By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
"[13] The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased:
[A] To allow this application.
[B] To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.1 to give certified copies of all the documents prayed by the petitioner which shown in the application dated 11.10.2011 which is at Annexure: A to the present petition.
[C] To issue issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.1 to call for the original record and proceeding of D. C. Case No.10/2006 from the Bar Council of India i.e. respondent No.2.
[D] To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.2 to transmit the record and proceedings of D.C. Case No.10/2006 to Bar Council of Gujarat forthwith.
[E] To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.
[F] To award the cost of this petition."
The main grievance voiced in the present petition is that the respondent No.1 Bar Council of Gujarat has not supplied certain documents as enumerated in the List at Annexure "A" to the petition which the petitioner requires for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision dated 3.8.2011 of the Bar Council of Gujarat.
The first respondent has filed various affidavits in-reply to the petition indicating that the documents enumerated in the said List have been furnished to the petitioner. However, insofar as the document mentioned as R/30 at Serial No.9 is concerned, attention is invited by the petitioner to page 146 of the compilation which is a communication dated 20.8.2008 of advocate Mr. Daxesh Dave, wherein it has been stated that he wants to produce a letter of L.I.C. of India dated 6.4.2006 which mentions two documents, namely, (1) Original letter dated 6th April 2006 of LIC of India and (2) Civil Application No.9059 of 2004 in First Appeal No.155 of 2003, copy of order dated 21.12.2004. It is submitted that the copy of Civil Application No.9059 of 2004 in First Appeal No.155 of 2003 has not been furnished to the petitioner.
In response to the said submission, Mr. R. C. Jani, learned advocate for the first respondent has invited attention to the affidavit dated 15.2.2012 made by Mr. Jatin M. Chauhan, In-charge Secretary of the first respondent wherein, it has been categorically stated that the documents which are supplied by the respondent at running page 146 being R/30 (which is already supplied to the petitioner) wherein, respondent has only received a copy of the order dated 21.12.2004 and no Civil Application No.9059 of 2004 in First Appeal No.155 of 2003 has been supplied by Advocate Mr. Daxesh Dave and thereafter, after perusing the records, he is filing the present affidavit to the effect that except the copy of the order dated 21.12.2004, no civil application is submitted by the advocate. It is, accordingly, submitted that since the copy of the civil application has not been submitted by the concerned advocate, the same does not form part of the record of the first respondent and as such, it is not possible for the first respondent to furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner.
Thus, the only document enumerated in the List at Annexure "A", that is, a copy of the Civil Application No.9059 of 2004 in First Appeal No.155 of 2003 mentioned at Serial No.9 at R/30 has not been provided to the petitioner for the reasons stated in the affidavit in reply made by the first respondent. Insofar as the rest of the documents are concerned, there is no dispute that the same have been furnished.
In the light of the aforesaid position, it is apparent that the main relief prayed for by the petitioner stands redressed inasmuch as, the documents, copies of which have been sought for by the petitioner have been furnished to her. Insofar as the copy of Civil Application No.9059 of 2004 is concerned, since the same is not furnished by the advocate concerned and does not form part of the record, evidently it is not possible for the first respondent to furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner.
In view of the above, nothing further remains to be done in the present petition and the same is disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar* Top