The Bar Council does not have the jurisdiction to cancel an election and order fresh polling once the election process has commenced. The aggrieved party must seek the remedy before the Election Tribunal, which is the appropriate forum for the redressal of election disputes.

HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J.

1. This writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by some of the Advocates of this Court who were contesting the election of the Bihar State Bar Council, the poll for which took place on 14-12-1978. By this application they are challenging the vires of the resolution of the State Bar Council (respondent No. 1) dated 18-2-1979, cancelling the entire election and to hold fresh election. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Bar Council had no jurisdiction to cancel the election and direct for fresh elections, as that would amount to interfering with the process of election. Although a copy of the resolution has not been filed by the petitioners as it was not available with them, it has been quoted in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 1.

2. The necessary facts may now be briefly stated. Earlier the term of office of the elected members of the Bar Council was only 4 years before the recent amendment of 1978. Now it has been raised to 5 years. As the term of office of the sitting members of the Bar Council was expiring on 22-12-1978, by its Resolution No. 47 adopted at a meeting respondent No. 1 held on 9th July, 1978, it resolved to hold the election for the members of the Har Council on 8th January, 1979, throughout the State, but by a subsequent resolution, being Resolution No. 59, dated 20-8-1978, the date of election was altered and was fixed as 14th December, 1978, instead of 8th January, 1979. The Returning Officer was authorised to draw up the election programme accordingly. It may be mentioned that the total number of the seats to be filled up by the members in the State Bar Council is 25. In pursuance of the above resolution a notice under Rule 6 of the Rules framed by the Bihar State Bar Council was issued laying down the election programme. According to this programme the date of filing nomination was fixed from 28-10-1978 to 13-11-1978 and 14-11-1978 was the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers. After fixing the other date for withdrawal of the candidature and publication of the list of candidates, the date of polling was fixed on the 14th December, 1978. The place of counting of votes was the office of the Bar Council situate in the High Court building, Patna. The polling for the election was accordingly held at various polling stations and booths set up by the Bar Council throughout the State and the polling was concluded on the same day at all the booths. From the reports of the Presiding Officer of Muzaffarpur polling station it appears that polling had to be suspended at that polling station for some time but, it was resumed soon thereafter and was ultimately concluded. The petitioners have stated in the writ petition that in Danapur also some trouble took place and the ballot box was brought by Shri Silesh Chandra Mishra in his car from Danapur. Reports received from the Presiding Officers of Samastipur, Muzaffarpur and Nawadah polling stations also indicate that corrupt practices were adopted at those places. Some of the ballot papers at the time of counting were found to have been defaced or altered at Danapur and Samastipur polling stations. However, the counting of the votes started on 20-12-1978, after the ballot boxes from all the polling stations and booths had been received. In the meantime a title suit, being Title Suit No. 5 of 1979, was instituted in the court of the Munsif at Danapur by various Advocates alleging therein that a large number of ballot papers were found having been tampered with and forged, wrongly showing first preference votes having been cast in favour of Shri Jitendra Prasad Shukla. It was further alleged that as the Returning Officer did not concede to the request of the plaintiffs for holding a fresh poll under Rule 33 of the Rule (which I will refer to hereafter) as at some of the polling stations where extensive rigging and tampering of the ballot papers had taken place, the