HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11839 OF 2014 Date:07.07.2014 Between:
V. Parvathalingam .. Petitioner And Prakash Chakravarthy and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11839 OF 2014 ORDER:
Heard both sides.
The primary grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the 2nd respondent has not been able to hear and dispose of the Review Petition, dated 24.07.2012, filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 05.09.2011, in BCI Tr. Case No.56 of 2008.
On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed specifically stating as follows in paragraph Nos.6 and 7:
“It is submitted that the Bar Council of India is fixing various Disciplinary Committee matters along with review petitions at the headquarters of various State Bar Councils for the sake of convenience of the parties, so far the Bar Council of India has not constituted any Disciplinary Committee after 16.07.2011, that is the reason the review petition could not be placed before the Disciplinary Committee.
It is further submitted that the petitioner V. Parvathalingam thereafter has not filed any representation or application for early hearing. It is further to inform the Hon’ble Court that the Bar Council of India has already fixed the next sitting of the Disciplinary Committee on 19th and 20th April, 2014 at Delhi and if the petitioner is willing, we may fix the hearing of the petitioner’s case at Delhi to hear the review petition No.9/2012 filed by the petitioner.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he did not receive any notice of hearing of the review petition on the dates mentioned in the said counter affidavit. Hence, he was not present nor he could make a request.
Learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent clearly states that if the petitioner makes any application seeking early hearing of the review petition, the 2nd respondent would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the said proposal and in view of that the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make appropriate application for early hearing of the review petition before the 2nd respondent to enable him to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for consideration of the application. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
07.07.2014
KH