Point of Law : Legal maxim “Expressio unius est exclusion alterius” meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following some other course is not permissible.

ORDER :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the practicing lawyer for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

(i). That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned letter dated 27.11.2019 issued by Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-2), whereby every advocate is under legal obligation to affix welfare stamp of Rs. 25/- instead of Rs. 10/- and the said decision has been taken by the respondent authority unilaterally without taking into confidence all the Advocates and Bar Associations of Himachal Pradesh.

(ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to frame rules in terms of Section 32 of the Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1996 to the effect that every practicing lawyer in the State of Himachal Pradesh, who is contributing towards Advocates Welfare Fund by affixing welfare stamp as per the mandate of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1996, is the deemed member of Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund.

(iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to convey every Bar Association on ending of every financial year i.e. 31st March of each year that how much Advocates Welfare Fund is available with them, how much fund has been spent by the respondents for the welfare of the Advocates throughout the State and how much fund they have released to its members in terms of Section 18 of the Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1996.

2. However, during the course of hearing, Shri R. L. Chaudhary, learned Advocate, confined his plea only to relief No. (ii), as quoted above.

3. According to the petitioner, every practicing lawyer is contributing towards the Advocates Welfare Fund by affixing welfare stamp, but the benefit thereof is being confined only to its members in terms of Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act'), whereas the other members even though contributing towards the fund will not be entitled to any benefit that per se is discriminatory.

4. It is further contended that it is with a view to remove this anomaly, the Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, issued a letter dated 27.11.2019, requiring every Advocate to affix a stamp of Rs.25/- instead of Rs. 10/- on every Vakalatnama filed before any Court, Tribunal or Authority, as per the amended provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2004.

5. It is on all these allegations that the petitioner wants that every practicing lawyer should be deemed to be a member of the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2004.

6. Even though the State, which has been arrayed as respondent No. 1, has filed its reply, however, we really do not find the same of any assistance for deciding the controversy in issue.

7. As regards the Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Trustee Committee and the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, the same have been arrayed as respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively and have filed a common reply, wherein number of preliminary objections have been raised. One of such objections is that the Himachal Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1996 is a complete Code in itself as the same provides how the accounts/corpus is to be maintained and distributed. It is further averred that an Advocate, who is contributing towards the welfare fund by simply affixing welfare stamp cannot be a member of welfare fund, as the requirement of Section 67 of the Act has to be fulfilled in order to become a member. It is further submitted that the fund is for the ultimate benefit of the Advocate or his family as per Section 18 of the Act of 1996.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy in question, it needs to be noticed that the Government of Himachal Pradesh on