Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  11439/2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22725 of 2014]

T. N. Raghupathy …  Appellant (s)   

Versus

High Court of Karnataka and others … Respondent (s) WITH

TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 1150/2014

AND  

TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO. 1838/2014

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.    2. Appellant  has  challenged an interim order  passed by  

the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.  

35106 of 2014 filed in public interest.

3. Appellant has mainly sought for a writ of mandamus for  

framing new norms strictly in consonance with the provisions of  

Section  16(2)  of  the  Advocates  Act,  1961  in  the  matter  of  

designation  of  senior  advocates.  A  writ  of  certiorari  is  also  

1

Page 2

sought  for  quashing  notifications  dated  30.06.2014  and  

14.07.2014 whereby 15 advocates  have been designated as  

senior advocates by the High Court of Karnataka.

4. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this  

case,  we do not deem it  necessary or proper to go into the  

various contentions raised by the appellant.

5. As per the impugned interim order dated  04.08.2014,  

the High Court has taken the view that the appellant does not  

have locus standi to file writ petition in public interest.  Mr. K.K.  

Venugopal, Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Mr. Aditya  

Sondhi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  some  of  the  

parties and the other counsel appearing for others before this  

Court have graciously submitted that the High Court is not right  

in  holding  that  view.  Some  of  the  issues  raised  in  the  writ  

petition  require  consideration.  As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  

learned senior counsel, these are the issues to be considered  

by the High Court  only since it  is  the High Court  concerned  

which  frames  the  rules/regulations/guidelines  regarding  the  

designation of  senior advocates.  Therefore,  we set  aside the  

impugned order with a request to the High Court to consider  

the matter on merits.

6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

2

Page 3

T.P.(C) No.1150/2014  &  T.P.(C) No. 1838/2014

7. In  view  of  the  order  passed  in  Civil  Appeal  No.  

11439/2014 (arising out of S.L.P.  (C) No.  22725/2014),  these  

transfer petitions have in effect been rendered infructuous.

8. The  transfer  petitions  are  accordingly  dismissed.  No  

costs.

                                                   .....…..…..………… J.                                    (ANIL R. DAVE)

                                                           ..………..……………J.                    (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi; December 16, 2014.  

3