Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The petition is at the instance of an Advocate of the Bar Association, Mewat (Nuh), who was declared elected with 118 votes against 120 for the post of a President in the election held on 20.05.2014. A complaint was made by the 2nd respondent contending that he had paid a nomination fee of Rs.5,500/- to the Returning Officer for the election that was originally scheduled to take place on 24.04.2014. There was bedlam and disorder on that date with members indulging in a free-for-all-fight that resulted postponement of the election. The election was postponed to 20.05.2014 with the concurrence of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

2. The complaint was given by the 2nd respondent before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana contending that the election held without naming the 2nd respondent also as a contestant for the post, was not valid. His claim was based on the fact that for the election dated 24.04.2014, he had already paid Rs.5,500/- as nomination fee and the same was received by the Returning Officer and his name must have also been therefore declared as a contestant for the post of President. The Chairman of the Bar Council, who entertained the complaint proceeded to hold on the proof adduced by him that the complainant had paid Rs.5,500/- as nomination fee for the election that was originally scheduled to take place on 24.04.2014, and could not have been kept out of fray, and the election held on 20.05.2014 was incompetent. The Chairman, who headed the Ad hoc Committee, for deciding the election dispute, directed that a fresh election will be held and a schedule be prepared for conducting election under the supervision of 2 members named in the order. This order passed on 04.07.2014 is the subject of challenge in this writ petition.

3. The petitioner states that there was no election petition filed before the Bar Council and, therefore, the Committee had no jurisdiction to set aside the duly conducted election for the post of President. The further contention is that any complaint received for professional misconduct could be processed and considered under Chapter V of the Advocates Act read with Chapter VII of the BCI Rules and a complaint on validity of election itself not forming part any of the misconduct contemplated under the rules could not be the basis for setting aside the election. Consequently, the election which was set aside by the order was incompetent and liable to be set aside.

4. At the time of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Bar Council has itself no power to set out any rules for conduct of election for any Bar Association. He would submit that neither Section 15 nor Section 28 of the Advocates Act, 1963 that deals with power of the State Bar Counsel to make rules for the subjects covered under Chapter II and Chapter III respectively contemplate framing of rules for the election of a Bar Association. At the previous hearing, after hearing the parties at some length, I had adjourned the case today for consideration of whether the State Bar Council has power to frame rules for elections in District Bar Associations. The counsel only only refers me to the provisions under Sections 15 and 28 and states that the election of the Bar Association must be taken as flowing from the general power of the State Bar Council to regulate the conduct of members. I pondered for a while whether it will be appropriate to take the issue of the validity of the election rules framed by the Bar Council, for, this writ petition makes no direct challenge to the election rules in this writ petition. Indeed, the petitioner himself had filed his nomination and contested the election only as per the election rules formulated by the Bar Council and there is no express challenge to the rules under which he himself got elected. I find that the submission is not without some legal merit but perhaps this is not an occasion when it should be taken up and decided wit