Sk Kaushal vs The District Bar Association Dba … on 28 April, 2017

CWP No.17116 of 2016 (OM) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.17116 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision:28.04.2017

S.K.Kaushal … Petitioner
Vs.

The District Bar Association (DBA) Ambala and others
… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:- Petitioner-in-person.

Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate
for respondent No.1.

Mr. Indresh Goel, Addl.A.G.Haryana.

AMIT RAWAL J.

The petitioner has approached this Court by seeking following

relief :-

“Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 read with Articles

14 and 300A of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a

writ in nature of certiorari to quash the impugned

order/notices of the respondent no.1, order no.5022/DBA dated

26.02.2016 (Annexure P-8), seize petitioner’s lawyer chamber

no.S104 and dismember him from the membership of the

District Bar Association, Ambala conveyed vide the respondent

no.1 application dated 15.03.2016 (Annexure P-12) under

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without show cause, without the

authority of law, against the rule of audi-al-tram partam

without jurisdiction.

1 of 5
06-05-2017 07:54:47 :::
CWP No.17116 of 2016 (OM) {2}

AND

Against the auction of his seized chamber no.S104, vide

auction notice dated 4.8.2016 (Annexure P-16).

AND

Further praying for the issuances of appropriate directions

order or writ especially in the nature of mandamus directing

the respondents to restore petitioner’s membership and his

lawyer’s chamber and grant stay against the said auction on

23.8.2016 in the interest of justice.

AND

Any other writ, order or direction to which this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and appropriate under the law equality and good

conscious may please also be issued against the respondents,

in favour of the petitioner.”

on the premise that he being legal practitioner, bearing registration no.P-

304/1988 after having rendered 35 years of service in Army. It is conceded

case of the petitioner that on 19.12.2011, he had filed a civil suit for

mandatory injunction against respondent no.1- The District Bar

Association, Ambala seeking allotment of chamber on the ground floor on

the premise of his old age and other disabilities yet without issuing show-

cause-notice, the District Bar Association had sold the aforementioned

chamber in open auction. Many applications in the aforementioned pending

suit have been filed. Even the petitioner had earlier approached this Court

by filing a Civil Revision Petition bearing No.610 of 2012 seeking issuance

of direction to the trial Court for deciding his stay application and as well as

2 of 5
06-05-2017 07:54:47 :::
CWP No.17116 of 2016 (OM) {3}

for production of documents which was disposed of, vide order dated

25.02.2012 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner had paid District Bar

Association subscription upto 2016, vide receipt no.14520 dated 22.01.2016

(Annexure P-3). He was flabbergasted to receive a notice dated 26.02.2016

(Annexure P-8) vide which he was informed that the aforementioned

allotment was cancelled. The auction aforesaid was conducted later on.

Even respondents had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code

of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaint which is stated to be pending

adjudication and thus, urges this Court for granting the aforementioned

relief.

This Court, vide order dated 18.03.2017 had allowed the civil

miscellaneous application moved by respondent No.1 for placing on record

the documents, Annexures R-1 to R-8.

Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the

aforesaid application indicating of the fact that writ petition is not

maintainable on the premise that civil suit is already pending. Several

interim applications have been filed which were dismissed. The revision

petition against the aforementioned order has also been dismissed. The

application seeking stay of the auction has been dismissed, vide order dated

12.08.2016 which has never been challenged. The petitioner is in habit of

filing of frivolous litigation and had not even spared his brothers, sisters and

nephews. All the chambers have been occupied by the practicing lawyers

and not even a single chamber is lying vacant. Even wife of petitioner had

also lodged an FIR against her husband, vide FIR No.705 dated 30.07.2000

3 of 5
06-05-2017 07:54:47 :::
CWP No.17116 of 2016 (OM) {4}

under Sections 498A/323/506 IPC, at Police Station Ambala Cantt. and

thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present writ petition.

I have heard petitioner-in-person, learned counsel for the

respondents and appraised the paper book.

It is conceded position on record that civil suit is pending. The

suit had been filed in the year 2001, whereas, chamber was allotted to the

petitioner on 15.06.2011. His membership had been cancelled on

26.02.2016 (Annexure P-8) and before that vide order dated 01.02.2016

(Annexure P-4), he was issued a show-cause-notice, thus, argument of

petitioner-in-person for not complying with the principle of audi-al-tram

partam is totally fallacious. This Court called upon to Mr. V.K.Kaushal

with regard to maintainability of the writ petition against the District Bar

Association which is a Society registered under the Society Registration

Act, is not being a State falling within the ambit of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India but despite raising this question many time, Mr.

Kaushal had not been able to answer the same except by referring to the

questions of law framed in the writ petition which have been framed

according to the wisdom and comprehension of the petitioner. Once the

petitioner had already availed remedy, he can always seek interim relief

regarding stay of the auction as noticed above which has already been

rejected. He cannot indulge into forum shopping and continue with the

parallel proceedings by knocking the door of this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. The petitioner can always mould the relief in the

civil by seeking amendment of the same but the fact remains that the relief

as sought cannot be brought within the ambit of Article 226 of the

4 of 5
06-05-2017 07:54:47 :::
CWP No.17116 of 2016 (OM) {5}

Constitution of India.

No ground is made out for interference.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
April 28, 2017
savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
06-05-2017 07:54:47 :::

READ  Kuchhal Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Trade & Taxes on 7 August, 2014

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *