S.A.BOBDE, J.:-

1. The petitioner, an Advocate, has prayed that this court set aside the elections to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa held on 7/1/2010 as illegal, null and void and a further direction that the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 i.e. Advocate General of Maharashtra, Mr. Pramod Joshi, Advocate and Mr. M.T.Q. Sayyed, Advocate be ordered to continue to hold the charge of the State Bar Council till the fresh elections are held according to the provisions of law.

2. The respondent nos. 6 to 30 to the petition are Advocates elected to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in the impugned elections. In elections to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa voters were supposed to compulsorily give the first preference vote to any candidate and the giving of other preferences was optional. In the year 2002-2003 the Rules were amended so that every voter had to compulsorily indicate 10 preference votes on the ballot paper, failing which the ballot paper was to be treated as invalid vide Rule 32(g) (hereinafter referred to as “the 10 Preferences Rule). Another Rule i.e. Rule 6(h) (hereinafter referred to as “the Paid Up Subscription Rule”) provided that the name of an Advocate would not remain on the electoral roll if he has not paid his subscription to and obtained a receipt from the State Bar Council. The Rule, regulating the method of voting, was amended so that vote would be invalid if the voter had indicated preferences to less than 10 candidates; thus making the indication of 10 preferences compulsory.

3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid two Rules and the elections held in March-April 2004 by filing Writ Petition No. 903 of 2004. After a difference of opinion was resolved by a third learned Judge of this Court, the Division Bench held by a judgment dated 21/6/2007 that both the Rules i.e. Rule 32(g) and Rule 6(h) invalid and passed the following order:-

“24. For the aforesaid reasons, the answers to the question are as under:-

(A) Rule 6(h) is invalid being ultra-vires Section 49 (1) (a) of the Advocate Act;

(B) Rule 32(g) is ultra vires Section 3(2) r/w S. 3(4) r/w S. 49 (1)(a) of the Advocates Act;

(C) The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for future elections to provide polling booths apart from what is being promptly provided in the city of Mumbai also at other Courts in Mumbai where there are minimum number of voters in terms of the procedure as followed by the Bar Council out side Mumbai;

(D) Respondent No.1 to get counted the votes from the ballot papers which were declared invalid on the ground that the voters had not cast ten preference votes. The entire process to be completed within eight weeks. On such counting, if any other candidate gets more votes than Respondent 6 to 29 and petitioner, then such candidate to be declared to be elected and proportionally those from amongst the present Managing Committee who were earlier declared elected, will give weigh to the newly elected candidates. Till such time the exercise is complete, the present Managing Committee to function as the Managing Committee. The term of the Committee after declaration of the results will be the same as of the present Managing Committee.

Rule made absolute accordingly in both the Writ Petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.

Earlier the time was granted of eight weeks to complete the process. In view of the fact that the said time was expired, we direct that the entire election process will be completed within twelve weeks from today.

Rule made absolute accordingly.”

4. The State Bar Council filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India against the said judgment. Apparently on 18/9/2009 the State Bar Council deleted the 10 Preferences Rule and the Paid Up Subscription Rule. The State Bar Council filed Application for stay of the judgment of this court on 4/9/2007. On 21/9/2007 the Supreme Court issued notices to the respondents and stayed the operation of direction (D) Supra made by this Court