Failure to comply with the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the voter list of the Advocate Association, as specified in the rules, renders an advocate ineligible for contesting in the elections.

Heard the petitioner in person and Senior Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar, who has been selected as the Returning Officer by meeting of the General Body of the Advocate Association held on 2.4.2012 under the Chairmanship of the Ad hoc Committee constituted by the Bihar Bar Council, Patna. The General Body among other decisions had also taken a decision that the members of the Advocate Association should clear their dues by 5.4.2012 and had also taken a decision that only name of those members would be included in the voter list, who have cleared such dues.

2. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Election Programme was announced as per Rule 18(8) of the Bar Council of India Model Rules framed by the Bihar State Bar Council for the Advocates Association of the State of Bihar. The said programme for the election of the Bar Council was published by the Returning Officer vide Annexure-4 dated 12.4.2012.

3. The provisional voter list was published on 9.4.2012 and objection could be filed by 10/11.4.2012. On 10.4.2012 the petitioner alongwith three other members filed objection within time on 10.4.2012. The petitioner's objection was rejected and communicated to the petitioner and others on 13.4.2012. His objection was rejected on the ground that he could not clear his dues before or on 5.4.2012. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he had no knowledge that the last date for making payment of dues was 5.4.2012 and he had not been informed by issuing show cause notice nor was it pasted on the notice board of the Association. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 19(5) envisages that "The practising member, whose name appear on the roll of Association shall be eligible to be entered in list".

4. On the basis of the aforesaid rule it is argued that the nomination paper of the petitioner should be accepted and that his name should be included in the voter list.

5. On perusal of materials and the admitted fact it would appear that the General Body in its meeting had already announced that the practising member of the association had to clear the dues by 5.4.2012. Notice of this extraordinary meeting was also pasted on the notice boards of the Association. In fact, it is submitted that even today, notice of the decisions of the General Body Meeting would be found on the notice board. On the request of the petitioner some advocates were directed to see the notice board. They found the entire election programme pasted on the notice board for all members to view.

6. Reference may be made to Rule 7, which speaks of the fee prescribed for becoming a member of any Association recognized by the Bihar State Bar Council, it specifies that members have to deposit a sum of As. 200/- to 1,500/- or a sum of money as fee as determined by the Association. Such a person (advocate) on being admitted as member of this Association, gives a declaration that shall abide by the Rules and procedure of the Association concerned.

7. Rule 8 prescribes a monthly subscription which would be Rs. 50/- per month for the designated senior advocates and Rs. 5/- to 25/- per month for other advocates, this amount is determined by the Association.

8. Rule 9(a) envisages that in case a member of the Association defaults in payment of subscription and other dues for three consecutive months, his name shall be removed from the register of the members, this, however, will be at the discretion of the Executive Committee of the Association on sufficient cause being shown by the member concerned.

9. Sub-rule (b) to Rule 9 envisages that Member whose name has been removed in the manner aforesaid, may be re-admitted as a member upon payment of dues and fresh enrolment fee.

10. In the present case the petitioner has not been struck of from the roll, rather he was given opportunity to make payment within the prescribed time. The petitioner has paid the dues after the cutoff date, even then in the opinion of this Court his name cannot be include