SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. This Petitioner is preferred by four Advocates practising in the Thane District and Sessions Court. The Petitioner is filed seeking certain directions in respect of conduct of the ensuing elections of the Thane District Court Bar Association (for short, 'TDCBA') for the year 2018-2020. TDCBA is impleaded as the Respondent No.1 in the Petition. The Respondent No.2 is the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the Respondent No.3 is the Bar Council of India and the Respondent No.4 is the State of Maharashtra. There are some intervention applications filed in the instant Petitioner.

3. Substantive prayers in the Petitioner are as follows :

“(a) By an appropriate writ/order/direction, of this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent No.1 be directed to conduct the ensuing elections for the year 2018-2020 in accordance with the principle of “One Bar, One Vote”.

(b) By an appropriate writ/order/direction, of this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent No.2 Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and the Respondent No.3 Bar Council of India, be directed to implement the said principle of “One Bar, One Vote” throughout the State of Maharashtra and Goa and the elections to the Bar Associations be directed to be held strictly as per the principle and/or rule of 'One Bar, One Vote”.”

4. The case of the Petitioners, in nutshell, is as follows :

4.1 The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are practising for more than 35 years and the other Petitioners are practising since more than 10 years. They are members of the Respondent No.1. It is averred in the Petitioner that many Advocates were practising in the vicinity of Thane and were also members of other bar associations, apart from being members of the Respondent No.1. It is the case of the Petitioners that many such Advocates are made members of the Respondent No.1 mostly by contesting candidates or interested persons with sole intention of creating a vote bank in the elections. It is further pleaded in the Petition that the members of the Respondent No.1 decided to constitute a committee comprising of 7 senior members who were to consider the appropriate amendment to the existing constitution of the Respondent No.1 to propagate the principle of 'One Bar, One Vote'. A draft was prepared in that behalf and was published on the notice board of the Respondent No.1 inviting objections to the proposed amendment. According to the Petitioners, for a period of one month, no member had submitted any written objection to the proposed amendment and the amendment was decided to be passed in the Special General Body Meeting which was to be convened for the said purpose.

4.2 On 14/08/2018, 151 members of the Respondent No.1 had written a letter to the committee communicating approval for the purpose of introducing the principle of 'One Bar, One Vote'. The Special General Body Meeting was convened on 11/09/2018 for implementing these changes in the constitution. A few more changes were proposed through the amendment and it was decided that such suggestions should be forwarded to the constitutional committee for its consideration. The meeting was postponed to a further date to reconsider the fresh amended draft. Thereafter, the committee again submitted a fresh draft of proposed amendment after considering these suggestions. The adjourned meeting was kept on 13/11/2018. According to the Petitioners, on 13/11/2018, the meeting was not conducted peacefully and there was a dispute on this issue. It is the case of the Petitioners that during the said meeting, the members who are described by the Petitioners as 'outside members', tried to take charge of the meeting forcefully. It appears that the proposed amendment for 'One Bar, One Vote' was not passed and no decision was taken on that issue.

4.3. According to the Petitioners, the absence of the implementation of the principle of 'One Bar, One Vote' would lead to a situation