the application of the petitioner ought to have
been considered, which has not been considered. He submitted that as per the Chartered Accountant Act, 1949, he has been permitted to practice as Chartered Accountant and the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India permits the practice as a Chartered Accountant to those, who are also law graduates. He, therefore, submitted that in larger national interest, the amendment has been made in the Chartered Accountant Act.
Learned advocate, Shri Jani submitted that Section 28 of the Advocates Act refers to the power to make Rules and it empowers the State Bar Council to make Rules to carry out the purpose. Shri Jani submitted that the professional duty as an Advocate requires various functions and, therefore, he has not been enrolled.
Shri Jani has referred to the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1296/2016 and submitted that identical issue was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench with reference to Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules. He pointedly referred to the judgment and submitted that Bar Council may take appropriate decision as it has been authorized by the Advocates Act and, therefore, the present petition may not be entertained.
Section 49 refers to the general power of the Bar Council of India to make rules. Section 49(a) clearly provides that such Rules may provide the conditions subject to which an advocate may be entitled. Thus it includes the clause or category of a person entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate under this Act. Therefore the statute empowers the body like State Bar Council or Bar Council of India to make the Rules for enrollment and also take decision and if the decision is taken, it cannot be said to be illegal.
The submissions which have been made by Shri Goel that there is nothing which prohibits and, therefore, he should be allowed to ride on two horses in two professions, cannot be accepted. The Bar Council of Gujarat has made the Rules in exercise of power under Section 28 read with Section 24 of the Advocates Act. Rule 2 of the Bar Council of Gujarat provides “Every person applying to be admitted as an Advocate shall in his application make a declaration that he is not in full or part time services or employment and that he is not engaged in any trade, business or profession contrary to the rules.”
Therefore, the present petition cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed.