Bombay High Court: The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, filed the present petition challenging the imposition of transfer fees for transferring his enrollment from the Bar Council of UP to that of Maharashtra and Goa, the Division Bench of Suman Shyam and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., allowing the petition, held that the fee charged by Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (‘Respondent 1’) was illegal for being in violation of Section 18 of the 1961 Act.
The petitioner had contended that the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘Advocates Act’) mandated transfer from one state Bar Council to another free of cost.
Background:
The petitioner was originally enrolled with the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. After practicing there for some years, he moved his residence to Mumbai and started practicing law there. On 25-09-2013, he applied for transfer of his enrollment from Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra under the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. He pointed out that as per Section 18 of the Advocates Act, the transfer of enrollment was required to be done free of cost, but Respondent 1 had charged an amount of Rs 15,405 as transfer fees for processing the transfer of his enrollment.
The petitioner had filed a Right to Information application on 20-03-2025 to which Respondent 1 replied on 20-04-2015, submitting that the transfer fee was charged from him in deference to Resolution No. 112 of 2010 (‘Resolution of 2010’) adopted on 26-09-2010, permitting such realization of fee. The petitioner contended that it was completely illegal and further stated that although the actual year of transfer of his enrollment from UP to Maharashtra was 2014, Respondent 1 had realized the transfer fee with retrospective effect from 2003.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act clearly mandated that the transfer of enrollment from one State to the other was to be carried out on the direction of the Bar Council of India without the payment of any fee. However, the transfer fee was charged from the petitioner.
The Court referred to Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 641, wherein the Supreme Court held that the State Bar Councils could not charge enrollment fee beyond the mandate of Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act as the fee not stipulated by the provisions of the statute could not be realised.
The Court noted that in the present case the fee was charged from the petitioner in accordance with the Resolution of 2010 whereby the State Bar Council was authorized to collect enrollment fee as per the ‘Schedule of Rates’ provided therein but the realization of such fee for transfer of enrollment was not permissible under Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act.
The Court, applying Gaurav Kumar (supra), observed that the fee charged by Respondent 1 for the transfer of petitioner’s enrollment could not be held valid in the eyes of law and consequently, declared it illegal on account of being in violation of Section 18(1) of the Advocates Act. The Court further clarified that the order would have prospective effect.
[Devendra Nath Tripathi v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 1549 of 2017, decided on 21-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Devendra Nath Tripathi, Petitioner in person with DV Saroj.
For the Respondent: Yogendra Rajgor, Advocate.
