In The Supreme Court of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014
(PETITION UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908)
Between
Sri. M.Veerabhadraiah,
S/o late Mallaiah
Age about 58 years,
Advocate, En.No.KAR/453/1986,
Having Office at No.141,
1
st
Floor, 13
th
Main, 27
th
Cross,
3
rd
Block East, Jayanagar,
Bangalore 560 011 Petitioner
Karnataka

Versus

1. The Union of India
By its Secretary
Ministry Of Law and Justice,
Shasthri Bhavan, A-Wing, Respondent
New Delhi 100001. No.1

2. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary,
Department of Law and Parliament Affairs,
Vidhana Soudha,
Vidhana Veedi,
Bangalore 560001. Respondent
Karnataka No.2

3. The Registrar General
Honble High Court of Karnataka
Vidhana Veedi,
Karnataka No.3

4. The Bar Council of India
By its Secretary,
Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,
New Delhi 110 002 Respondent
Karnataka No.4

5. The state bar Council of Karnataka,
By its Secretary, Bangalore,
K.G.I.D. Building
Cubbon Park,
Vidhana Veedi,
Karnataka No.5

6. The Bangalore Advocates
Association.
Represented by its Secretary
Civil Court Complex, K.G.Road,
Karnataka No.6

7. Sri.Sajan Poovayya
S/o Poovayya M.K
Aged about 40 years,
Advocate
Enrollment No. KAR/133/1997
Presently at: The Estate, Level One, 121
Dickenson Road,
Karnataka No.7

8. Sri. Aditya Sondhi
S/o Not Known
Advocate
Presently at: No. 101, Landmark,
5/2 Cunningham Crescent Road,
Karnataka No.8

9. Sri. Shashi kiran shetty. K
S/o Justice. Vishwanath Shetty,
Advocate
Presently at: No. 11,
Jeevan Building, Kumara Park East,
Karnataka No9

10. Sri. Prabhuling navadgi .k
S/o late Justice. Navadgi.K.
Advocate
Presently at: No. 369, R.T.Nagar Main Road,
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore 560032. Respondent
Karnataka No.10

11. Sri. M.n.sheshadri
S/o Not Known
Advocate
Presently at: Apt.No. 263, 6
th
Floor,
Rajanigandha Garden Apartments,
No. 21, Vittal Mallya Road,
Karnataka No.11

12. Sri. R.L.patil
S/o Not Known,
Advocate
Presently at: 1
st
& 2
nd
Floor,
Swastik Complex, Seshadripuram,
Karnataka No.12

13. Sri. Lakshminarayana. V
S/o Not Known,
Advocate
Presently at: No 8/2, OTC Road, 3
rd
Floor,
Adjacent to Sharadha Talkies,
Near Dharmarajagudi Circle,
Karnataka No.13

14. Sri. Jagadeesh D. L
S/o Not Known,
Advocate
Presently at: No. 120/3, 4
th
Cross,
Near Kanishka Hotel, Gandhinagar,
Karnataka No.14

15. Sri. Nargund M.B.
S/o Badrinath.M. Nargund
Advocate
Presently at: No. 247, Medha
53
rd
Cross, Opp. Sri.Ramamandira,
4
th
Block, Rajajinagar,
Karnataka No.15

16. Sri. Krishna Murthy G.
S/o Not Known
Advocate
Presently at: No. 205, 2
nd
Floor,
Ahuja Chambers, No.1,
Kumara Krupa Road,
Karnataka No.16

17. Sri. Sadasiva Reddy Y.R
S/o Rama Reddy Y.R,
Advocate
nd
Floor,
Cubbonpet Main Road,
Avenue Road Cross,
Karnataka No.17

18. Sri. Seshachala. M.V
S/o. Justice. Venkatachala M.N.
Advocate
Presently at: No. 8 & 9,
Ground Floor, No. 41,
SNZ Plaza, Kumara Krupa Road,
Karnataka No.18

19. Sri. Shyam Prasad B.M
S/o Justice. Mallikarjuna. B.N,
Advocate
Presently at: No. 481/1,
Ground & First Floor,
Sree Krishna Temple Road,
Indiranagar 1
st
Stage,
Karnataka No.19

20. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy
S/o Subba Reddy K.N,
Advocate
th
Cross,
Wilson Garden
Karnataka No.20

21. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa. M
S/o Justice. Chinnappa,
Advocate
Presently at: No. 33, Xavier Layout,
1
st
Cross, Victoria Road,
Karnataka No.21

PETITION UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR TRANSFER OF WRIT
PETITION FROM THE HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENCH AT BANGALORE TO ANY OF
THE NEIGHBORING STATE HIGH COURT IN INDIA.

To,
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and
His companion Judges of the Supreme
Court of India.
The Humble Petition of
petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1) 1. This transfer petition is filed under Section 25 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the larger interest
of the Bench and Bar to withdraw the
Writ.Petition.No.36789/2014(GM-PIL)titled Sri. M.
Veerabhadraiah V/s The Union of India and others
under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India filed
by the Petitioner herein before the High Court of
Karnataka bench at Bangalore, to transfer the same to
any neighboring states High Court.

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

2.1 That on the 13.02.2014 the Full Court of the High
Court of Karnataka resolved and fixed the norms for
designation of Senior Counsel.

2.2. That on 13.03.2014, the Committee of the High Court
of Karnataka in its meeting constituted a committee of
three Honble Judges of the Honble High Court to
propose draft norms and guidelines or draft rules for
the purpose of designating an advocate as a senior
advocate.

2.3 That on 21.03.2014, in response to the invitation given
by the Committee of the Honble High Court of
Karnataka, learned Advocate General, 11 designated
senior advocates, and the Chairman of the Karnataka
State Bar Council, the President and the General
Secretary of Advocates Association of Bangalore
participated in the meeting and given their suggestion
to frame the Rules. Thereafter the Rules viz., The
Karnataka High Court Designation of Senior
Advocates Rules, 2014 was placed before the full
Court of the High Court of Karnataka before
commencement of summer vacation 2014 and on a
request made by some of the Honble Judges, the
matter was deferred.

2.4 When matter stud thus one of the sitting judge, given
letter on 23/04/2014 sponsoring the 7
th
respondent
name for designating as senior advocate. The
Committee on 16.06.2014 resolved to place five
Advocates name before the full Court along with any
other applications received in the meantime. Though
two agenda was before the full court, first agenda
regarding approval of the Draft rule 2014 was deferred,
second agenda i.e designating the advocate as senior
advocate was put in to vote without discussion,
knowing fully that, in case Rule 2014 given effect all
the advocate will become ineligible for designating the
as senior advocate.

2.5 That on 30.06.2014, the 3
rd
respondent issued
Notification U/s 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961
nominating Respondent No. 7 to 10 as designated
Senior Advocate. That it is pertinent to note here that
as per the request of one of Honble judge the
respondent No.7 was designated as Senior Advocate.
The copy of the Notification dated 30.06.2014 is
herewith annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-1. -
(Page___________).

2.6 That on 14.07.2014 the 3
rd
respondent issued another
Notification U/s 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, by
which Respondent No.11 to 21 is designated as Senior
Advocate, to cover up the mistake committed earlier.
The copy of the Notification dated 14.07.2014 is
herewith annexed and marked as ANNEXURE P-2-
(Page___________).

2.7 This decision of the Full Court was published through
the 3
rd
respondent Registrar General and on such
publication, it became a public issue and even some of
the leading news-papers have criticized the decision
taken by the Full Court and it is also learnt by the
petitioner that one of the Honble Judge of the High
Court of Karnataka was also negatively voiced on the
decision taken by the Full Court and sought for certain
clarification. The copies of News Paper Articles are
(Page____________).

2.8 That as per the roster the Writ Petition filed by the
petitioner was to be listed before the Honble Chief
Justice, hence considering the Honble Chief Justice
party to the committee, who has issued the Notification
dated 30/06/2014 and 14/07/2014, the present
petitioner on 28/07/2014 as abandon precaution and
in the interest of justice had moved an memo before
the Honble Chief Justice praying to post the matter
before the Honble Judge of High Court of Bangalore
who have not taken part in the full Court meeting or in
alternative petitioner has also sought liberty to file
Transfer Petition under Section 25 of Civil Procedure
Code before this Honble Court. The copy of Memo in
Writ Petition No.36789/2014 dated 28/07/2014 is
(Page_________).

2.9 The High Court of Karnataka passed the order
dismissing the memo filed by the petitioner. The copy
of order passed on Memo in Writ Petition
No.36789/2014 dated 04/08/2014 passed by the
Honble High Court of Judicature of Bangalore is
(Page_________).

2.10 the copy of ready reference norm fixed by the full court
of the Honble High Court of Karnataka dated
13/02/2014 and draft Rules 2014 is herewith annexed
and marked as ANNEXURE P-6-(Page_________).

3. The grounds on which the petitioner is seeking
transfer are as follows:

A. It is submitted that on 13-03-2014, the High Court of
Karnataka have constituted a Committee consisting of
three Honble Judges to draft the rules for the purpose
of regulating the area related to designation of
Advocates as Senior Advocates. A meeting was held
on 21-03-2014 by the Committee and thereafter for
the purpose of framing the Rules, the Committee
commenced the process of consultation with the
learned Advocate General of Karnataka, 11 senior
designated Senior Advocates, the Chairman of
Karnataka State Bar Council and the President and
Secretary of the Advocates Association, Bangalore, to
assist the Committee for framing the Rules. The Rules
framed by 16 other High Courts of the country have
also been secured enable to form model Rules for the
purpose of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates.
While the draft Rules were prepared in the name and
style of The Karnataka High Court Designation of
Senior Advocates Rules, 2014 and in preparation of
the said Rules, some of the legal luminaries have also
rendered their assistance and advise to the Committee
and upon examined all such suggestions and opinion
submitted during the process of consultation, the
draft Rules were framed. Before the commencement of
Summer Vacation of 2014, the issue was placed before
the Full Court meeting of the High Court of Karnataka
relating to the finalization of the draft Rules. While
considering the same, the subject was deferred beyond
Summer Vacation 2014 as the draft Rules needs
meticulous examination in detail to make it concrete
Rules for the purpose of regulating the particular area.
The matter stood thus. Mean time some of the other
Advocates made applications in terms of the prevailing
guidelines, therein requested for granting the
designation as Senior Advocates. In the meanwhile,
the one of the Honble Judge has also proposed the
name of the 7
th
respondent herein for the purpose of
grant of designation as a Senior Advocate. Full Court
meeting was convened, therein the subject of approval
of draft Rules and consideration of the applications
pending and awaiting decision of the Full Court for
grant of designation, were the subject matter in the
Full Court meeting and finalization of the draft Rules
was deferred and hurriedly and hastily a decision was
taken to grant designation to four Advocates who are
respondents 7 to 10 herein respectively. So far as the
other applications were concerned, the request was
declined and some more applications were pending by
that time which were not taken up for consideration.
This decision of the Full Court was published through
the 3
rd
respondent Registrar General and on such ,M
publication, it became a public issue and even some of
the leading news-papers have criticized the decision
taken by the Full Court and it is also learnt by the
petitioner that one of the Honble Judge of the High
Court of Karnataka was also negatively voiced on the
decision taken by the Full Court and sought for
certain clarification. In the meanwhile, when the
decision of the Full Court was seriously criticized in
the news-papers and an issue in the Bar and the
Court corridor, one more Full Court meeting was
convened and again some other Advocates have been
granted designation as Senior Advocates who are
respondents 11 to 21 herein who are designated in the
later decision. The validity of these two notifications
was called in question in a Public Interest Litigation by
the member of the Bar wherein a memo was filed with
a request that the matter has to be placed before the
Bench which consisting of the Judges other than who
are parties to the decision of the Full Court meeting
which is further followed by the impugned
notifications. It was specifically contended before the
Honble Judges of the Division Bench who are the
parties to the Full Court decision that it would not be
desirable to hear that matter as it would create lot of
embarrassment situation both to the Bar and the
Bench. It was also contended that one of the Honble
Judge who is the Member of the Division Bench
wherein the order Annexure P-6 was passed, was
himself a party in proposing the name of 7
th

respondent for designating him as Senior Advocate
and in such a situation, hearing of the petition by
such Bench is undesirable one. This request of the
petitioner was declined by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Karnataka without responding to the
contentions raised in support of the memo.

B. It is submitted that the decision was taken by the Full
Court of the High Court of Karnataka basically
lacking with transparency and the decision does not
satisfy with the requirements of Section 16 (2) of the
Advocates Act 1961 and there is no consideration to
form a subjective satisfaction, at least for grant of
designation to such Advocates and not even to that
while a rule is yet to be finalized when there was no
hurry or urgency to take such decision, hurriedly and
hastily the decision was taken to favour only a few
Advocate who found to be ineligible, much less to
apply in the event if the draft Rules are finalized and
the Rules are given effect to. With this extraneous
intention, the decision was hurriedly and hastily
taken, was one of the arguments addressed in the writ
petition in assailing the validity of the decision of the
Full Court followed by the impugned notifications
through the
3rd
respondent. When an issue is so
serious and hearing of the writ petition by such
Honble Judges who are parties to the Full Court
decision, is not only opposed to the basic principles of
legal jurisprudence, much less it is against to the
common law, such a fair and reasonable request made
by the petitioner was declined unceremoniously by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka which
vitiates the order. As such, the order on the memo is
vitiated one. It is the settled position in law, much
less the fair judicial administration is based upon the
fundamental principle viz., Assurance of fair trial is
the first imperative of dispensation of justice and the
central criterion for the Court to consider when a
motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity
or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of
legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more
substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from
the point of view of public justice and its attendant
environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise
its power to transfer. This is the cardinal principle
although the circumstances may be myriad and vary
from case to case. Ultimately, to test the petitioners
grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule
that normally the complainant has the right to choose
any Court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot
dictate where the case against him should be tried.
Even so, the process of justice should not harass the
parties and from that angle the Court may weigh the
circumstances. This was quoted before the Court in
the case of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy v. Ramakrishna
Hegde, reported in AIR 1990 SC 113. It would also
be relevant to refer to the principles enunciated by
this Honble Court in the case of Justice P.D.
Dinakaran V. Judges Inquiry Committee and
others, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 380. In the said
judgment, the notification issued was a bias alleged by
the petitioner therein against one of the Member who
was nominated to the Committee for enquiring the
misdeeds of the said Judge P.D. Dinakaran while he
was holding the office. While examining and
scrutinizing the same, the entire back-ground of the
legal principle was considered in detail and ultimately
at paragraph 41 it was held as follows:-
41. In this case, we are concerned with the
application of first of the two principles of
natural justice recognized by the
traditional English Law i.e. nemo debet
esse judex in propria causa. This principle
consists of the rule against bias or interest
and is based on three maxims: (i) No man
shall be a judge in his own cause; (ii)
Justice should not only be done, but
manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be
done; and (iii) Judges, like Caesars wife
should be above suspicion. The first
requirement of natural justice is that the
Judge should be impartial and neutral and
must be free from bias. He is supposed to
be indifferent to the parties to the
controversy. He cannot act as Judge of a
cause in which he himself has some
interest either pecuniary or otherwise as it
affords the strongest proof against
neutrality. He must be in a position to act
judicially and to decide the
matterobjectively. A Judge must be of
sterner stuff. His mental equipoise must
always remain firm and undetected. He
should not allow his personal prejudice to
go into the decision making. The object is
not merely that the scales be held even; it
is also that they may not appear to be
inclined. If the Judge is subject to bias in
favour of or against either party to the
dispute or is in a position that a bias can
be assumed. He is disqualified to act as a
Judge, and the proceedings will be vitiated.
This rule applies to the judicial and
administrative authorities required to act
judicially or quasi-judicially.

C. It would also be relevant to refer to a passage from
the said judgment which reads thus:-
.. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I prefer
to state the test in terms of real danger rather
than real likelihood, to ensure that the court is
thinking in terms of possibility rather than
probability of bias. Accordingly, having
ascertained the relevant circumstances, the court
should ask itself whether, having regard to those
circumstances, there was a real danger of bias on
the part of the relevant member of the tribunal in
question, in the sense that he might unfairly
regard (or have unfairly regarded) with favour, or
disfavor, the case of a party to the issue under
consideration by him..

D. A passage from the judgment rendered in Karttunen
v. Finlands case reported in 1992 IIHRL 53 (UNHRC),
reads thus:-
.. implies that Judges must not harbor
preconceptions about the matter put before them,
and they must not act in ways that promote the
interests of one of the parties . A trial flawed
by the participation of a Judge who, under
domestic statutes, should have been disqualified
cannot normally be considered to be fair or
impartial within the meaning of Article 14.

E. It would be relevant to refer to the another passage
from the judgment of this Honble Court rendered in
P.D. Dinakarans case, which reads thus:-

15. At every stage of his participation in the
deliberations of the Selection Board there was a
conflict between his interest and duty. Under
those circumstances it is difficult to believe that
he could have been impartial. The real question
is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to
prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore
what we have to see is whether there is
reasonable ground for believing that he was likely
to have been biased. In deciding the question
of bias we have to take into consideration human
probabilities and ordinary course of human
conduct.

F. In the back-ground of the aforesaid principles, while
arguing in support of the memo, it was contended that
the request is fair and reasonable because hearing of
the petition by the Bench consisting of such Honble
Judges who are parties to the Full Court meeting,
would naturally against to the well settled principles
in law which is a part of the natural justice as of now
viz., Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa: No man
shall be a judge in his own cause, or no man can act
as both at the one and the same time a party or a
suitor and also as a Judge, or the deciding authority
must be impartial and without bias. In spite of this,
the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka
declined the relief which vitiates the impugned order.

G. Division bench of Honble High Court of Karnataka
predetermined the issue and in a prejudicial manner
passed the order dt.04/08/2014 and rejected the
memo. In the order an unnecessary observation is
made regarding petitioner locus standi, though this
Honble full Court judgment passed in case of S.P
Guptha is binding on the High Court under article
141 of Constitution of India. Therefore petitioner
approached this Honble Court by invoking
discretionary jurisdiction for withdraw the writ
petition and transfer the case to other High Court for
free fare trail and to meets ends of justice.

4. The petitioner has not filed any other petition or
petitions before this Honble Court earlier. The
documents filed with this transfer petition are true
copies of their respective originals.

5. PRAYER:

The petitioner therefore prays:

a) That this Honble Court be pleased to withdraw
the Writ Petition No. 36789 /2013(GM-PIL) titled
Sri. M. Veerabhadraiah V/s The Union of India
and others under Article 226 & 227 of
Constitution of India filed by the petitioner before
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and Try
by this Honble Court in the larger interest of the
Bench and Bar or transfer the same to any other
neighboring state High Court for fare and free tail
and meet ends of justice.

b) That such other orders be passed as deemed
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER IS
DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Drawn By Filed By
M.R.RajaGopal
SharanaGouda Patil (S-Legal Associates)
Advocates
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
DRAWN ON : .08.2014
FILED ON : .08.2014
New Delhi.

INDEX
SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Listing Performa A A1

2. Synopsis & List of Dates B-

3. Transfer Petition with affidavit 1-

4. ANNEXURE P-1
The copy of the Notification dated
30.06.2014

5. ANNEXURE P-2
The copy of the Notification dated
14.07.2014

6. ANNEXURE P-3
The copies of News Paper Articles

7. ANNEXURE P-4
The copy of Memo in Writ Petition
No.36789/2014 dated 28/07/2014

8. ANNEXURE P-5
The copy of order passed on Memo in
Writ Petition No.36789/2014 dated
04/08/2014 passed by the Honble
High Court of Judicature of Bangalore

9. ANNEXURE P-6
the copy of ready reference norm fixed
by the full court of the Honble High
Court of Karnataka dated 13/02/2014
and draft Rules 2014

10. I.A.NO. OF 2014
Application for Stay.

In The Supreme Court of India

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

In The Supreme Court of India

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

S-ar putea să vă placă și