The main legal point established in the judgment is the public function and duty of the High Court Bar Association to ensure the proper functioning of the courts and the dispensation of justice, which supports the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 3 and 4, impleaded as President and Secretary of High Court Bar Association, for short hcba. Respondent No. 2 at the outset of the hearing of the case raised, preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present Writ Petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, on two counts, namely; (i) present Writ Petition can not be entertained as public Interest Litigation (PIL), and, (ii) high Court Bar Association, Allahabad (HCBA), is a society registered under Societies registration Act, (whose bye-laws/rules have no statutory force), and hence not amenable to high Court jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India.

( 2 ) IT is conspicuous to note that none of the other Respondents (viz. The Registrar, Societies firms and Chits-under Societies Registration Act, 1860, Allahabad/respondent No. 1, Uttar pradesh Bar Council /respondent No. 5, Bar Council of India through its Chairman, New Delhi/ respondent No. 6, Advocate General, State of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow/respondent No. 7, High court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar General/respondent No. 8 and The advocate Association, 4th floor, New Building (High Court Allahabad)/ Respondent 9) have joined the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 on the above preliminary Objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition, rather directly or indirectly they support the petitioners and seek court intervention to ensure proper functioning of High Court Bar Association.

( 3 ) TO appreciate preliminary Objection, we may refer to the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition which read" (

i) issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus for constituting a committee of former Presidents HCBA presently practising in the High Court for weeding out non-practising advocates and to prepare final list of genuine voters who are regular practitioners in this honble Court and to hold elections of the General Body of the HCBA for the term 2004-2005 immediately thereafter.

(ii) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus ceasing the financial powers of the respondent number 3 and 4 other than disbursement of salary to HCBA staff until holding of the HCBA General Body elections 2004-2005.

(iii) issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of ad-interim mandamus ceasing the financial powers of the respondent number 3 and 4 other than disbursement of salary to HCBA staff until holding of the HCBA General Body Elections 2004-2005, and/or during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Honble Court, besides constituting a committee of Former presidents HCBA presently practising in the High Court for weeding out non-practising advocates and to prepare final list of genuine voters who are regular practitioners in this honble Court and to hold elections of the General Body of the HCBA for the term 2004-2005 immediately thereafter, so as to secure the ends of justice, or else the petitioner as well as the institution shall suffer irreparable harm and injury.

(iv) issue, any such other or further orders as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice. "

( 4 ) WE shall now examine the status of the petitioners in the wake of the reliefs (quoted above)claimed in the Writ-Petition.

( 5 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, Petitioners before the Court are Advocates who belong to legal profession. They are-members of the High Court Bar Association (HCBA), practising regularly as Advocate in High Court, Allahabad, They are ordinary members with right to vote to elect Governing council of High Court Bar Association under relevant Bye-laws/rules of the High Court Bar association. Smt. Sadhana Upadhyay, Petitioner No. 3, is an ex-office bearer of High Court Bar association.

( 6 ) ISSUES raised by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition concerns, in general, functioning of the justice delivery system and, in particular, functioning of the high Court (which is an