Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REKHA PALLI, J.
State Bar Council of M.P. – Petitioner
Versus
Bar Council of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2142, 2215 of 2016 & C.M. No. 9187, 9552 of 2016
Decided On : 06-07-2018
ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 - SECTION 4(1)(C) - BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RULES, 1975 - RULES 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 22 - ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBER OF STATE BAR COUNCIL IN BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA - PROCEDURE - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION OF BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TO PASS INTERIM ORDERS IN REVISIONAL AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
1. The present batch of writ petitions raise common issues with similar prayers and are, therefore, being decided vide this common judgment. 2. The first writ petition being WP(C) No. 2142/2016 has been preferred by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "SBCMP") seeking inter alia a direction to the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “BCI”) as also the Chairman of the BCI to implement the SBCMP’s resolutions dated 29.06.2014 and 07.02.2015, whereby Mr. Sunil Gupta was, in accordance with Section 4(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), elected and re-affirmed as the representative member of the SBCMP in the BCI. The SBCMP has also sought quashing of the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the BCI (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), whereby the Election Petition being Election Petition No. 01/2014 filed by the Mr. Sunil Gupta challenging the alleged election of Mr. Pratap Mehta as the representative member of the SBCMP in the BCI, has been dismissed on the ground that it is merit-less. 3. The second writ petition being WP(C) No. 2215/2016 has been preferred by Mr. Sunil Gupta, who being aggrieved by the BCI’s Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015, has also sought prayers similar to the ones sought by the SBCMP in WP(C) No. 2142/2016.
Finding of the Court:
46. The writ petitions along with pending applications are, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Issues: 1. Whether the Respondent No. 3/Mr. Sunil Gupta was validly elected as a representative member of the Petitioner/SBCMP in the Respondent No. 1/BCI on 29.06.2014 after following the procedure prescribed in the BCI Rules? If yes, could his election to the said Post, vide resolution dated 29.06.2014 be set aside and in his place, could Respondent No. 4/Mr. Pratap Mehta be elected as the representative member of the Petitioner/SBCMP in the Respondent No. 1/BCI? Furthermore, even if the Respondent No. 3/Mr. Sunil Gupta's election to the Concerned Post vide resolution dated 29.06.2014 is invalid, has the election of the Respondent No. 4/Mr. Pratap Mehta on 02.08.2014 to the said Post been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the BCI Rules? 2. Whether the Respondent No. 2/Chairman of the BCI did not have jurisdiction to pass the order dated 16.11.2015 allowing the Respondent No. 4 to join the Respondent No. 1 as a member till the final order of the Sub-committee.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The election of the Respondent No. 3/Mr. Sunil Gupta to the Concerned Post on 29.06.2014 was not valid as the meeting had been adjourned even if for a short duration, whereafter only some of the members held a meeting amongst themselves in which Respondent No. 3 was allegedly elected. 2. The Respondent No. 4’s alleged election to the Concerned Post on 02.08.2014 is invalid as no agenda for holding fresh elections for the Concerned Post had ever been circulated before the meeting held on 02.08.2014, and the only agenda circulated for holding the said meeting was for considering the letters dated 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 sent by some members, which letters admittedly did not even refer to holding of any elections. 3. The Respondent No. 2/Chairman of the BCI had jurisdiction to pass the order dated 16.11.2015 allowing the Respondent No. 4 to join the Respondent No. 1 as a member till the final order of the Sub-committee.
Final Decision: The Respondent No. 1’s Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015 upholding the elections of the Respondent No. 4 to the Concerned Post cannot be sustained. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2142/2016, i.e., the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh is directed to hold within a period of 4 weeks, fresh elections for electing its representative member in the Respondent No. 1/BCI by following the procedure as prescribed in the BCI Rules.
1. The present batch of writ petitions raise common issues with similar prayers and are, therefore, being decided vide this common judgment.
2. The first writ petition being WP(C) No. 2142/2016 has been preferred by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "SBCMP") seeking inter alia a direction to the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “BCI”) as also the Chairman of the BCI to implement the SBCMP’s resolutions dated 29.06.2014 and 07.02.2015, whereby Mr. Sunil Gupta was, in accordance with Section 4(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), elected and re-affirmed as the representative member of the SBCMP in the BCI. The SBCMP has also sought quashing of the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the BCI (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), whereby the Election Petition being Election Petition No. 01/2014 filed by the Mr. Sunil Gupta challenging the alleged election of Mr. Pratap Mehta as the representative member of the SBCMP in the BCI, has been dismissed on the ground that it is merit-less.
3. The second writ petition being WP(C) No. 2215/2016 has been preferred by Mr. Sunil Gupta, who being aggrieved by the BCI’s Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015, has also sought prayers similar to the ones sought by the SBCMP in WP(C) No. 2142/2016.
4. Before dealing with the controversy in issue, it will be appropriate to refer to the factual matrix leading to the filing of the present batch of writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to by their respective statuses in WP(C) No. 2142/2016. The brief facts as emerge from the record are that the Petitioner/SBCMP held the elections for its constituent members and declared the results for the same in May-June 2014, pursuant whereto it issued a notice dated 09.06.2014 for holding the first meeting of its newly elected members on 29.06.2014. As per the aforementioned notice, the agenda for the meeting to be held on 29.06.2014 was to conduct elections for the various posts and committees of the Petitioner/SBCMP, including the post of its representative member in the Respondent No. 1/BCI (hereinafter referred to as the “Concerned Post”). For the sake of ready reference, the relevant extract of the Petitioners notice dated 09.06.2014 is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“Part-B
Serial No. 1: Discussion, consideration and decision regarding the election of the representative member of the Bar Council for the Bar Council of India”
5. Pursuant to its aforementioned notice dated 09.06.2014, the Petitioner held a meeting on 29.06.2014, which was presided over by the then Advocate General of the State of Madhya Pradesh and duly attended by all the 25 members of the Petitioner/SBCMP. It is the Petitioner’s case that in the said meeting, the Respondent No. 3/Mr. Sunil Gupta’s name was proposed for the Concerned Post, and since the same was unanimously approved by all its members, the Respondent No. 3 was elected as the representative member of the Petitioner/SBCMP in the Respondent No. 1/BCI in accordance with Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. It is the Petitioner's further case that its Secretary had duly communicated the result of the aforesaid meeting to the Respondent No. 1 whereafter the Respondent No. 3 took charge of the Concerned Post and started discharging the accompanying official duties. However, it transpires that on 29.06.2014 itself, 9 members of the Petitioner/SBCMP wrote a letter to its Secretary requesting him to organize a meeting for conducting elections to the various posts and committees of the Petitioner/SBCMP. The said letter alleged that after the election of the Petitioner/SBCMP's Chairman on 29.06.2014, the meeting had been adjourned and the available members, without any further notice to the members who had thereafter left the place of meeting, reconvened the meeting and purportedly elected the Respondent No. 3 to the Concerned Post.
6. Thereafter, it emerges that some of th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
