IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Bar Association is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an election dispute.

JUDGMENT :

1. Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the proposed intervenors, has filed two interim applications vide CAN 5 and 6 of 2004 to allow intervention of the person who has filed nomination for the post of Secretary, Alipore Bar Association. Both these interim applications were filed on 08.04.2024. Pending disposal of the intervention applications, we allow Mr. Majumdar to advance his argument in favour of the proposed intervenor.

2. The sole question that falls for our determination in the present appeal is whether election to the Bar Association (Alipore Bar Association here), is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Joydip Kar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that two writ petitions relating to the self-same subject pertaining to election to Alipore Bar Association have already been disposed of vide WPA 5250 of 2022 on 24.03.2022 concerning the election for the year 2021 and WPA 28560 of 2023 on 19.12.2023 concerning election for the year 2023. The present writ petition is concerned with election to the self-same Bar Association for the year 2024-25. It is further submitted by Mr. Joydip Kar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the question of maintainability of the writ petition was raised before Hon’ble Single Judge but said contention has not been answered in the impugned judgment.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we expressed our view to confine the submissions of learned counsels for the parties to the question of maintainability making it clear and loud that if we hold the writ petition to be maintainable then only we shall proceed to hear the appeal on merit.

5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties therefore we take up the question of maintainability as the preliminary and first issue.

6. The fact of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal is in a narrow compass. On 25th January, 2024 final voter list for the election of the Alipore Bar Association was published. The present executive committee on 27th February, 2024 issued the notice of election to the Bar Association. In the said notice 28th February to 4th March, 2024 was fixed for issuance of nomination; 4th March, 2024 was fixed to be the last date of filing of nomination paper; 5th March, 2024 was the date for scrutiny of nomination papers from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 5th March, 2024 at 4 p.m. according to the notice dated 27.02.2024 the publication of list of valid candidate was fixed to be done; 6th March, 2024 was fixed for withdrawal of nomination till 5 p.m.; 7th March, 2024 was fixed for publication of final list of valid candidates who shall be allowed to contest; 19th March, 2024 was the date of election. The said notification dated 27.02.2024 was challenged in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that (i) there is no gap of one month time between publication of final voter list and the date of election and (ii) seven days time was not given to the contesting candidates from the date of notification to the final date of filing of nomination.

7. Hon’ble Single Judge negatived the first point raised supra by the writ petitioner but held that inclusion of some of the voters who have cleared their dues in the meantime after the final publication of voter list is not permissible.

Secondly, it was held by Hon’ble Single Judge that seven days time gap from the date of publication of notice till the final date of filling nomination may not be sufficient time in view of order dated 19.12.2023 passed in the case of Sankarshan Majumder vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.; WPA 28560 of 2023 disposed of on 19.12.2023. Hence, the present appeal on the question of maintainability as well as merit.

8. Mr. Joydip Kar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relies on the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors.; (2002) 5 SCC 111 to substantiate his co