Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 324 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - no public cause coming up - relevant persons were not even impleaded as parties - Whether any particular person is to be permitted to appear as an authorized representative or not? Held that - Several of the features which are indicative of the questionable character of a petition, which is filed ostensibly as a PIL, but is not espousing any public cause are, obviously, available in the present petition. This petition could only be said to be an unwarranted and meddlesome interloping attempt and that too, while withholding certain relevant facts; while not even impleading the relevant persons as parties; and on a cause that is required to be taken up in different forum - this petition is required to be dismissed with exemplary costs. This petition is dismissed with costs in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), to be deposited by the petitioner within 30 days from today with the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru.
Issues Involved:
1. Debarring retired officials from practicing as advocates before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT). 2. Conducting an inquiry and deleting the licenses of specific retired members for professional misconduct. 3. Prohibiting former members from practicing before the CCI and COMPAT. 4. Investigating the assets of current members of the CCI. 5. Protecting the nobility of the legal profession. 6. Awarding the costs of the petition to the petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Debarring Retired Officials from Practicing: The petitioner sought to direct the Competition Commission of India and the Competition Appellate Tribunal to debar retired officials from practicing as advocates, invoking Part-VI Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India Rules. The court found that whether a person is permitted to appear as an authorized representative is a matter for the concerned Court/Tribunal/Authority to examine. The court saw no reason to allow the petitioner to raise this question by way of a PIL. 2. Inquiry and Deletion of Licenses for Professional Misconduct: The petitioner requested the Bar Council of India to conduct a suo moto inquiry and delete the licenses of Vinod Dhall and K.K. Sharma. The court noted that any question regarding the conduct of an advocate should be dealt with by the concerned State Bar Council and/or the Bar Council of India according to the applicable rules. The court found no reason to examine this matter under its PIL jurisdiction. 3. Prohibiting Former Members from Practicing: The petitioner sought to prohibit former members from practicing before the CCI and COMPAT. The court observed that the petitioner did not even implead the concerned individuals as parties to the petition, which was a significant omission. The court expressed that the petitioner’s approach was questionable and did not warrant consideration under PIL jurisdiction. 4. Investigating the Assets of Current Members: The petitioner sought to investigate the assets of the Chairperson and members of the CCI to check if they were proportionate to their known sources of income. The court found that this issue was not suitable for PIL jurisdiction and should be addressed through appropriate channels. 5. Protecting the Nobility of the Legal Profession: The petitioner aimed to protect the nobility of the legal profession. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India, which dealt with restrictions on former members practicing before certain tribunals. The court held that the decision in N.K. Bajpai’s case could not be applied to the present issue and that such matters should be dealt with in appropriate proceedings. 6. Awarding the Costs of the Petition: The petitioner sought the costs of the petition. The court found that the petition was an abuse of the process of law and was filed in a questionable manner. The court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ?1,00,000, to be deposited with the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, within 30 days. If not deposited, the Deputy Commissioner was directed to recover the amount in accordance with the law. The amount was to be remitted to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for use in Victim Compensation Scheme cases. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petition was frivolous and an abuse of the PIL jurisdiction. It emphasized the need to protect the purity and sanctity of PIL jurisdiction and discouraged the filing of petitions with oblique motives. The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs, highlighting the court’s stance against misuse of the judicial process.
|