- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8059 WP No. 106394 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 106394 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: TANVEER S/O. MOHAMMEDRAFIQ SHAMSHER, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: LAW STUDENT (SOCIAL ACTIVIST), R/O. 302/2, MUSLIM GALLI, MANEKWADI, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591308. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANWARALI D. NADAF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, OLD KGID BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 3. BAR ASSOCIATION BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, BELAGAVI-01. 4. BAR ASSOCIATION GOKAK, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, COURT CIRCLE, GOKAK-07. 5. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, 21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR BAL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-02. 6. MOHAMMEDSHAFI S/O. ISMAIL JAMADAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRACTICING LAW, R/O. SHINGALAPUR, TQ: GOKAK, VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8059 WP No. 106394 of 2024 DIST: BELAGAVI-591308. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1; SMT. ARCHANA MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. Y.K. DIVATE, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2, 3 AND 4 TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.6; STRICT DIRECTIONS IN THE ISSUE IN LIS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE ADVOCATES FRATERNITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard learned counsel Sri.Anwarali D Nadag for the petitioner, learned AGA Sri.Sharad Magadum for respondent No.1, learned counsel Smt.Archana Magadum for respondent No.2, learned counsel Sri.Y.K.Divate for respondent No.3, learned counsel Sri.Rajashekhar Burji for respondent No.5 and the learned counsel Sri.V.M.Sheelvant for respondent No.6. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent Nos.2, 3 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8059 WP No. 106394 of 2024 and 4 to initiate appropriate legal action against respondent No.6. 3. The petitioner, who is a law student and a social activist has filed this present petition making allegations against respondent No.6 who is claiming to be an advocate and practicing in Gokak, portraying himself as an advocate, even though he is not eligible to practice. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.6 has not cleared the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) but he is a Law graduate, therefore which makes him ineligible to practice as an advocate in any of the Bar Associations of the Country. He cannot be considered as an advocate as he has not passed the AIBE examination. It is also stated that several acts of corruption and high handedness are involved in the practice of respondent No.6 as an advocate. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.2- Karnataka State Bar Council bringing to their knowledge the illegal activities, unlawful activities of the respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8059 WP No. 106394 of 2024 No.6 in the guise of an advocate. It is also stated before this Court by way of production of documents that respondent No.6 has signed the vakalath as an advocate on several dates of hearing, from several years, right from 2015, 2017, 2022 and 2024, which are produced as documents before this Court. Apparently, it is seen that these documents depict the name of respondent No.6 having filed vakalat for enrolment, which is a serious concern for this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that if such people are permitted to practice, who are not qualified, affects the legal system and the whole legal fraternity, as such it deprives the other legal practitioners/ advocates in taking up the cases. It also deprives the litigants of a qualified lawyer to defend their case, so also misrepresentation and inadequate assistance to the Court on the whole. Under the circumstances, he has filed the present petition for initiating action against respondent No.6. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8059 WP No. 106394 of 2024 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.V.M.Sheelavant representing respondent No.6 contends that the respondent No.6 from now would not file vakalat and he would not appear before the Courts in the State of Karnataka and he will abide by the rules and regulations of the State Bar Council, so also the decision taken by the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 has filed a memo along with certain documents by serving a copy to the counsel for the petitioner. On the basis of these documents, learned counsel for respondent No.6 contends that the claim of eligibility so made by the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless and it is not true to say that respondent No.6 is not registered as an advocate in the Karnataka State Bar Council. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 further contends that respondent No.6 is appearing before the Courts in Gokak and Belagavi. Under the circumstances, the allegations made cannot be accepted and it is contrary to the documents now - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8059 WP No. 106394 of 2024 produced with regard to respondent No.6 having completed LLB degree. 5. Learned counsel representing the State Bar Council, respondent No.2 has filed a memo along with several documents including the enrolment before the State Bar Council and one of the documents produced by the State Bar Council reflects that the respondent No.6 Shri Jamadar Mohammedshafi Ismail bearing Enrolment No.KAR/343/2014 has not passed the All India Bar Examination. 6. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.3 contends that respondent No.6 is not attending the Courts at Belagavi, but he is attending the Courts at Gokak. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for all the parties. 8. The present petition brings to the notice of this Court several anomalies in monitoring and restricting the ineligible, illegal and fake lawyers practicing in different - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8059 WP No. 106394 of 2024 parts in the State of Karnataka. Such practice of these ineligible persons and illegal persons cannot be permitted and this Court cannot turn a blind eye on such illegal practice of persons who are ineligible to practice as advocate without possessing basic qualification and mandatory certification. There are several rules and regulation and enactment of the Advocates Act which governs practice of the advocates in the State which are required to be strictly followed and adhered. In the present case, it appears that respondent No.6 has been appearing by filing vakalat in the Courts at Gokak from 2015, till 2024. Under the circumstances, there is a serious concern for the Judiciary and the legal fraternity which will have to be addressed and remedied by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 by enquiring into veracity of these documents and calling upon respondent No.6 to produce necessary documents and pass suitable orders in order to prevent such illegality, inconvenience, that is causing to the litigants, the Judiciary, advocates of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8059 WP No. 106394 of 2024 legal fraternity and to the general public as well. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to initiate appropriate legal action against respondent No.6 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a time frame of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order by the State Bar Council, Belagavi/Gokak. iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. iv. Nevertheless it is open to respondent No.6 to produce all or any such documents to show he has passed the All India Bar Examination. v. Respondent No.2 shall file a report to this Court on the number of illegal and ineligible - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8059 WP No. 106394 of 2024 persons practicing in the entire State of Karnataka and the measures taken to curb such practice, so also action taken against such persons. Report shall be filed in 12 weeks. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE KGK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0