JUDGMENT :

1. Both the writ petitions which are connected have been heard together.

WRIT - C No. - 3531 of 2023

2. Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior counsel along with Shri Mayank Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard in Writ-C No. 3531 of 2023. Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel has been heard for opposite parties No.4 to 8, who are members of the Elders Committee, as he is also appearing for the Elders Committee in the connected writ petitioner bearing Writ-C No.3433 of 2023. Shri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel has been heard on behalf of the Bar Council of U.P. As there is an elder committee managing the affairs of the Central Bar Association and Dr. V.K. Singh appears on behalf of the elders committee, therefore, opposite party No.3 has also been heard. Learned Standing counsel has been heard for opposite party No.2.

3. This petition bearing No.3531 of 2023 has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned resolution dated 18.04.2023 issued by the Elders Committee of Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

(B). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order/circular dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Chairman, Elders Committee of Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow contained as Annexure No.12 to this petition.

(C). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus to the Elder Committee of Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow to conduct the election of the Governing Body of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow in a free and fair manner in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. B.D. Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774 and Bar Council of India vs. Prahlad Sharma passed in SLP NO.23009-230011/2022 and strictly follow the principle of "One Bar One Vote" as held in the aforesaid judgments.

(D). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party No.3 to appoint any other valid member of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow who after taking charge conduct the election of Central Bar Association in a very free and fair manner and as per the principle of "One Bar One Vote".

4. As per bye law 6(c) of the Model Bye Laws for Bar Association, U.P. framed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, any person enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of U.P. wishing to become an ordinary/ non-resident/life member of a bar association shall file an affidavit inter alia declaring on oath that he neither at present or in future intends to become ordinary member/life member of any other association in State of Uttar Pradesh. This affidavit has to be submitted at the time of becoming member of a bar association in the State of U.P. The aforesaid Model Bye Laws have been adopted by the Central Bar Association in pursuance to order of this High Court dated 26.09.2008 passed in Special Appeal No. 940 of 2006 "Central Bar Association vs. Deputy Registrar", as informed by Shri Sudeep Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, bye law 54 of the Model Bye Laws aforesaid reads as under:-

"54. The meeting of the General Body of the Association will convene at least a month before the expiry of the term of the office bearers and shall fix a date for Election.

The Elders Committee will act as Penal of the Returning Officer to hold Election and be entitled to include any other member of the Association, provided one is not contesting the Election and the result of the Election shall be declared in the meeting of the General Body so convened by the Elders Committee.

In order to meet the heavy burden of expenditure of the Bar Association, the Elders Committee will also fix security money for various posts, which shall not be refundable after the nomination is accepted and found valid. Only ordinary members, who have put i