AVIPSIT RATHversusBAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

          Digitally
          signed by
          GAURI AMIT
GAURI     GAEKWAD
AMIT      Date:                                                             14.WP-664-2025.odt
GAEKWAD   2026.03.10
          15:39:11
          +0530

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                      WRIT PETITION NO.664 OF 2025

                   Avipsit Rath                               ….Petitioner
                             Versus
                   Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa & Anr. ….Respondents
                                                     ----
                   Mr. Avipsit Rath, Petitioner in person.
                   Mr. Yogendra Rajgor for Respondent No.1.
                   Mr. Prasad L. Gajbhiye for Respondent No.2.
                                                     ----
                                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                                    &
                                                           ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

                                               DATE     : 9th MARCH, 2026

                   P.C. :-

                   1.              The Petitioner had engaged an Advocate in Mumbai

                   whose name is mentioned in the memo of the Petition and paid him

                   fees of Rs.2 lakhs. The Civil Writ Petition was withdrawn.

                   Thereafter, the same Advocate filed Criminal Writ Petition No.5704

                   of 2021, forging the signature of the Petitioner on the Vakalatnama

                   as well as the Petition. The Petitioner has now completed his LLB

                   and is yet to apply for a Sanad. He lodged Disciplinary Complaint

                   No.389 of 2023 on 3rd November, 2023 with the Bar Council of

                   Maharashtra and Goa. Despite his repeated requests, Respondent



                   Gauri Gaekwad                    1 of 4
                                                            14.WP-664-2025.odt




No.1 did not deal with the complaint, is the grievance voiced.



2.              The learned Advocate for the Bar Council of Maharashtra

and Goa submits, on instructions, that the complaint was considered,

written submissions were tendered and the matter was closed for

orders on 29th October, 2024. Since the order was not passed within

one year from the date of the complaint, the Bar Council of

Maharashtra and Goa has now transferred the matter to Respondent

No.2, the Bar Council of India.



3.                The Petitioner, who is present in person, submits that

due to the laxity on the part of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and

Goa, he has been compelled to run from pillar to post. He further

submits that he was working with Canara Bank in Mumbai and was

terminated from service, as a result of which he entered into

litigation. According to him, the Advocate engaged by him

defrauded him. He, therefore, approached the Bar Council of

Maharashtra and Goa in Mumbai by lodging a disciplinary

complaint. He further submits that he will now have to travel from

Odisha to Delhi in connection with the said proceedings. He,


Gauri Gaekwad                        2 of 4
                                                          14.WP-664-2025.odt




therefore, prays that heavy costs be imposed.



4.              Since the proceedings have now been transferred to the

Bar Council of India, which will be dealing with the complaint of

the Petitioner as well as the issue as to why the Bar Council of

Maharashtra and Goa did not decide the complaint within a period

of one year, we leave the request of the Petitioner for costs against

the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, open, to be canvassed

before the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India shall

consider the said request and pass an appropriate order in

accordance with law.



5.              The learned Advocate for the Bar Council of India

fairly joins the Petitioner in submitting that, considering the

hardship faced by the Petitioner, a time bound programme may be

granted to the Bar Council of India to decide the Petitioner’s

complaint expeditiously.



6.              Since the complaint of the Petitioner has been

transferred to the Bar Council of India by the Bar Council of


Gauri Gaekwad                      3 of 4
                                                       14.WP-664-2025.odt




Maharashtra and Goa last week, and since the Petitioner has already

suffered in the above-stated circumstances, we would expect

Respondent No.2, Bar Council of India, to decide the Petitioner’s

complaint within a period of six months from today.



7.              With the above directions and observations, this

Petition is disposed off.




(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)                     (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)




Gauri Gaekwad                    4 of 4