Allahabad High Court
ADV. DHIRENDRA SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusTHE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable; the petitioners must pursue an appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Summary
The petitioners challenged an order dated 12-10-2025 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. in a complaint case, seeking its quash through a writ of certiorari and also a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their practice at a Bar Association. The respondents argued that the petitioners have an alternative remedy under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and that the writ petition is not the appropriate forum. The Court, without delving into the merits, held that the writ petition is not maintainable where a specific statutory remedy exists. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioners to file an appeal before the Bar Council under Section 37 within one month. The Bar Council was ordered to decide the appeal within one month of receipt. The writ petition was therefore disposed of, with the parties directed to pursue the statutory remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition challenging the disciplinary committee's order is maintainable in view of the alternative remedy under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
- Whether the Court should issue a writ of certiorari and mandamus against the Bar Council and its officials.
Legislation cited
- Advocates Act, 1961 — s. 37
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Bar Council disciplinary action
- Advocates Act
- Section 37
- alternative remedy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17740 of 2026
Adv. Dhirendra Singh And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Chairman/Secretary Bar Council Of India And
3 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinod Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Sai Girdhar
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for
the respondents.
2. The petitioners, by means of present writ petition, have sought for
following releif;
"I) Issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari
quashing and setting aside the order impugned dated 12.10.2025 passed
by the learned Disciplinary Committee BAR Council of U.P. 19,
Maharishi Dayanand Marg, Prayagraj in Complaint Case No. 445/2024
(Pankaj Bishnoi Adv. Vs. Ajay Goyal Adv. and others) (Annexure No. 1)
to this writ petition.
II) Issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful practicing of
petitioners at the Bar Association, Nazibabad, District Bijnor."
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that the
petitioners have an alternative remedy to file appeal under Section 37
of the Advocates Act, 1961. He further submits that no useful would
be served in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate
direction may be issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the
grievance of the petitioner.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without
WRIC No. 17740 of 2026
2
adverting into the merits of the case, we dispose off the writ petition
permitting the petitioners to file appeal before the respondent no. 2
within a period of one month from today. In case, any such appeal is
filed by the petitioners, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide
the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from
the date he receives the representation of the petitioners.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
May 6, 2026
Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…