V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. The fight in this litigation is between two bodies of lawyers. The petitioner undoubtedly has a century old existence and has been allotted premises within the court complex. It has a huge collection of books and runs a reference library. The 2nd Respondent is a registered society and has members, who are lawyers practising before various courts in Tamil Nadu and also before this court. The 2nd Respondent society applied to the 1st Respondent - Bar Council for the grant of recognition and registration under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987. Though its application was earlier rejected twice, it has now been granted recognition by a Resolution bearing No. 44/2015 dated 8.3.2015 and that has become the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. We have heard Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.Y. Masood, learned counsel for the first respondent, Mr. K. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr. R. Balasubramanian and Mr. Elephant G. Rajendran, petitioners seeking to implead themselves as parties in the writ petition.

BACKGROUND FACTS

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

(a) The 2nd Respondent Association was formed in the year 2007. It got itself registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Its Registration Number is 98/2008 Chennai North.

(b) The 2nd Respondent gave an application to the 1st Respondent-Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as the State Bar Council) for the grant of recognition and registration under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates’ Welfare Fund Act, 1987. On receipt of the application, the 1st Respondent constituted a three member committee by a proceeding dated 3.8.2010 to visit the Association and to give a report. The said Sub-Committee of the Bar Council gave a report dated 16.8.2010. In that report, they had observed as follows:

“This provisions of the Bye-Laws of this Association very clearly reveal that during the course of time this Association will be a National-level association and it will have its ramifications throughout India and in such an event the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, for that matter any State Bar Council in India and the Bar Council of India cannot have any kind of control over this association and this association will become a separate and independent entity. As we stated already, this Association will be functioning parallel to the State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India and its members may not at all be governed by the Advocates Act of 1961. Therefore, we are of the view that this Association cannot be recognized and registered. Therefore in view of the above observation, we are of the considered and unanimous opinion that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu cannot recognize and register this Association."

(c) The matter was then placed in a meeting of the State Bar Council on 31.10.2010. After some deliberations, the State Bar Council rejected the request of the 2nd Respondent vide Resolution No. 326/2010. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent sent a letter dated 12.1.2012 and sought for a reconsideration of the decision taken by the 1st Respondent. When the matter came up for hearing in the meeting of the State Bar Council on 22.1.2012, the President of the 2nd Respondent Society and who is also member of the State Bar Council (in turn elected as the member of the Bar Council of India) informed the Council that he will advice his association to withdraw the request for reconsideration. Accordingly the matter was given up.

(d) It transpires that the 2nd Respondent Society thereafter filed a revision petition before the Bar Council of India against the report given by the Three Member Committee dated 16.8.20