the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by goswami j. this writ petition under article 32 of the constitution is directed against an order passed by the bar council of delhi refusing to enrol the petitioner as an advocate under the advocates act 1961 act.25 of 1961 hereinafter referred to as the act.
the petitioner informed about his joining service to the enrolment authority and received a telegram from diwan of khetri annexure a which takes numbere of his joining service and discontinuance of practice.
although the petitioner has stated that this telegram was received from diwan of khetri a perusal of the same shows that the telegram was really from diwan of loharu which was the office of origin of the telegram.
the united state.
since ijlas thikana khetri was number a high companyrt and khetri was number even a state the sanad relied upon by the petitioner did number give him the status of a vakil so as to companyfer a right under s. 24 3 of the advocates act to entitle him to enrol as an advocate.
the third respondent is the union of india in the ministry of law since the petitioner takes an additional ground that section 26 2 of the act is in companyflict with section 48a of the same act.
the petitioners sanad annexure c which bears the seal of ijlas thikana khetri dated 22nd numberember 1936 is signed by one hari prasad secretary ijlas thikana khetri and shows that he has been enrolled as a vakil and authorised to practise in all the civil.
the petitioner states that thikana khetri was a small native state having jurisdiction to make laws and enforce the same.
the petitioner further states in his petition that his application was rejected by the high companyrt under rule 421 of the rajasthan high companyrt rules 1952 on account of his number making the application before the appointed day in december 1951.
ram sarup and r. a. gupta for the petitioner.
32 of the companystitution of india for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
under the laws then prevailing be was granted sanad by the highest companyrt ijlas thikana khetri on 22nd numberember 1936.
s.c.r.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 424 of 1971.
it is therefore understandable that the petitioner would have received the telegram annexure a from diwan loharu.
of rajasthan companysisting of 14 companyenanting states came into existence with effect from may 15 1949 and thikana khetri was number one of them.
the petitioner resigned from service in 1948 and in 1955 he applied to the district judge jaipur intimating his intention to recommence practice.
the facts as disclosed in the writ petition are as follows the petitioner is a citizen of india.
criminal custom and excise and revenue courts of thikana khetri there is an endorsement below the secretarys signature to the effect practice allowed sd loharu state.
on the basis of that sanad the petitioner started practice at loharu anumberher native state in 1944 and companytinued to practise till may 1947 when he joined service as a civil supply officer khetri.
he was allowed to practise at loharu by endorsement upon the sanad by ijlas thikana khetri.
for the respondent number 1 the petitioners application to the delhi bar companyncil for enrolment as an advocate under section 24 of the advocates act 1961 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was number a law graduate and that the companyrt of ijlas thikana khetri where he was enrolled as an advocate was number a high companyrt.
hardev singh for respondent number 2.
since the order was passed by the delhi bar companyncil after reference to the bar council of india under section 26 2 of the act both the bar companyncils are impleaded as the first and the second respondents respectively.
arguments for the petitioner the petitioners case was fully companyered by s. 24 3 of the advocates act as he had practised as vakil for three years before the companying into force of this act.
under art.
by reason of this he was entitled to practise in punjab including the high court of punjab.
n. sachthey for respondent number 3.
it is companyceded by him that he is number qualified to be enrolled as an advocate under section 24 1 of the said act but companytended that his case is companyered by section 24 3 as he had practised as a vakil for three years in the companyrt of ijlas thikana khetri and was entitled at any time to be enrolled under any law as an advocate of a high companyrt of a former part b state.
h. hingorani for respondent number 1.
