N.L. UNTWALIA, J.

(1) THESE three appeals by the Bar council of Delhi and the Bar council of India are from the common judgment of the Delhi High court allowing three Writ Petition filed by the first respondent in each appeal and others seeking the setting aside of the election of the Bar council of Delhi held in the year 1.978. As the points involved in them are identical they are all being disposed of by this common judgment. We shall proceed to state the facts from the records of Civil 2224 of 1979 in which respondent 1 is Shri Surjeet Singh Bhangul. He was a voter as also a candidate for the election wherein he lost. In the writ petition giving rise to Civil 2225 of 1979 there were three petitioners two were candidates but Shri D. R. Thakur was an advocate whose name was not included in the electoral roll although his name occurs in the State roll of advocates. Shri A. S. Randhawa, respondent 1 in Civil 2226 of 1979 was a person whose name occurred both in the State roll of advocates as also in the electoral roll. But he was not a candidate.

(2) SURJEET Singh was an advocate who was a member of the Delhi Bar council before the impugned election. A proviso was added to Rule 3 (J) of the Bar council of Delhi Election Rules, 1968, in the year 1978. In accordance with that proviso a copy of the declaration form was sent on 14/06/1978 to the advocates whose names found place in the State roll of advocates asking them to return the declaration form duly filled up and signed within the specified period. A publication to this effect was also made in some newspapers viz. Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Statesman etc. The last extended date for the submission of the declaration forms was 14/09/1978 and the electoral roll was finally published on 16/09/1978 excluding the names of about 2,000.00 advocates who had failed to submit such declaration forms. On the basis of the electoral roll so prepared, according to the programme of election, the election of members to the Bar council of Delhi was held on 17/11/1978, The total number of advocates on the advocates roll was 5,000.00 and odd out of which the names of about 3,000.00 and odd only were included in the electoral roll in accordance, with the proviso to Rule 3 (J) of the Election Rules of the Bar council of Delhi. The results of the election were declared on 19/11/1978. The names of the 15 persons who were declared elected were published in the Gazette on 22/11/1978. Thereafter on 24/01/1979 the writ petition was filed in the High court challenging the whole election by attacking the validity of the proviso to Rule 3(J).

(3) APART from the successful candidates the Writ Petition were mainly and vigorously contested by the two Bar councils, namely, the Bar council of Delhi and the Bar council of India. The latter seems to have taken keen interest in the matter of contesting the Writ Petition because the impugned proviso to Rule 3(J) was introduced in the Election Rules with the approval of the Bar council of India in accordance with the requirement of sub-. S. (3) of S. 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The High court has taken the view :

(1) Lastly, the irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that so far as the qualifications to be possesied by and the conditions to be satisfied by an advocate before being brought on the Electoral Roll are concerned. only the Bar council of India has the competence to make the rules under S. 3(4) and S. 49(l)(a) and the State Bar council has no power at all to make a rule on this subject.

(2) The plea of estoppel raised against Surjeet Singh was rejected.

(3) Rank injustice has been done to the petitioner because more than 2,000.00 advocates were wrongfully disqualified from being brought on the Eiectoral.Roll. This has materially affected the result of the election.

(4) For the reasons stated above, we hold that Rule 3(J) of the Bar council of Delhi Election Rules, 1968 is in excess of the rulesmaking power of the