Anupam Maurya v. Bar Council Of India And ORS
, - -i Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.
$-14&1^ *
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8395/2016 NAVEEN KUMAR SEWAN Petitioner Through:
Mr Jaswant Man, Advocate alongwith Petitioner in person.
versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS Respondents Through:
Mr Preet Pal Singh and Ms Priyam Mehta, Advocates for BCI.
Mr Ashish Tiwari, Advocate for R-2.
Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal with Ms Slomita Rai, Advocates for Delhi University, y AND J/ W.P.(C)8471/2017and CM No. 34939/2017 ANUPAM MAURYA Petitioner Through:
Ms Abha Sharma and Mr B. Ram, Advocates.
versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS Respondents Through:
Mr Preet Pal Singh and Ms Priyam Mehta, Advocates for BCI.
Mr T. Singhdev, Ms Amandeep Kaur, Mr Tarun Verma, Ms Michelle Biakthansangi and Ms Puja Sarkar, Advocates for R-2.
Mr Mohinder J.S. Rupal with Ms Slomita Rai, Advocates for Delhi University.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 01.12.2017 1.
The learned counsel appearing for. respondent no.1 has referred to a
communication dated 30.11.2017 issued by Bar Council of India (respondent no. 1) to the Bar Council of Delhi referring to the candidates whose enrolment is in issue - which this Court is informed includes the petitioners in these cases - and communicating its decision that the candidates who have taken admission to LL.B.
Course before the amendment to the ordinance notified on 14.11.2014, would be permitted to be enrolled in case their admission is in conformity with the unamended ordinance.
2.
In this view, the grievance of the petitioners in this petition is addressed inasmuch as the petitioners would now be entitled to be enrolled by the Delhi Bar Council, subject to the petitioners fulfilling all other relevant criteria.
'
.J 3.
The learned counsel for respondent no.l states that Bar Council of Delhi has also been asked, in the peculiar facts of these cases, to enrol the petitioners.
4.
In view of the above, the principal grievance of the petitioners in this petition does not survive. Insofar as other prayers are concerned, including for grant of compensation, the same are unmerited. This Court is not persuaded to grant the same.
5.
The petitions are, accordingly, disposed of The pending application '
also stands disposed of VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 01, 2017 RK