MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14. 5. 2004. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) THE facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

( 3 ) THE petitioner/appellant filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- (i) to restrain the members of the said expired body of Bar Council of Delhi from discharging the statutory duties of State Bar council and to stay the elections on 29. 9. 2003 and 30. 9. 2003; and (ii) to quash the notice dated 25. 8. 2003 and 17. 9. 2003 of the expired bar Council of Delhi; and (iii) to declare the process of election held by the members of the said expired Bar Council of Delhi, as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961, Bar Council of India Rules and bar Council of Delhi Rules; (iv) to quash all decisions/orders/resolutions passed by the said expired body of Bar Council of Delhi after its expiry on 30. 3. 2003; and (v) to quash the letter dated 4. 3. 2003 of the Bar Council of India granting extension w. e. f. 1. 4. 2003 to the Bar Council of Delhi after its expiry. (vi) to appoint a Special Committee under Section 8a of the advocates Act, 1961 consisting of advocates enrolled with the bar Council of Delhi excluding the members of expired Bar council of Delhi and contesting candidates in the forthcoming election of the Bar Council of Delhi, to discharge the functions of the Bar Council and hold forthcoming elections of members of bar Council of Delhi in a fair and impartial manner; and (vii) to pass any other orders/directions in the interest of justice.

( 4 ) THE facts as stated in the writ petition are that the Bar Council of delhi is a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act. A newly elected body consisting of 25 members of the Bar Council of Delhi was constituted for five years on 31. 3. 98. Copy of the Official Gazette dated 31. 3. 98 is Annexure P-1 to the writ petition.

( 5 ) UNDER Section 8 of the Advocates Act the term of office of an elected member of the State Bar Council is five years from the date of publication of the result of his election. However, the proviso to Section 8 states that if the Bar Council fails to hold the election before the expiry of the term of members, the Bar Council of India may for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said term not exceeding six months. Under Section 8a of the advocates Act if the State Bar Council does not hold the elections before the expiry of the term of five years or the extended term referred to in Section 8, the Bar Council of India shall constitute a Special Committee which has to hold elections to the said council within six months from its constitution vide Section 8a (3 ).

( 6 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the Bar Council of Delhi was duty bound to start the process of election at least 150 days before the expiry of its term of office, and hence the election process should have started latest by 30. 10. 2002 vide Rule 4, Chapter I Part (iii) of Bar council of India Rules.

( 7 ) HOWEVER, the Bar Council of Delhi started the process of election through the notification dated 25. 1. 2003 which was published in the official gazette. It was mentioned in the said notice dated 25. 1. 2003 that the advocates who wanted to contest the elections had to furnish a declaration to the effect that they have not incurred any of the disqualifications as referred to in Rule 2 of Chapter I Part-III of the Bar Council of India Rules. The last date for acceptance of such declaration was 20. 3. 2003 following which the names of the advocates who have not furnished the said declaration was not to be included in the electoral roll under preparation.

( 8 ) IT was submitted that in keeping with Rule 2 Chapter I, Part-III of the Rules of Bar Council of India, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document