2015 Supreme(All) 1601
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rakesh Tiwari, Mukhtar Ahmad, JJ.
Janpad Diwani Evam Faujdari Bar Association, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. through its Secretary and another - Petitioners
Versus
Bar Council of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42417 of 2015
Decided on : 27.11.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sarv Singh, Sri R.K. Ojha
For the Respondent: Anoop Trivedi, Ashutosh Dwivedi
The U.P. Bar Council has no role to play in the holding of elections of the Bar Association, a society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860 can hold the elections of the society of the Bar Council and any election disputes with regard to the elections of any Bar Association of whatsoever named it is called, is independent of the control of State Bar Council or Bar Council of India.
Headnote:
Election Dispute - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Advocates Act, 1961, Section 3 - Section 35 - The court quashed the impugned order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P. as it was without jurisdiction, nullity and without authority of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief from the court to quash the impugned order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P. suspending the entire election programme of the Bar Association. The petitioners were a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and a practicing lawyer in the district Court of Gautam Budh Nagar and a prospective candidate for the office of Secretary in the ensuing election of the Bar Association for the year 2015-16.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P. was without jurisdiction, nullity and without authority of law, and therefore, quashed the order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the U.P. Bar Council had the power, authority or jurisdiction to interfere in the elections of the society of the Bar Council registered under the Societies Registration Act in the election process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the U.P. Bar Council has no role to play in the holding of elections of the Bar Association, a society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860 can hold the elections of the society of the Bar Council and any election disputes with regard to the elections of any Bar Association of whatsoever named it is called, is independent of the control of State Bar Council or Bar Council of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 24.7.2015 was quashed. No order as to costs.
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs.
1. "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.7.2015 passed by the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P. suspending the entire election programme of the Bar Association ;
2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to interfere in election process of Bar Association and direct the elder committee and office bearers of the Bar Association to initiate and conclude the election of the Bar Association rescheduling its election programme afresh within a very reasonable time to be specified by this Court ;
3. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case ; and
4. Award cost of the petition to the petitioners."
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner no. 1, Janpad Diwani Evam Faujdari Bar Association, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. through its Secretary (hereinafter referred to as "the Bar Association") is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whereas petitioner no.2, Manoj Kumar Bhati is a practicing lawyer in the district Court of Gautam Budh Nagar and a prospective candidate for the office of Secretary in the ensuing election of the Bar Association for the year 2015-16. Bar Council of U.P. constituted under Section 3 of the Advocates Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Advocates Act", has framed model bye laws providing unified provision with regard to procedure of election, specifically stipulating the provisions for forming an Elder Committee of five senior most lawyers, at the relevant time who are actually in regular practise in that Court in every Bar Association of the State for holding of elections where term of the office bearers has expired and appointment of Returning Officer for the purpose of holding elections which are to be held annually.
4. In this backdrop an annual meeting of the Bar Association was held in the month of June, 2015, resolving to hold annual elections for the year 2015-16. Consequently, the Elder Committee i.e. respondent no.4 and petitioner no.1 notified the election programme thus:-
Sl. No.
Subjects
Date
1.
Nomination
25.7.2015 & 27.7.2015
2.
Scrutiny of Nomination
28.7.2015
3.
Withdrawal of Nomination
29.7.2015
4.
Voting, Counting & Results
01/08/15
Pursuant to the aforesaid meeting, a tentative voter list containing names of 1699 member advocates was prepared and affixed at appropriate places in the premises of the Bar Association inviting objections. Though no objection or complaint was initially received from any member in this regard, however, respondent no.5, claiming himself to be a prospective candidate for the office of President of the Bar Association filed a complaint on 20.6.2014 before the Bar Council, U.P., inter alia, that voter list prepared by the Bar Association is bogus. In the circumstances, the Secretary of the Bar Association vide his letter dated 25.6.2015 requested respondent no.5 to inform about any specific defect in the names or otherwise in the voter list but no such defect was pointed out by respondent no.5.
5. It appears that on the aforesaid complaint of respondent no.5 dated 20.6.2014, the Chairman, Bar Council nominated Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi for making inquiry into the voter list, who passed an order dated 30.6.2015 thus:-
^v:.k dqekj f=ikBh
lnL; iwoZ v/;{k
jkT; fof/kK ifj"kn (mRrj izns'k
vuqikyukFkZ
v/;{k] ea=h
tuin nhokuh ,oa QkStnkjh ckj ,lksfl,'ku]
tuin xkSrecq)uxj m0iz0
Jheku th]
tuin nhokuh ,oa QkStnkjh ckj ,lksfl,'ku] xkSrecq)uxj ^m0iz0* dh ernkrk lwph@lnL;rk lwph esa vfu;ferrk xSj vf/koDrkvksa dks erkf/kdkj iznku djus ds lEcU