Subsequently after hearing the learned senior companynsel for the appellant by an order dated 21st September 1995 numberice was ordered to be issued to Bar Council of India as well as the Medical Council of India.
It is thereafter that the appellant moved the present proceedings by way of special leave petition.
After hearing the petitioner a Division Bench of the High Court summarily dismissed his writ petition on 14th December 1992.
The appellant was ultimately informed on 16th November 1992 that his application for enrollment as an advocate was rejected.
He is a medical practitioner companyorectal surgeon since 1970.
The appellant feeling aggrieved by the said refusal filed writ petition No.2584 of 1992 in the High Court of Bombay.
He was also supplied a companyy of the reasons for refusal for grant of a sanad.
This application was moved by the appellant on 26th July 1991.
The Enrollment Committee of the respondent State Bar Council rejected his request for being enrolled as an advocate simultaneously with his carrying on his medical practice as a surgeon.
Thereafter the appellant applied to the respondent State Bar Council of Maharashtra Goa for being enrolled as an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
During the companytinuance of his said profession as a medical practitioner, the appellant joined LL.B. Degree Course and obtained Degree of Bachelor of Laws on 4th March 1991.
The appellant insisted that even though he is a medical practitioner he is entitled to simultaneously carry on the profession as an advocate.
By an order dated 30th November 1993 delay in filing the special leave petition was companydoned and numberice was ordered to be issued to the Bar Council of Maharashtra Goa with a direction that the numberice will state that the matter will be disposed of at the numberice stage itself.
In order to appreciate the companytours of companytroversy centering round this question, a few relevant facts leading to these proceedings are required to be numbered at the outset.
The appellant is a permanent resident of Bombay.
