Ramayee v. The Secretary To Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.08.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Ramayee, W/o.Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The District Collector, Salem, Salem District.

3. The Tasildar, Yedappadi Taluk, Salem, Salem District.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Chettimangurichi Village,

5. The Block Development Officer, Edappadi Panchayat Union,

6. The President, 1/6

Chettimangurichi Village Panchayat,

7. N.Saravanamoorthi, Government Pleader, District Munsif Court, Edappadi, Salem District - 637 101.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action as against the 7th respondent for his professional misconduct in accordance with Advocate Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules by considering the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2025 and grant such other relief.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakaran For Respondents : Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, Special Government Pleader [R1 to R4] Mr.V.Veluchamy Additional Government Pleader [R5] *****

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate action against the seventh respondent for his professional misconduct in accordance with Advocate Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules by considering the representation made by the petitioner 2/6

on 13.02.2025.

2. Heard Mr.K.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.V.Veluchamy, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for fifth respondent.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the seventh respondent, who appeared for respondents 1 and 2, filed a suit and when the suit was pending, the seventh respondent seems to have given a legal opinion based on which action was taken against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this amounts to professional misconduct. Therefore, a representation was made to the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the seventh respondent. Since the same was not acted upon, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

4. In the considered view of this Court, the relationship between 3/6

respondents 1 and 2 on the one hand and the seventh respondent, on the other hand, is that of a client and an Advocate. If, according to the petitioner, the seventh respondent has committed professional misconduct, the only forum where it can be agitated is the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The respondents 1 and 2 do not have the power or jurisdiction to deal with an Advocate for the alleged professional misconduct. That apart, the petitioner is relying upon a legal opinion given by the seventh respondent, which will also be considered to be a privileged communication between the client and an Advocate. It is not necessary for this Court to go into this issue for the present.

5. In the light of the above discussion, if the petitioner has any grievance and according to the petitioner, the seventh respondent has committed professional misconduct, the petitioner can only agitate the dispute before the Bar Council. Except giving this clarity, no further orders can be passed in this writ petition.

This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. 4/6

21.08.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No gm To

1. The Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The District Collector, Salem, Salem District.

3. The Tasildar, Yedappadi Taluk, Salem, Salem District.

4. The Village Administrative Officer, Chettimangurichi Village,

5. The Block Development Officer, Edappadi Panchayat Union,

6. The President, Chettimangurichi Village Panchayat, N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

gm 5/6

21.08.2025 6/6