By the Court.—Under challenge in this petition is the order dated 30.7.2017 passed by the then Chairman, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Bar Council). The petitioner has also made a prayer for declaring the minutes of the meeting of the Bar Council dated 29.7.2017 and the e-mail communication dated 3.8.2017 thereof as null and void. A further prayer has been made for quashing of the charge-sheet served upon him (Annexure 4 to the petition) and to allow him to continue to function as the Secretary of the Bar Council.

2. We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Counsel and Sri Anoop Trivedi on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Amit Kumar and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the Bar Council and the Special Committee headed by the Advocate General respectively.

3. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are parties by name. We have not considered it appropriate to call upon them to participate in the proceedings in the personal capacity as the matter can be decided even without their assistance specially when no relief has been claimed against them.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting parties have agreed for final disposal of the writ petition at the stage of admission even in the absence of counter-affidavit as the necessary facts can be verified from the record of the Bar Council which is before the Court.

5. The petitioner was appointed and working as the Secretary of the Bar Council.

6. The Executive Committee of the Bar Council is said to have passed a resolution on 23.5.2017 that his services be terminated after giving a month’s notice as his services are temporary.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution, the Bar Council appears to have passed a resolution on 29.7.2017 suspending the petitioner and instituting a disciplinary inquiry against him.

8. The then Chairman of the Bar Council is said to have issued an order dated 30.7.2017 suspending the petitioner and the said order was uploaded on 3.8.2017 on the official website of the Bar Council through e-mail of the then Chairman.

9. The petitioner in order to assail his suspension contends that the resolution of the Executive Committee dated 23.5.2017 which forms the basis of the resolution of the Bar Council dated 29.7.2017 is without jurisdiction and is nonest in law. The resolution dated 23.5.2017 was annulled by the previous Chairman of the Bar Council vide his order dated 18.6.2017 which was duly approved by the Bar Council in its meeting held on 16.7.2017. Thus, the resolution dated 29.7.2017 is also illegal. In fact, these two resolutions dated 23.5.2017 and 29.7.2017 have not been passed and are non existent in nature. They have been manipulated just to oust the petitioner from the post of Secretary of the Bar Council.

10. In order to adjudicate the controversy raised in the petition we would first like to place some of the relevant provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules governing the procedure of meetings of the Bar Council and its authorities and then will proceed to consider the validity of the resolution of the Executive Committee dated 23.5.2017, resolution of the Bar Council dated 29.7.2017 and the order dated 30.7.2017 or 3.8.2017.

11. The Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for the law relating to legal practitioners and for the constitution of State Bar Councils and All India Bar. Section 3 of the said Act provides for a Bar Council for each State to be called “Bar Council”.Section 5 of the Act recognises the Bar Council as a body corporate having a perpetual succession and a common seal, with the power to acquire and hold property, to contract and capable to sue and be sued in its name.

12. The Bar Council is an elected body and according to Section 8 of the Act the term of its members is 5 years from the date of publication of the result of the election which in a given circumstance can be extended by the Bar Council of India for a period not exceeding six months.

13. Sec