J. Sudershan vs Union of India and others

Srinivasan, J.—There is no merit whatever in this writ appeal which is a frivolous and vexatious one. The prayer in the writ petition is for

issue of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 who are Union of India represented by the Secretary to Ministry of Law and Justice and

Secretary, Bar Council of India, to inquire into the circumstances that made the third respondent Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to file a

complaint before the fourth respondent Commissioner of Police, Egmore, when the matter is pending before the Supreme Court of India and not

finally disposed of.

The appellant was an advocate. He was removed from the rolls for misconduct by order dated 12-2-1994 passed by the Bar Council of India

Instead of challenging the order by an appeal, the appellant filed W.P. No. 10165 of 1994 against a communication issued by the State Bar

Council consequent to the order of the Bar Council of India. That petition was dismissed by a Division Bench on 17-4-1995.

Earlier, the appellant would appear to have carried on his profession under the names and styles ''Legal Aid Cell'' and ''Legal Services Centres''.

Alleging that the said concerns were playing fraud on the public a person by name Vijayaraj alias Jayakumar claiming to be a victim of such fraud

filed W.P. No. 17145 of 1993 for a mandamus to various authorities including the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to

conduct an inquiry into their affairs. When that writ petition was heard by a Division Bench to which one of us (Srinivasan, J.) was a party, it was

noticed that several complaints were to be lodged. The Bench allowed the writ petition by order dated 26-4-1995 and gave the following

directions :

It is open to the respondents 3, 4, 10 and 11 to file complaints against the respondents 1 and 2 and all other persons connected with

respondents 1 and 2 before the appropriate authorities for taking suitable action under the Criminal law :

(ii) Respondents 8 and 9 are directed hereby to proceed further with the investigation of the matters which are said to be already pending,

complete the investigation and initiate proceedings if necessary within a period of two months from this date.

(iii) It is stated that the Bar Council has already given a complaint to the Commissioner of Police (Vide : Confidential No. 278 of 1995 of the Bar

Council of Tamil Nadu, addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Madras-8, dated 27-3-1995). The Commissioner of Police, is

directed to take appropriate action on the said complaint and complete investigation thereon within two months from this date;

(iv) If any other complaint is given to the Police authorities, they, shall take appropriate action and complete investigation within two months from

the date of receipt of such complaint.

At that stage the appellant presented a SLP before the Supreme Court of India against the order of the Bar Council of India dated 12-2-1994

with a petition to condone delay in filing the same. That application was pending on the date when the present writ petition was filed on 2-5-1995.

But even on 10-5-1995 the Supreme Court of India after condoning the delay in filing the SLP dismissed the said special leave petition. In spite of

that, the appellant herein did not choose to withdraw the writ petition. Knowing that he had failed in the Supreme Court, he pursued the writ

petition to its end by arguing the same before the learned single Judge. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has confirmed the order of the

Bar Council of India removing the appellant from the rolls there is no impediment whatever against the State Bar Council to proceed against the

appellant with the complaint already lodged with the Commissioner of Police. There is no case whatever for issuance of writ of mandamus directing

inquiry into the circumstances under which the said complaint was lodged by the State Bar Council with the Commissioner of Police. It may be

noted that direction number (iii) referred to above given by the Bench related to the complaint dated 27-3-1995 which is the subject matter of the

present writ petition. When that complaint was lodged, there was no matter pending in the Supreme Court. The appellant filed the SLP much later.

The appellant ought not to have filed the writ petition only because he had applied for special leave against the order of the Bar Council of India. If

the appellant wanted to stop such proceedings, he ought to have applied before the Supreme Court for stay, Instead of that he filed the present

writ petition in this Court in spite of the order in W.P. No. 17145 of 1993. There is no doubt that the appellant was trying to make the order of the

Bench ineffective by filing this writ petition and thus he is guilty of contempt of Court.

Even after the disposal of the SLP by the Supreme Court on 10-5-1995, the appellant filed two other writ petitions on 1-5-1995 in this Court in

W.P. Nos. 7237 and 7238 of 1995 for prohibiting the authorities from taking any action on the resolution passed by the Bar Council and directing

initiation of prosecution against the appellant. In fact, a resolution was passed by the Bar Council on 24-3-1995 much earlier to the order passed

by the Division Bench in W.P. No. 17145 of 1993. That resolution was only to authorise filing a criminal complaint before the Commissioner of

Police and other appropriate authorities. The appellant made a complaint in the said W.Ps. 7237 and 7238 of 1995 as if a resolution was passed

on 27-3-1995 to take action against the appellant under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In fact, there was no such resolution, but the appellant

included a paper in the typed set purporting to be a copy of the letter written by the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to the Commissioner of

Police through the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu bearing the date 27-3-1995. These writ petitions were dismissed by

this Court on 17-5-1995 after finding that there was no resolution as alleged by him.

In spite of the said dismissal, the appellant proceeded to argue the present W.P. No. 7018 of 1995 as if he had a case on merits. The learned

single Judge has rightly found that it is a frivolous and vexatious one and dismissed the same. We are entirely in agreement with the view taken by

the learned Judge.

The appellant makes a grievance of the order passed by the learned Judge directing him to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the third respondent, viz., Bar

Council of Tamil Nadu. The contention of the appellant is that the learned Judge has erroneously made a reference to the dismissal of petitioner in

W.Ps. No. 7237 and 7238 of 1995 which had nothing to do with the present proceeding and the learned Judge ought not to have ordered costs.

We do not agree. We find that all the writ petitions referred to above are only frivolous. The appellant has been indulging in such vexatious

litigation. In fact action must have been taken against the appellant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Vexations Litigation (prevention) Act,

1949. The learned Judge has taken a lenient view that it would serve the interest of justice, if he was made to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs.

The learned Judge has also found that the appellant is guilty of contempt of Court. Hence, we request the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu to

initiate action against the appellant under the provisions of (1) the Tamil Nadu Vexations Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1949 (Act 8 of 1949) and (2)

The Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (Act 70 of 1971).

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order for costs is fully justified. The appeal is dismissed. The third respondent has entered

appearance by filing caveat and placed the records before us. In our opinion, the third respondent is entitled to costs in this appeal also. When this

appeal was posted earlier before the First Bench it was found that the appellant has given a false address in the writ petition and the appeal. On a

direction by the Honourable the Chief Justice, the third respondent has filed a detailed affidavit setting out the details of the appellant''s fraudulent

activities. There is no counter affidavit by the appellant. The third respondent has also filed a type set of papers containing copies of relevant

records.

We are convinced that the appellant must be made to pay heavy costs in this appeal also. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with costs of the third

respondent. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of costs to the third respondent in this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.