[2025:RJ-JP:30527] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2023/2025 Goverdhan Singh S/o Sh. Bharat Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Near Narsingh Sagar Talab, Sarvodya Basti, P.s. Naya Sahar, District Bikaner, At Present D-3, Navlakha Apartment, Bharat Mata Path, C-Scheme, P.s. Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bar Council Of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi, Through Its Secretary. 2. Bar Council Of Rajasthan, Old High Court Building, Jodhpur, Rajasthan Through Its Secretary. 3. Bhuvnesh Sharma S/o Not Known, Chairman Bar Council Of Rajasthan. 4. Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur Through President, High Court Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Dr. Sandhya Yadav D/o Sh. R.p. Yadav, R/o House No. 69, Hanuman Path, Shyam Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat Mr. Prameshwar Lal Pilania For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara Mr. Shubham Bhati for Mr. Prateek Kasliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 07/08/2025 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not press this writ petition qua the reliefs No.2, 3 & 4 and confines this writ petition to the relief No.1. It is prayed in the writ petition that the order dated 25.06.2022 and the resolutions passed by the Bar Council of [2025:RJ-JP:30527] (2 of 3) [CW-2023/2025] Rajasthan and all the consequences arsing therefrom may be quashed and set aside. Indisputably, with the selfsame prayer, the petitioner has preferred a Revision Petition No.43/2022 before the Bar Council of India (for brevity “the BCI”) which is pending consideration. In view thereof, vide order dated 22.05.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner was granted time to address the Court on maintainability of the writ petition as it is not permissible to pursue two parallel remedies for the same relief in different forums. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since, no step has been taken by the BCI to decide the revision petition which is pending consideration since the year, 2022, the writ petition is maintainable. However, this Court is not convinced with the submission made. It is trite law that no litigant can be permitted to pursue two parallel remedies against the selfsame impugned action of the respondents before the two different forums. In view of the undisputed position that for the relief claimed in the prayer No.1, the petitioner has already filed a revision petition before the BCI, this writ petition is not found to be maintainable. Conspicuously, the petitioner has not pressed the remaining reliefs wherein, a direction was sought to the respondent No.1-BCI to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Be that as it may, since, this writ is not found to be maintainable, the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:30527] (3 of 3) [CW-2023/2025] However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a request before the BCI for expeditious disposal of his pending revision petition. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/150