SMT. GITANJALI NAYAK AND 2 OTHERS v. BAR COUNCIL OF U.P. PRAYAGRAJ THRU. SECY. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIC/11018/2024 · 2025-02-04
Om Prakash Shukla, Rajan Roy
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 170389 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 170389 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7180-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11018 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Gitanjali Nayak And 2 Others Respondent :- Bar Council Of U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Secy. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Salil Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Subhash Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant-opposite party no.3 which is taken on record.
2. Heard.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged
judgment dated 29.09.2024 passed by the disciplinary committee in complaint case no.242 of 2023/DC Case No.215 of 2013. He has also sought quashing of complaint filed by opposite party no.3 bearing Complaint Case No.242 of 2023. 4 . Learned counsel for the Bar Council fairly submitted there is a bar under Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 under which if the complaint is not decided by the U.P. Bar Council within one year then that should be transferred to the Bar Council of India. However, he submits that if the order is to be quashed this should not come in the way of U.P. Bar Council forwarding the said complaint to the Bar Council of India which is mandatory under the aforesaid provision and the prohibition of one year does not apply to the Bar Council of India.
5. On being asked, Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.3 and Sri Newton Kishore Saxena, complainant himself who is present stated that they have no objection to this proposition of U.P. Bar Council.
6. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order as it is in violation of Section 36B(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. However, we direct the U.P. Bar Council to perform its obligation under the said provision and transfer the
complaint of opposite party no.3 against the petitioners to the Bar Council of India which in turn shall consider the same as per law expeditiously.
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 4.2.2025/Shanu/- Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench