( 1 ) THE pivotal issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition preferred by a learned member of the Bar whether the members of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh are entitled to continue even after expiry of their term, as envisaged under the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The said issue being cardinal and dominant. I shall only confine to the aforesaid issue as the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents confined to the said facet, the singular and significant one.

( 2 ) THE facts which have been brought on record need not be dilated upon in detail, as the facts which are essential and necessitous for disposal of this writ petition have been conceded to by Mr. N. C. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the State bar Council of Madhya Pradesh as well as for the Bar Council of India. None of the other respondents disputed the factual 'expose'. It is undisputed that the election was held in the month of September, 1995 and the results were declared on 24-11-1995 and the necessary notification as mandated under the Act came into existence on that day. It is irrefragably conceded that the term of the members of the State Bar council came to cessation on 23-11-2000. In the meantime, as the facts have been adumbrated, the Madhya Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Act No. 20 of 2000) [for brevity 'the Reorganisation Act'] came into force with effect from 1-11-2000. It is incontrovertible, whatever may be the reasons, the State Bar Council did not hold its election after the expiration of the term on 23-11-2000.

( 3 ) AT this juncture, it is apposite to state here many a document has been brought on record alleging malice and mala fide, as if the members of the Bar Council of the State of Madhya Pradesh have nurtured the attitude founded on the bedrock of serendipity but Mr. Jain, learned Senior Counsel abdicated the censorious allegations and propitiated legalistic province, possibly being well advised, that assault on that account does not warrant deliberation by this Court and assayed the problem from the permissible spectrum. Quite apart from the above, the documents which have also been brought on record being correspondences made by the Bar Council of India, are also not being referred to as this Court is obligated, as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, to interpret certain provisions of the Reorganisation Act, and the effect and impact of certain provisions enshrined under the two Acts. ( 4 ) WITH the aforesaid factual backdrop, I proceed to note down the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. N. C. Jain and Mr. P. S. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner have proponed as under : (A) Section 8 of the Act stipulates term of office of members of State Bar Council and Section 8-A of the Act deals with constitution of a Special Committee in the absence of election and, therefore, no member has a right to continue after expiry of the term and the power of the Bar Council has to vest with the Special Committee, as envisaged under the aforesaid Act. (B) If Section 24 of the Reorganisation Act is read in proper perspective, an independent council, namely, Chhattisgarh Bar Council came into existence from the appointed day and there being a deemed corporation, it must be given due weighment for the purpose of carrying it on to the ultimate logical end in its conceptual eventuality, as the same postulates a deemed fiction which has to be carried to a coherent conclusion. (C) There is no provision in the Reorganisation Act which expressly provides extension of the term of the members of the Bar Council and, therefore, the members cannot continue after the expiry of the period and an obligation is cast on the Bar Council of India to act in accordance with the provision engrafted under Section 8-A of the A