T.N.RAGHUPATHY Vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 11439 of 2014, Judgment Date: Dec 16, 2014

                                                              Non-Reportable

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.  11439/2014
              [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22725 of 2014]


T. N. Raghupathy                                          ...  Appellant (s)

                                   Versus

High Court of Karnataka and others                        ... Respondent (s)


                                    WITH

                     TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 1150/2014

                                     AND

                     TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 1838/2014


                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:


Leave granted.

Appellant has challenged an interim  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  of
Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 35106 of 2014  filed  in  public
interest.
Appellant has mainly sought for a writ of mandamus  for  framing  new  norms
strictly  in  consonance  with  the  provisions  of  Section  16(2)  of  the
Advocates Act, 1961 in the matter of  designation  of  senior  advocates.  A
writ  of  certiorari  is  also  sought  for  quashing  notifications   dated
30.06.2014 and 14.07.2014 whereby  15  advocates  have  been  designated  as
senior advocates by the High Court of Karnataka.
In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this case, we do  not  deem
it necessary or proper to go into the  various  contentions  raised  by  the
appellant.
As per the impugned interim order dated   04.08.2014,  the  High  Court  has
taken the view that the appellant does not have locus standi  to  file  writ
petition in public interest.  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  Mr.  Kapil  Sibal,  Mr.
Gopal Subramaniam, Mr. Aditya Sondhi, learned senior counsel  appearing  for
some of the parties and the other counsel appearing for others  before  this
Court have graciously submitted that the High Court is not right in  holding
that  view.  Some  of  the  issues  raised  in  the  writ  petition  require
consideration. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior  counsel,  these
are the issues to be considered by the High Court only since it is the  High
Court concerned which frames the rules/regulations/guidelines regarding  the
designation of senior advocates. Therefore, we set aside the impugned  order
with a request to the High Court to consider the matter on merits.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

T.P.(C) No.1150/2014  &  T.P.(C) No. 1838/2014
In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 11439/2014 (arising  out  of
S.L.P. (C) No. 22725/2014), these transfer petitions  have  in  effect  been
rendered infructuous.
The transfer petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.


                                              ........................... J.
                                                          (ANIL R. DAVE)



                                              ............................J.
                                                        (KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
December 16, 2014.
-----------------------
3