BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR

COUNCIL OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI

REVIEW PETITION NO.____2023
IN BCI TR. CASE NO. 31/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH YADAV …Petitioner/Respondent
Versus
NIKESH NATH TIWARI & ORS ...Complainant/Respondent

S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE

. NO.S
1 REVIW PETITION UNDER SECTION 48AA OF THE ADVOCATES ACT,
1961 ON BEHALF OF ARUNENDRA NARAIN SINGH WITH
ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT
2 LIST OF DOCUMENTS
3 ANNEXURE A
A true copy of order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the
Disciplinary Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr. Case No. 31/2022
4 ANNEXURE B
A True copy of order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2418 of 2023.
5 ANNEXURE C
A True Translated copy of FIR No. 427/2018 was registered at P.S
Siwan on 07.07.2018 at the behest of sh Rangji Dubey,
Along with the original
6 ANNEXURE D
A True Translated Copy of Complaint Petition bearing
Complaint No. 696/2018 filed by the complainant before the president,
Bihar state Bar Council, along with the original

7 ANNEXURE E
A True Translated Copy of the reply filed by the review petitioner
In DC inquiry No. 8/2019, Before Disciplinary Committee No. X of the state Bar
council, Bihar along with the original
8 ANNEXURE F
A True typed copy of order dated 12.01.2020 passed by Disciplinary Committee
No.X of the state Bar Council, Bihar in DC Enquiry No. 8/2019, along with the
original
9 ANNEXURE G
A True Copy of Order dated 02.04.2022 passed by Disciplinary Committee No. of
the State Bar Council, Bihar in DC Enquiry No. 8/2019
10 ANNEXURE H
A True Typed Copy of office Order dated 01.08.2022 passed by Disciplinary
Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr. Case No. 31/2022, along with original
11 ANNEXURE I
A True copy of order dated 16.08.2022 passed by Disciplinary Committee of the
BCI in BCI Tr. Case No. 31/2022
12 ANNEXURE J
A True typed copy of office order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the Disciplinary
Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr case No. 31/2022, along with original
13 ANNEXURE K
A True copy of order dated 28.09.2022 passed by Disciplinary Committee of the
BCI in BCI Tr. Case No. 31/2022
14 ANNEXURE L
A True copy of order dated 11.10.2022 passed by Disciplinary Committeeof the
BCI in BCI Tr. Cae No. 31/2022
15 ANNEXURE M
A True copy of order dated 01.12.2022 passed by Disciplinary Committee of the
BCI in BCI Tr. Case No. 31/2022
16 ANNEXURE N
A true copy of notification dated 11.02.2023 issued by the Bihar state Bar
Council
17 ANNEXURE O
A True Translated copy of the Newspaper clipping published in Prabhat khabar
Newspaper dated 15.02.2023, along with original
18 ANNEXURE P
A True copy of the receipt for inspection and certified copy of the Final order in
BCI Tr Case No. 31/2022
19 APPLICATION FOR STAY UNDER SECTION 40 r/w SECTION 48AA OF
ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
20 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER

21 APPLICATION FOR STAY UNDER SECTION 40 r/w

SECTION 48AA OF THE ADVOCATES ACT,1961
22 APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILLING THE REVIEW PETITION
23 VAKALATNAMA
 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR
COUNCIL OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI
REVIEW PETITION NO.____2023
IN BCI TR. CASE NO. 31/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. OM PRAKASH YADAV ,
Aged 41 yrs, Advocate Civil Court, siwan
Police station Nagar Siwan, District Siwan

…Petitioner/Respondent
IN BCI TR. CASE NO.31/2022
Versus
1. NIKESH NATH TIWARI & ORS
S/o Baleshwar Tiwary
R/o Mahadeva Malviya Nagar Siwan, Bihar-841226

...Complainant/Respondent
IN BCI TR. CASE NO.31/2022
2. BHRIGUNATH TIWARI,
S/o Baleshwar Tiwary,
R/o Mahadewa Malviya Nagar Siwan, Bihar-841226
...Complainant/Respondent
IN BCI TR. CASE NO.31/2022
3. ANUPAM RAHUL RAJ,
S/o Bhrigunath Tiwari,
R/o Near Prabhawati Devi college, Malviya Nagar Siwan-Bihar 841226
 ...Complainant/Respondent
IN BCI TR. CASE NO.31/2022
4. ARUNENDRA NARAIN SINGH,
S/o Suryanarayan Singh
R/o Ayodhya Puri Siwan, Siwan Bihar 841226

...Complainant/Respondent
IN BCI TR. CASE NO.31/2022
 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR
COUNCIL OF INDIA AT NEW DELHI
REVIEW PETITION NO.____2023
IN BCI TR. CASE NO. 31/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM PRAKASH YADAV …Petitioner/Respondent
Versus
NIKESH NATH TIWARI & ORS ...Complainant/Respondent

MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 48AA OF THE

ADVOCATES ACT, 1961
1. That the addresses of the review Petitioner and the parties for the
purpose of service and any other processes are provided in the cause
title.

2. That the review petitioner may also be served through her counsel: Ms.
Sana Parveen, Advocate at 14, Lawyers Chambers, Supreme Court, New
Delhi 110001.
3. That the present Review petition has been filed against the order dated
30.01.2023 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI Tr. Case
No.31/2022 whereby the Review Petitioner has been held guilty of
misconduct u/s 35 of the Advocates Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the act) and suspended from the roll of advocates for a period of two
years.

The order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the

BCI in BCI Tr Case No. 31/2022 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE A

BRIEF FACTS
4. The case of the 1st Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
complainant is that on 07.07.2018 at 1:20 PM in the court of sub judge
XI cum ACJM-II, Siwan the evidence of witness Brijkishor Dikshit was
being recorded in the matter Rangji Dubey & Ors. V. Ramchandra
Chaudhary & Ors. T.S No. 323/2002. It is alleged that the complainant is
one of the defendants in the said suit.

5. It is further alleged that one of the plaintiffs threatened the witness,

regarding which a complainant was made to the Hon’ble Court. It is
alleged that thereafter ,the counsels for the plaintiff including , the
Review Petitioner, Shri Bhrigunath Tiwari/Proforma Respondent No.2,
Shri Om Prakash Yadav Respondent No.3 and and Arunendra Narain
Singh Proforma Respondent No.4 along with the plaintiff in the Title suit,
shri Rangji Dubey assaulted the complainant. It is further alleged that
the case file of the complainant, a mobile phone and cash amounting to
Rs 3000/- was taken from the complainant. It is alleged that this entire
incident has taken place in the presence of the Presiding officer, Court
Staff and Advocates. It is further alleged that the said persons began
dragging the complainant out of the court at which time, other persons
in the court intervened. FIR No. 423/2018 was registered at P.S Siwan On
07.07.2018 at the behest of shri Ali Zafar Bench Clerk u/s 323, 341, 379,
427, 448, 228 and 504/34 upon the direction of the Presiding Officer.
6. It is also pertinent to note that FIR No. 427/2018 was registered at P.S
Siwan on 07.07.2018 at the behest of Rangji Dubey, The 1st plaintiff in
the above-mentioned suit.

A True Translated Copy of FIR No.427/2018 was registered at P.S Siwan

on 07.07.2018 at the behest of sh. Rangji Dubey, along with the original
is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE C

7. Shri Rangji Dubey in his Fardbayan has narrated the true and correct
version of events of that day. Stating that it was in fact the complainant
who was the initial aggressor, and the role of the Review Petitioner was
merely intervention to protect Shri Rangji Dubey. Upon intervention, the
review petitioner was also assaulted by the complainant, who not only
assaulted persons but committed theft upon Shri Rangji Dubey.
8. The complainant filed a complaint Petition bearing Complaint No.
696/2018 before the President, Bihar state Bar council requesting action
to be taken against the Review Petitioner as well as four others,
Bhrigunath Tiwari, Shri Arunendra Narain Singh, Sh. Om Prakash Yadav
and Rangji Dubey.
A True Translated Copy of Complaint Petition bearing complaint No.
696/2018 filled by the complainant before the President, Bihar State Bar
Council, along with the original is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE D

9. The charge-sheet bearing No. 487/18 u/s 341, 321, 427, 353, 448, 228,
504/34 was submitted in the case arising out of FIR No. 423/2018
registered at P.S Siwan on 07.07.2018. It is Pertinent to mention that the
charge sheet expressly notes that the allegations qua the Review
Petitioner are not found to be true and there was not find sufficient
evidence to proceed against the Review Petitioner.

10.Resolution No. 66/2018 was passed by the General Body of the Bihar
state Bar Council, taking Cognizance against the Review Petitioner as
well as four others, Bhrigunath Tiwari, Sh. Arunendra Narain Singh, Sh.
Om Prakash Yadav and, Rangji Dubey . The matter was transferred to
Disciplinary Committee No. X for further enquiry.

11.The Review Petitioner, along with Bhrigunath Tiwari, Sh. Arunendra

Narain Singh, Sh. Om Prakash Yadav and, Rangji Dubey filed their reply
to the complainant in DC Enquiry No. 8/2019 before Disciplinary
Committee No. X. A True Translated Copy of the reply filed by the
Review Petitioner in DC Enquiry No.8/2019 before Disciplinary
committee No. X of the State Bar Council, Bihar , along with the Original
is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE E

12.Order dated 12.01.2020 was passed in DC Enquiry No.8/2019 by

Disciplinary Committee No. X of the State Bar Council, Bihar wherein it
was expressly noted that the statutory period of 1 Year for Completion
of disciplinary proceedings prescribed under section 36B of the
Advocates Act, 1961 expired on 11.01.2019 A True typed copy of order
dated 12.01.2020 passed by Disciplinary Committee No.X of the state
Bar Council, Bihar in DC Enquiry No. 8/2019, along with the original is
enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE F
13.Vide Order dated 02.04.2022 passed inDC Enquiry No 8/2019 by
Disciplinary Committee No. X, the case was transferred to the Bar
Council of India owing to the fact that the time period for completion of
the proceedings as per section 36B of the Advocates Act,1961 had
already expired. A True Copy of Order dated 02.04.2022 passed by
Disciplinary Committee No. of the State Bar Council, Bihar in DC Enquiry
No. 8/2019 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE G

14.Notices were issued by the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr.
Case No. 31/2022 to the complainant Sh. Bhrigunath Tiwari and the
Attorney General of India, and the case was posted for 16.08.2022.
It is pertinent to mention that no notice was sent to the Review
Petitioner. A True Typed Copy of office Order dated 01.08.2022 passed
by Disciplinary Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr. Case No. 31/2022, along
with original is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE H

15.The Disciplinary Committee of the BCI passed Order dated 16.08.2022

explicitly noting that some of the Respondents have not joined the
proceedings since they have not been served with intimation of today’s
hearing’’. A True copy of order dated 16.08.2022 passed by Disciplinary
Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr. Case No. 31/2022 is enclosed herewith
as ANNEXURE I

16. Notices were issued by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
India in BCI Tr. Case No. 31/2022 to the complainant, Sh. Bhrigunath
Tiwari/Proforma Respondent No. 2 and the Attorney General of India,
and the case was posted for 25.08.2022. It is pertinent to mention that
no notice was sent to the Review Petitioner.
A True typed copy of office order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the
Disciplinary Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr case No. 31/2022, along with
original is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE J

17.Notices were issued by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of

India in BCI Tr Cae No. 31/2022 to the complainant Sh. Bhrigunath
Tiwari/Proforma Respondent No. 2 and the Attorney General of India,
and the case was posted for 11.10.2022. It is pertinent to mention that
 no notice was sent to the Review Petitioner. A True copy of order dated
28.09.2022 passed by Disciplinary Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr. Case
No. 31/2022 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE K

18.The Disciplinary Committee of the BCI passed Order dated 11.10.2022

wherein the BCI noted the fact that the Review Petitioner had not joined
the present proceeding and directed that “The office shall send notice to
all the aforesaid four respondents for the next date of hearing”. A True
copy of order dated 11.10.2022 passed by Disciplinary Committeeof the
BCI in BCI Tr. Cae No. 31/2022 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE L

19.Notices were issued by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of

India in BCI Tr Cae No. 31/2022 to the complainant Sh. Bhrigunath
Tiwari/Proforma Respondent No. 2 and the Attorney General of India,
and the case was posted for 15.12.2022. It is pertinent to mention that
no notice was sent to the Review Petitioner. A True copy of order dated
01.12.2022 passed by Disciplinary Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr. Case
No. 31/2022 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE M

20.The Disciplinary Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr Case No. 31/2022 passed
the impugned Order dated 30.01.2023, which was passed ex-parte as
the Review Petitioner was never issued notice. Vide order dated
30.01.2023, the disciplinary committee erroneously suspended the
Review Petitioner and the Proforma Respondent for a period of 2 years
from the date of publication of Notification by secretory , state Bar
council of Bihar.

21.A notification was issued by the Bihar state Bar Council dated 11.02.2023
stating that the Review Petitioner and the proforma respondents are
debarred from practicing as an Advocate for a period of 2 years. A true
copy of notification dated 11.02.2023 issued by the Bihar state Bar
Council is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE N

22. The Hindi News paper Prabhat khabar reported the decision of the BCI
on 15.02.2023. It is pertinent to note that the review petitioner only
become aware of the proceedings before the BCI through the said
 newspaper article, as notice was never issued to the Petitioner. A True
Translated copy of the Newspaper clipping published in Prabhat khabar
Newspaper dated 15.02.2023, along with original is enclosed herewith
as ANNEXURE O

23.Immediately upon learning of the news regarding the disciplinary

proceedings before the BCI and final order of suspension, proforma
Respondent No. 4 sought to inspect the files and applied for a certified
copy of the impugned order dated 30.01.2023. A True copy of the
receipt for inspection and certified copy of the Final order in BCI Tr Case
No. 31/2022 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE P

24.That the Review petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order, filed a

Review Petition No. 08/2023 with Stay Petition No. 21/2022 (delay
Petition No. 10/2023) in BCI Tr. Case No. 31 of 2022 (DC Enquiry No.
08/2019)

25.The Hon’ble Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India vide

Proceeding dated 16.08.2023 was pleased to grant liberty to prefer a
separate Review Petition. Copy of the Hon’ble Disciplinary Committee of
the Bar Council of India vide Proceeding dated 16.08.2023 is annexed
herewith as Annexure Q.

GROUNDS:

NO NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, NOR OF THE HEARINGS WAS ISSUED

TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER
i) BECAUSE, the impugned Order has failed to appreciate that all orders
passed by the DC of the BCI, including the impugned Order itself were
passed without any notice being issued to the Review Petitioner at
any stage of the proceedings, and no opportunity was provided to
the review petitioner to defend himself or to even be heard before
the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
ii) BECAUSE, the impugned Order is unsustainable in light of the factum
of non-service on the Review Petitioner, which is evident from the
 several office orders issued by the Disciplinary Committee issuing
notice only to the Sh Bhrigunath Tiwari and the Attorney General of
India. The same is further clear from the orders passed by the
Disciplinary Committee wherein they have repeatedly noted that the
Review petitioner has not been intimated regarding the disciplinary
proceedings and that the office must take steps to serve notice upon
him. However, the Review Petitioner was never issued notice
regarding the disciplinary proceedings by the BCI against him.

iii) BECAUSE, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground
that no notice has ever been issued to the Review Petitioner. The
requirement of issuing notice to the advocate against whom
Disciplinary proceedings are pending has been expressly mandated
in part VII, Chapter 1.A Under Rule 3(1) and Rule 4 of the Bar Council
of India Rules. The non compliance of these rules is a violation of the
basic principles of natural justice, including the principle of Audi
alteram partem. Thus, failure to issue notice to the Review Petitioner
vitiates the entire Disciplinary proceedings as against him.

iv) BECAUSE, the impugned order has failed to appreciate that in a

similar case, this Hon’ble Court has held that service of show-cause
notice, as well as an adequate opportunity of hearing is mandatory
for a suspension order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the
BCI to be sustainable. A 3 Judge Bench Court in Pinakin Bhailal Amin V
Haresh Manibhai Patel, (2001) 9SCC 730 has held:

“7. Shri Amin's licence to practice has been directed to be suspended for
three months not for finding him guilty of professional misconduct on the
complaint made by Shri Patel. The punishment has been inflicted for the
alleged misconduct of his having made a wrong statement before the High
Court of Bombay regarding dismissal in default of the proceedings for
professional misconduct. It is true that Shri Amin was allowed to explain the
correctness or otherwise of the allegation made and offer an explanation, if
any, for making the false statement. Still the fact remains that there was no
due opportunity of hearing, consistently with the principles of natural justice,
afforded to Shri Amin before inflicting the punishment. Shri Amin was never
put to notice that the factum of making a false statement before the High
Court was proposed to be treated as an act of professional misconduct. He
was also not noticed to show cause why he be not punished for making such
 false statement. We are satisfied that failure to issue such notice has
prejudiced Shri Amin in his defence and has thus occasioned a failure of
justice. The impugned order of punishment deserves to be set aside for this
short reason alone.”
(Emphasis supplied)

THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BAR COUNCIL ARE VITIATED FOR

VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUTORY MANDATE FOR COMPLETION OF
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
v) BECAUSE, the impugned Order us unsustainable and liable to be set
aside as per the provisions of section 36B of the advocates Act 1961,
which mandates that disciplinary proceedings must be completed by
the state bar councils within a period of 1 year, after which the cases
must necessarily be transferred to the BCI. Section 36B is a
mandatory Provision, compliance with which is necessary and
consequentially non-compliance would result in serious prejudice to
the parties as held by this Hon’ble Court in Achal Saxena V. Sudhir
Yadav.(2017) 13 SCC 657.

vi) BECAUSE, the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity as in the
present case, it is an admitted position that the statutory period of 1
Year expired on 11.01.2019.

vii) BECAUSE, Impugned Order is liable to be set aside as the orders of

the state Bar Council, Bihar including the extremely belated Order of
transfer dated 02.04.2022 are non-est for want of jurisdiction as
grave prejudice has been caused to the Review Petitioner.

THE REVIEW PETITIONER CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF PROFESSIONAL

MISCONDUCT

viii) It is humbly submitted that the Review Petitioner was substituted

as plaintiff No. 3 in the matter Rangji Dubey & Ors V Ramchandra
Chaudhary & Ors’. T.S No. 323/2002 during the proceedings of which
the alleged incident took place.
ix) Therefore, the allegations of professional misconduct under section
35 of the Advocates Act 1961 does not arise. The privy council in
George Frier Grahame V. Attorney General, Fiji, 1936 SCC Online PPC
38 at page 322 has held as hereunder:

“If it is shown that a solicitor in the pursuit of his profession has

done something with regard to it which would be reasonably
regarded to it which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or
dishonorable b his professional brethren of good repute and
competency then it is open to say that he is guilty of professional
misconduct”

(Emphasis supplied)

x) However, in the present case the review petitioner’s mother was one
of the plaintiffs to the said suit, and upon her demise the Reviw
Petitioner was brought on record as legal heir. The Review Petitioner
was not counsel for either party, and was not discharging any
function as an Advocate in that matter.

xi) This Hon’ble court in P.J Ratnam V. D. Kanikaram, (1964) 3 SCR 1 has
held as hereunder:
“11. In the case now before us, however, the misconduct charged is
intimately connected with and arises out of the duty which the
advocate owed to his client. This distinction between misconduct
which is intimately connected with the duties which the practitioner
owes to his clients and cases where it is not so connected as bearing
upon the exercise of the courts discretion to proceed or not to
proceed straightaway with an inquiry into the advocates
professional misconduct was emphasized by Lord Abinger in Stephen
V. Hill [(1842) 10 M & W 28 : 158 ER 368] which dealt with a case of
professional misconduct against an attorney in England. The Learned
Judge said:
“If the Attorney has been guilty of something indictable in itself but
not arising out of the cause (in which he is engaged professionally)
the court would not inquire into that with a view to striking him off
 the roll but would leave the party aggrieved to his remedy by a
criminal prosecution”.
There is thus a clear distinction between cases where the
misconduct is one in relation to the Practitioner’s duty to his client
and other cases where its not so. In the former class of cases the
court would be exercising is discretion properly if it proceeded to
deal with the charge as a, piece of Professional misconduct without
driving the complainant to seek his remedy in a criminal court”.
(Emphasis supplied)

xii)In the present case, the investigation into the alleged incident has
found that the allegations are not true qua the Review Petitioner as is
clear from the chargesheet dated 21.09.2018. Furthermore, the
complaint No. 1706/2018 filled by the complainant was dismissed
vide order dated 24.10.2019 passed by A.C.J Magistrate-VII on the
grounds that no prima facie case was made out against the Review
Petitioner and the complainant did not pursue the complaint.

xiii) The DC BCI has failed to appreciate that the punishment by the
Disciplinary Committee of the BCI vide the impugned Order is Liable
to be set aside on account of being highly disproportionate.

THE PUNISHMENT PRESCRIBED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS HIGHLY

DISPROPORTIONATE

xiv) BECAUSE, The DC has failed to appreciate that the punishment by

the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI vide the impugned order is
liable to be set aside on account of being highly disproportionate.
xv)BECAUSE, the impugned order has neglected to take note of the fact
that in a case of Professional Misconduct the burden on the
complainant is to prove their allegations beyond all reasonable
doubt. It is humbly submitted that the same has not been done un
the instant case. This Hon’ble court in Pawan Kumar Sharma V.
Gurdial Singh. (1998) 7SCC 24 while dealing with a case of
professional ,misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961 has held:
“7.Charge of professional misconduct is in the nature of a quasi
criminal charge. It is required to be established, not by
preponderance of probabilities but beyond a reasonable doubt”.
(Emphasis supplied)
xvi) Because, this hon’ble court has reiterated the standard of
proportionality in determining the quantum of punishment under the
Advocates Act,1961 in a catena of decisions. This Hon’ble Court in
Noratanmal chauraria V. M.R Murli, (2004) 5 SCC 689 has held:
“12. Although the power of the Bar COUNCIL is not Limited, the
thrust of charge must be such which would necessitate initiation of
Disciplinary proceedings. A professional or other misconduct
committed by a member of the profession should ordinarily be
judged qua profession. To determine the quantum of punishment
which may be imposed on an advocate, the test of proportionality
shall be applied which would also depend upon the nature of the acts
complained of. No universal rule thus can be laid down as regards
initiation of a proceeding for misconduct of a member of the
profession.”
(Emphasis supplied)

xvii) BECAUSE, the impugned Order has erred in not recognizing the
fact that the review petitioner was never provided an opportunity to
defend himself. An opportunity to be heard or even issued notice of
the Disciplinary Proceedings in which the punishment against him
has been passed is sufficient grounds for setting aside the impugned
Order.
Furthermore, the applicable burden of proof being that of beyond all
reasonable doubt has not been satisfied in the instant case , failing
which the punishment so disproportionate.
 xviii) BECAUSE, the failure to issue notice to the Review Petitioner is a
ground for procedural review of the Impugned Order. The issuance of
notice is a critical element of the right to be heard, a fundamental
facet of the principles of natural justice which must be adhered to in
any judicial proceedings. Non observance of the principles of natural
justice creates a right in favour of the aggrieved party to approach
the authority for review/recall of the Order complained of.
Furthermore, there is a grave and serious error apparent on the face
of the record, as recorded in paragraph 12 of the Impugned order
wherein it is stated that Bhrigunath Tiwari was never engaged by the
review petitioner have any knowledge of the proceedings before the
Bar Council of India and therefore could never even have engaged
Bhrigunath Tiwari for the same.

xix) BECAUSE, several witnesses examined during this disciplinary

proceedings against the review petitioner have not supported the
case of the complainant, even including the complainant’s witnesses.

xx) BECAUSE, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground
that the Review Petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte, and the
power to set aside an ex-parte, and the power to set aside an ex-
parte Order is expressly specified in Part VII, Chapter I , Section A,
Rule 7(2) of the Bar Council of India Rules.

27) That the Review Petitioner reserves his right to take additional grounds at
the stage of oral submissions.

28) That, for the reasons as stated aforesaid, the impugned Order deserves to
be set aside and the present Review Petition u/s 48AA of the Advocates Act
allowed.

PRAYER
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most humbly prayed that:
a) Allow the Review Petition and set aside the impugned Order dated
30.01.2023 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI in BCI Tr.
Case No. 31/2022; AND
b) Pass any other or further orders that this Hon’ble Authority may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

FILLED BY:

SANA PARVEEN
(ADVOCATE FOR THE REVIEW PETITIONER)

14, LAWYERS CHAMBER

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M-9717460151