The judgment established the importance of membership in recognized associations for accessing welfare fund stamps and highlighted the need to ensure fundamental rights of expelled members to practice law.

1. The petitioner is an association of advocates practising in Gobichettipalayam and they have come up with the above writ petition challenging a resolution dated 17.7.2010 passed by the respondent, refusing to recognise the petitioner association in terms of Section 13 of the Tamilnadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Y. Masood, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. As per the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the members of the petitioner association were originally the members Gobichettipalayam Bar Association, which is recognised by the Bar Council in terms of Section 13 of the Tamilnadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to a call given by the Federation of Advocates in Tamilnadu and Pondicherry, for the indefinite boycott of courts in connection with the issue of Srilankan Tamils, the Gobichettipalayam Bar Association started boycotting courts from 9.2.2009 onwards. Since the boycott continued for a long time, a section of the lawyers practising in Gobichettipalayam, who were members of the recognised Gobichettipalayam Bar Association, requested the association to convene a meeting for moving a resolution on 25.2.2009 for the resumption of work. But, the move is claimed to have been opposed by a majority of the members, resulting in the proposal being defeated.

4. Thereafter, 15 advocates, who were members of the recognised Bar Association, started attending courts in defiance of the resolution for continuation of boycott, passed by the Gobichettipalayam Bar Association. Therefore, the Bar Association met on 9.3.2009 and passed a resolution suspending all those 15 advocates, who were attending courts. Subsequently, show cause notices were issued to those 15 persons and they were ultimately removed from the primary membership of Gobichettipalayam Bar Association.

5. Upon their removal from the primary membership of the association, the members of the petitioner association lost their right to use Bar room, library and toilet facilities. Therefore, the expelled members formed an independent association by name Gobichettipalayam Advocates' Association and got it registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act on 4.8.2009. That association is the petitioner herein. After registration, the petitioner association made an application on 10.12.2009 to the respondent to recognise them in terms of Section 13 of the Tamilnadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987. But, the said application was rejected by a resolution dated 17.7.2010 passed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said resolution, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

6. The respondent has not filed counter. But, the learned counsel for the respondent made his submissions on the basis of the Act and the Rules and the resolution passed. Therefore, the writ petition itself was taken up for disposal by consent.

7. The impugned resolution passed by the respondent reads as follows :

"On perusal of application and on perusal of our records, it is ascertained that there are only 16 members in that association and it is not permitted as per our Rules. Hence, we are of the opinion that the recognition to this association is not necessary and if recognition is given on mere asking, it may lead to all sorts of complications and there may be every likelihood of another 10 to 20 persons forming an association and seeking recognition in future also. Therefore, to avoid all these unnecessary happenings, this Council is of the opinion that the recognition for this association is not necessary and hence, it is resolved to reject the application for recognition filed by this association."

8. The main ground on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned resolution is that as on date, the members of the petitioner association are virtually prevented from exercising their right to practice, on account o