1. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court of some standing. He has challenged the State Bar Council elections on the ground that his voting right has been denied to him because of a mistake committed by the State Bar Council, which vitiates the election process itself. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are thus :

2. Petitioner is an Advocate whose name was there on the State Bar Council rolls. Under the provisions of the Advocates Act no person can act as an Advocate or appear in that capacity before any Court or Authority or Tribunal unless he is enrolled as such either before any State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India. Thus, for carrying out the profession of an Advocate enrollment with the State or All India Bar Council is a pre-condition. State Bar Council and Bar Council of India has its Managing Committee, elections to which are held as envisaged under the Advocates Act and the Rules framed thereunder. For the purposes of election, the list of enrolled Advocates is used. The said list is revised. One of the requirements of Advocates Act is that an Advocate should be a member of the Advocate Welfare Fund of the Advocate Welfare Trust established by the Bar Council of India. The subscription to that may be either Rs. 100/- per year or Rs. 1000/- as onetime subscription. It is further provided that if any Advocate fails to subscribe to the said fund for three consecutive years and is not a life time member of the said fund his name would be struck off from the rolls of the Bar Council concerned. On 29-12-2007, a voter list which is nothing but enrollment list was published by the State Bar Council. Petitioner was surprised to find that his name was not there. His name stood deleted without notice to him. On his own averment he made enquiry and was informed that he had not subscribed to the fund aforesaid and as such his name has been struck off after list of defaulting Advocates were sent to the respective Associations as notice to lawyer in general. Petitioner immediately realized his mistake and deposited life time one time membership fee of Rs. 1000/- on 14-2-2008 along with arrears, thus, he was not in default any more. On 15th June, 2009 electoral roll for the Bihar State Bar Council election were published as preliminary voter list, calling for objection against wrongful exclusion or wrongful inclusion of the names therein by the Advocates, fixing 20th July, 2009 as the last date for such objections to be filed. It is evident that the petitioner did not file any objection in the said period. In paragraph-14 of the writ petition, it is averred that petitioner filed objection petition after seeing his name on the website of the Bar Council of India where his name still continues but without considering his objection on 22-10-2009 the final voter list was published in which his name does not appear. It is, thus, submitted that his name has been wrongly excluded and he is entitled voter and his name is entitled to be included in the voter list.

3. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Bar Council submits that under the Bar Council of India Rules read with Bihar State Bar Council Election Rules, a voter list is prepared which may contain revision and is notified to general public for objections, Advocates are supposed to file objections and the the final voter list is published. To the voter list as was published in June, 2009, petitioner admittedly did not file any objection. It is when the final voter list was published on 23rd October, 2009 that the election process starting, filing of nomination schedule for 12th November that he submits that he approached the Returning Officer with an application objecting to wrongful exclusion of his name from the voter list, which was not entertained. This, it is then submitted is wrong.

4. In my considered view, the writ cannot succeed for more than one reason. It is well settled that once statute prescribes a mode for an act to be performed th