B. N. Agrawal, J.

This writ application bas been filed by three advocates, enrolled by the Bihar State Bar Council (hereinafter to be referred to as 'State Bal Council'), for Issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the State Bar Council not to hold its election, which was scheduled to be held on 1st of August, 1994.

2. In this case, argument was heard on 29th of July, 1994 (Friday) and election was going to be held on 1st of August, 1994 (Monday) and there was no time for delivering a reasoned Judgment, therefore, we passed operative portion of the order dismissing the writ application and directed that reasons would follow, which are recorded hereinafter

3. The short facts for disposal of this writ application are that election of State Bar Council was held in the year 1988 and upon completion of the process of election, its result was declared on 8th of February, 1989, on which day the present body came into effect. According to Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as amended by Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Act No. 70 of 1993), the term of office of elected members of State Bar Council is five years from the date of publication of the result of election. According to the petitioners, the life of the elected body could be extended for a further period of six months by an order to be passed by Bar Council of India before expiry of the term of five years. But no such order could be passed before expiry of term of five years, that is by 7.2.1994 and on 13.02.1994 order was passed by the Bar Council of India extending the term of State Bar Council by six months, that is, till 7.8.14994. It is said that after expiry of the term of five years, the programme for election of members of the State Bar Council was published according to which nomination papers were required to be filed between 27.06.1994 and 2nd of July, 1994, 1st August, 1994 was fixed for poll and from 4th of august, 1994, counting of votes was to commence. According to the petitioners, since the order of extension for a period of six months was invalid, the existing body of State Bar Council had no jurisdiction to conduct the election, which was scheduled to be held on 1st of August, 1994. But since the election was going to be held on that day, the same necessitated filing of the present writ application

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Bar Council and its stand is that the order of extension was in accordance with law, therefore, existing body of the State Bar Council was quite competent to conduct the election.

5. Though in the writ application several points have been taken, but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of the writ application his challenged the jurisdiction of existing body of State Bar Council to hold election on two grounds. Firstly, it has been submitted that under proviso to Section 8 of the Act as amended the order extending the life of the State Bar Council ought to have been passed before expiry of term of five years : and, secondly, no reasons have been recorded in the order of extension pissed by the Bar Council of India as required under the aforesaid proviso.

6. For consideration of the first point raised on behalf of the petitioners. I may use fully quote the provision of section 8 of the Act as duly amended:-

“8. The term of office of an elected member of a State Bar Council (other than an elected member thereof referred to in section 54) shall be five years from the date of publication of the result of his election :

Provided that where a State Bar Council falls to provide for the election of its members before the expiry of the said term the Bar Council of India may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said term for a period not exceeding six months."

On a bare perusal of section 8 of the Act, referred to above, it would appear that term of office of an ejected member of State Bar Council would be only five years from the date of publication of