IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT APPEAL NO.3704 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
B.N. SHIVANNA S/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5 SUJATHA COMPLEX NO.1.1, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 009 …APPELLANT (BY SRI B.N SHIVANNA, PARTY IN PERSON) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL OLD K.G.I.D. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. M/S. ADVANTA INDIA LTD., NO.31, SAROJINIDEVI ROAD SECUNDRABAD ANDHRA PRADESH – 522 901 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR /DIRECTORS ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SAMPATH KUMAR B.K, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) *** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.27916/2019.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
At 11.30 AM in the morning session, when the Court took the seat, the learned counsel for the appellant mentioned the matter and sought an adjournment on the ground that he desires to engage a Senior Advocate. When the order dated 4th November 2019 was pointed out to us, we declined to accede to the prayer for adjournment. Subsequently, when the appeal was called out for preliminary hearing, the appellant appeared in person along with his counsel and his counsel stated that now the appellant wants to argue the matter in person. We did not accept the request. We granted time till 2.30 PM to the learned counsel to argue the appeal. At 2.30 PM, when the case is called, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant disappeared and only the appellant is present. Such tactics employed by them cannot be appreciated. We granted permission to the appellant to address the Court on merits.
2. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The appellant challenged the notification dated 9th October 2017 issued by the Disciplinary Committee of the Karnataka State Bar Council, in terms of the order of the Disciplinary Committee dated 8th October 2019. Thus, in substance the challenge is to the order dated 8th October 2019. The second challenge is to the decision taken on 7th January 2017 constituting a Special Committee as Disciplinary Committee.
3. The learned Single Judge noted that though W.P. No.47452 of 2017 was filed by the present appellant against the order dated 8th October 2017, which was withdrawn without grant of liberty, a fresh petition has been filed for challenging the same order. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. He dismissed it also on the ground of suppression of material facts. The learned Single Judge also noted the conduct of the appellant of filing two petitions earlier.
4. The submission of the appellant appearing in person is that earlier W.P. No.47452 of 2017 was filed only for challenging the order dated 8th October 2017. Now what is challenged is the notification dated 9th October 2017. He submitted that in the new petition, he had also challenged the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee. He submitted that in the memo filed in W.P. No.47452 of 2017, he had explained under what circumstance he desired to withdraw the said writ petition.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions.
6. In the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge, on which the impugned order has been passed, the first substantive challenge is to the notification dated 9th October 2017, which only gives effect to the decision of the Disciplinary Committee dated 8th October 2017, by which the appellant was suspended from practice during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. This notification dated 9th October 2017 is not an independent of the order dated 8th October 2017. In fact, it only gives an effect to the order dated 8th October 2017 by publication of the same in the form of a notification. The second challenge is to the decision of 7th January 2017 constituting the Disciplinary Committee. The said challenge could have been incorporated in the earlier Writ petition challenging the order dated 08th October 2017. But the appellant omitted to do so.
7. The learned Single Judge has noted the order passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 8th October 2017. The said order reads thus:
“The petitioner would submit that the petition as instituted is not pressed at this stage in view of the consideration being made in the remaining petitions. He therefore, seeks leave to withdrawn the petition as not pressed.
The petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn.”
8. Thus, the petition on which the impugned order has been passed is the second petition filed for the same relief of quashing the order of 8th October 2017. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition. In fact, in paragraph No.17 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has referred to the suppression of material facts by the appellant.
9. It is pointed out that some of the averments in the memorandum of appeal are objectionable. Objectionable allegations are also made in the IA for impleadment.
10. Suffice it to say that there is no merit in the appeal. Though we are not dealing with the objectionable averments, we make it clear that we are not condoning the said objectionable averments.
11. For the reasons what are stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VK