Bombay High Court Refuses Immediate Relief To Advocate Gunratan Sadavarte Over License Suspension, Asks Him To File Appeal Before BCI
Observing that an alternate statutory remedy was available, the Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to immediately intervene in the plea filed by controversial Advocate - Gunratan Sadavarte - against the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s order suspending his license to practice for two years.However, the bench led by Justice Gautam Patel said it was “not completely shutting its...
Observing that an alternate statutory remedy was available, the Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to immediately intervene in the plea filed by controversial Advocate - Gunratan Sadavarte - against the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s order suspending his license to practice for two years.
However, the bench led by Justice Gautam Patel said it was “not completely shutting its doors” to Sadavarte and would keep his plea pending in case he was denied relief in appeal.
“We do not propose to dispose of the Writ Petition. It would only cause further delay. If the appellant’s application is refused or not taken up by the Bar Council of India we must allow him the opportunity of renewing his application here.”
On May 26, the BCMG suspended Sadavarte’s licence for two years after he was found guilty of misconduct in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under section 35 of the Advocate’s Act. The complainant alleged he was found on television debates and in public events with his coat and advocate’s band.
Sadavarte re- approached the HC against this suspension. During the hearing, Sadavarte alleged bias against the Chairman of three-member disciplinary committee that conducted the inquiry against him.
He said Gajanan Chavan and he have an acrimonious past as he was also his opponent during the bar council elections in 2018. The matter is currently pending before the SC, he said.
Secondly, Sadavarte said the one member had scrutinized the complaint filed against him and based on that member’s recommendation the disciplinary committee was set up to investigate allegations. However, procedure mandated the member’s recommendation to be placed before the Bar Council and a resolution to be passed initiating disciplinary proceedings.
On the allegations that he was seen dancing in the vide, Sadavate claimed he was performing “ram katha”.
Senior Advocate Darius Khambata for the Bar Council said the plea was not maintainable as the Advocate’s Act had the provision to file an appeal before the BCI. He further said that the entire hearing was videographed.
At one point when Sadavarte got agitated the court asked him to maintain decorum and also responded to a stray mention of the press.
“Mr Sadavarte, you are still in the court of law. We have been hearing you without interruption. You will maintain the necessary decorum… Mr Sadavarte, we are not looking at the press you should also not be looking to the press….We will not address them nor will we muzzle the press. They will do their job as we will do ours.”
Subsequently the court said it would keep the petition pending and Sadavarte could exercise alternate remedies in the meantime.
“Mr. Sadavarte urges us to intervene and exercise extraordinary jurisdiction conferred upon us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is definitely not possible to quash the order…One of the grounds in the order was that there was an attempt to constantly seek adjournments (by Sadavarte). We note this because the statute itself says that if a disciplinary case is not decided within one year, it will stand transferred to the Bar Council of India.
Section 37(2) of the Advocate’s Act makes it clear that the appellate remedy before the Bar Council of India is a full spectrum remedy…To our mind this makes it clear that before Mr. Sadavarte can invoke the writ jurisdiction and he must avail alternate remedy…”
Case Title: Gunratan Sadavarte Vs The Registrar/Secretary Disciplinary Committee & Ors [Writ Petition No. 2972 Of 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 183