'Was In Judicial Custody When Notice Issued': High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Suspension Of Advocate By Karnataka State Bar Council

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Karnataka State Bar Council suspending an advocate from practice.

A single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna allowed the plea filed by Chikkanna and set aside the notification dated 10.07.2023.

It said “As the practice of the petitioner is suspended without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is to be obliterated and the matter remitted back to the hands of respondent No.1 to hear the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”

The petitioner enrolled as an advocate in the year 2017 in the Karnataka State Bar Council and set up practice before the Gundlupet Bar. It was submitted that on 27.03.2023, a crime came to be registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

The petitioner submitted that he had filed a complaint for the very same offences, except under the SCT/ST Act.

Subsequently, it was argued that the Bar Association, Gundlupet filed a complaint before the State Bar Council, seeking disciplinary action against the petitioner alleging professional misconduct on the alleged incident that led to registration of the aforesaid cases.

Petitioner submitted that the Council issued notice on 31.03.2023 and that he did not receive the same, as he was in judicial custody at that time.

Thus the notice was returned as un-served. It was argued that since the petitioner did not defend his action, the impugned suspension order came to be passed on 10.07.2023 after which the matter was referred for an enquiry in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The petitioner argued that he was not afforded an opportunity for a hearing before the passage of the order of suspension of practice since it was impossible for him to receive notice being in judicial custody.

The counsel for the State Bar Council admitted that the petitioner was not heard in the matter and not hearing for the petitioner was on account of him being in judicial custody, which the Bar council was not aware of.

The bench noted that the notice being un-served was on the score that the petitioner was in judicial custody at the time when the notice was issued.

Therefore, it was held that only after his bail had he filed the present plea seeking an opportunity to be heard.

Following this, it allowed the plea, quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Karnataka State Bar Council from the stage of post-issuance of notice to the petitioner.

The Bar Council was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Appearance: Advocate Anil Shekar K S for Petitioner.

Advocate Nataraj G for R1, R2

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 44

Case Title: Chikkanna AND Karnataka State Bar Council & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 26197 of 2023.