- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 24357 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: JAI BHARATHI. S W/O P RAVI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, C/O GLOBAL EDUCATION TRUST, 223 HARIMARIYAMMA STREET, PANATHUR, VARTHUR HOBLI, ENGALURU 560 087 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SMITHA N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL BY ITS SECRETARY, OLD KGID BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. VARADARAJAN M S FATHER NAME NOT KNOW TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1160/1135 7TH CROSS, 3RD C MAIN, GIRINAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 085. 3. MANJUNATH J S S/O SRINIVASA J AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 187, VISMAYA, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 1ST FLOOR , 9TH MAIN TATA NAGAR, KODIGEHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NATARAJ G.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. THILAK RAJ S.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SURESH I MUGALAKKS., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE ANNEXURE-B THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2022 ISSUED BY R1DIRECT THE R1 TO CONDUCT ENQUIRY AFRESH ON THE COMPLAINT BEARING NO.C 65/2020 DATED 01.10.2020 ANNEXURE-A AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner had filed a complaint dated 03.09.2020 before the respondent No.1-Karnataka State Bar Council. Two years after the receipt of the application, respondent-Bar Council issues a communication dated 06.06.2022 addressed to the petitioner informing that the complaint filed before the respondent-Bar Council is not a fit case to refer to the Disciplinary Committee and it was resolved to be dropped. Being aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 2. Learned counsel to the petitioner refers to contents of the said complaint dated 03.09.2020 along with the documents that were annexed/enclosed to the said complaint. She submits that primary allegation of the petitioner was that she had not engaged the services of the advocate who had allegedly represented the petitioner in suit in O.S.No.9445/2015 and R.F.A.No.429/2011 and that she had not subscribed to the written statement. Therefore, she had sought for action to be initiated against the advocates who had filed the vakalath on her behalf. She submits that without even providing any opportunity or giving cogent reasons, the respondent-Bar council after two years has closed the complaint and no enquiry was conducted. Therefore the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bar council drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and Part-VII of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 submits that there is no mandatory requirement that every complaint which is received should be referred to the disciplinary committee. It is the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 prerogative of the respondent-Bar council to form its opinion and only if it finds case fit for reference, the matter would be referred. That in the instant case on application of mind, the respondent-Bar Council found the case not fit for reference. Therefore, it was dropped. 4. He refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar reported in (1976) 2 SCC 291 in support of his submission. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. The complaint given by the petitioner dated 03.09.2020 reads as under: '' Sub: Sir Two Advocates are engaged in my favor without my knowledge. Respected Sir, Two advocates are engaged in favor of me one in City civil court Case no O.S 9445/2015 and another in High court RFA 429/2011. I have not engaged any advocates and I have not seen the face of the advocates. My sister S. Rani informed me that. I have taken crores together of amount from Mr. V.Babu which is mentioned in the court records in the form of written statement and affidevits submitted in the court in my name without my knowledge. I approached the City civil court and told in the open court that I have not engaged the advocate who is in the record at that time, the court told me to engage the advocate and be present in the court. After that I called upon the advocate, he says that Mr.Prabakar is the one who engaged me and then the advocate gave me NOC. After that I wrote a letter to High court Registar and I have enclosed the same. Mr. Prabakar has engaged the advocates on behalf of me - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 for the benefit of his brother case that is O.S 9445/2015. With the help of these advocates crores of amount has been quoted in written statements and affidevits which I don't know. My humble request to the Bar council is to please enquire on it and provide justice to me. I am a paralysis patient. Thanking you'' 7. Perusal of the said complaint indicates serious allegations being made by the petitioner of she not engaging any advocate in O.S.No.9445/2015 and R.F.A.No.429/2011 and she not having seen the faces of the advocates. It also refers to her denial of she filing any written statement. The complaint also further refers that the said counsel having given no objection vakalath to her on her enquiry. She has also refuted the averments and contents of the written statement purportedly filed on her behalf in the said suit, admitting the financial transactions referred to therein. Petitioner has sought to distance herself from the said statements made in the written statement. More importantly, she has claimed to herself to be suffering from paralysis. 8. The statement of objections has been filed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 denying the allegations of the petitioner's complaint and admitting to have filed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 the vakalath in O.S.No.9445/2015. Paragraph No.5 of the Statement of Objection further indicates that the petitioner was brought to his office and introduced to him by one H. Jayaram, who is a real estate agent. It is upon his recommendation, he had agreed to take up her case and had filed the vakalath duly signed by her. That on 17.12.2019, complainant had sought for no objection from the said counsel, without assigning any reason, which was promptly complied by the counsel by issuing the no-objection vakalath. It is also pointed out that the signature of the complainant differs noticeably in the verifying affidavit of the complaint and the other documents. 9. Similar objections were also filed by another counsel appearing for respondent No.3, contending that petitioner was introduced to said counsel by one Sri. Anbarasu, an advocate himself, and it is upon his introduction, vakalath was received. 10. Based on the statement of objections, the respondent- Bar Council appears to have formed an opinion that it is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 not a fit case to refer the matter for disciplinary committee. The communication dated 06.06.2022 as per Annexure-B, issued by the respondent-Bar Council read as under: ''Sub: Complaint No.65/20-Jai Bharathi.S R/o Bengaluru V/s M.S. Varadaraja and Santhosh, Advocates, Bangalore With reference to the above subject, I write to inform you that the above said complaint was placed in the Bar Council Meeting held on 12th and 13th March, 2022 after discussion has passed the following Resolution: Res. No. 151/2022: Considered complaint and explanation. The Complainant has filed this complaint against Respondents 1 & 2 who are practicing Advocates to take disciplinary action u/s.35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 stating that she has not engaged the Respondent in O.S.No.9445/2015 and RFA 229/2011 and without her Vakalath the Respondents are conducting the cases the Respondents have filed their objections and categorically denied the allegations made by the Complainant and they have categorically stated that she has come to their office to engage them to conduct the suit and appeal. Subsequently First Respondent in the appeal and the Second Respondent in the suit have also given the No Objection and she has engaged another Advocate and the First Respondent also filed the Retirement Memo in RFA 429/2011 before Hon'ble High Court with his signature. Even the signatures in the Vakalath filed in different cases filed along the complaint also differ and his signatures are different in Vakalath, Complaint and various proceedings. Therefore it is crystal clear that the Complainant has filed this complaint in oblique motive and not made out a prima facie case of professional misconduct against the Respondent under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. Hence this is not a fit case to refer to DC and hence IT IS RESOLVED to DROP. This is for your information. Yours faithfully,'' 11. Unnumbered paragraph No.1 of the communication refers to the complaint averments. Unnumbered paragraph in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 the second page, as noted above, refers to purported opinion formed by the respondent-Bar Council regarding signatures of the complainant differing in the vakalath, complaint and other proceedings. Merely based on this differences in the signatures, the respondent-Bar Council has come to the conclusion, that the complainant has filed the complaint with the oblique motive. 12. This Court is not persuaded by the reasons assigned by the respondent-Bar Council to drop the complaint, when particularly the case of the complainant that she has not engaged the services of the advocates who purportedly filed vakalaths in R.F.A.No.429/2011 and O.S.No.9445/2015. She has denied the contents of the written statement and affidavit and has also denied she having seen or met the counsels who had appeared for her in the said cases. 13. In the light of such serious allegations, least that was required was to verify the said statement and allegations made by the petitioner instead of unilaterally coming to the conclusion of complaint having been filed with the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 oblique motive and not making out prima-facie case of professional misconduct against respondent Nos.3 and 4. 14. No doubt, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. V. Dabholkar (Supra), requirement of '' reason to believe'' as provided under Section 35(1) of the Act, cannot be converted into a formulised procedural road block, it being essentially a barrier against the frivolous enquiry, same cannot however be read to the extent of non-application of mind to the allegations made in the complaint at all. 15. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nandalal Khodidas Barot Vs. Bar Council of Gujarat reported in (1990) Supp SCC 318, the Bar Council is expected to apply its mind to the allegations made in the complaint. Needless to state, application of mind should indicate appreciation of the contents of the complaint and the reasons to arrive at conclusion, whether to refer the matter for disciplinary committee or to be dropped. 16. In the instant case, the respondent No.1-Bar Council has come to the conclusion that the complaint being filed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34137 WP No. 24357 of 2022 filed with the oblique motive. This conclusion, in the considered view of this Court without opportunity to the petitioner/complainant is improper, particularly in the light of serious allegations noted above. 16. Therefore, the following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-B is set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted to respondent No.1-Bar Council, who shall pass appropriate order and if need be, after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties. (iv) It is made clear, no opinion is expressed on the merits or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Dismissal of the petition shall not be weighed in any manner in taking independent decision in the matter. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18