Telangana High Court
WP/40230/2012 of N.Bhupal Naidu Vs The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh High Court of AP on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.40230 of 2012 ORDER: The petitioner got himself enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1998. The A.P. Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (for short ‘ the Act’) provides for creation of a welfare fund for the benefit of
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.40230 of 2012ORDER:
The petitioner got himself enrolled as an Advocatein the year 1998. The A.P. Advocates’ Welfare FundAct, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) provides for creation of awelfare fund for the benefit of Advocates. AnyAdvocate, who got enrolled with Bar Council, is entitledto become Member of the Fund on submission ofapplication. No restriction as to age was prescribed. However in the year 2006, the Act was amendedstipulating that it is only the Advocates who did notcross 35 years that can become Members of the Fund.
The petitioner submitted his application to the BarCouncil of the State of Andhra Pradesh, for admissioninto the Fund in the year 2009. The Secretary of theFund, 2[nd] respondent herein rejected the applicationthrough order dated 04.01.2010 stating that thepetitioner is not eligible, since he crossed 35 years. Thereafter, a letter was submitted by the petitioner on16.01.2010 with a request to review the order ofrejection. Through another letter, dated 21.01.2010, 2[nd]respondent informed the petitioner that the requestcannot be acceded to. Hence, this writ petition.
Heard Sri Syed Khader Mastan, learned counselfor the petitioner and Sri M.Mohiuddin, learned counselfor respondents 1 and 2.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted application in the year 2009. By that time, the Act wasamended and the maximum age limit of 35 years wasimposed. The petitioner has not challenged theprovision. As long as the provision remains, there is noway that the petitioner can get admission into the Fund. The 2[nd] respondent has taken correct view of thematter.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petitionshall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order asto costs.
____________________
L. NARASIMHA
REDDY, J.
Date: 31.12.2012JSU
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
JSU
WRIT PETITION No.40230 of 2012
Date: 31.12.2012