ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by R. MAHADEVAN, J)

Heard the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials placed before us.

2.The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to adhere to the principle of One Bar, One Vote, One Post and One Time only.

3.The case of the petitioner as projected in this writ petition would run thus:

(i) The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. According to him, he is also a member of the Madras High Court Advocate Association (MHAA), Chennai. In his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he referred to the election notification issued by the second respondent, proposing to conduct election to MHAA on 09.01.2023.

(ii) It is stated by the petitioner that the system of One Bar, One Vote, One Post and One Time only has to be implemented by the respondents while conducting election to MHAA so that it will eliminate monopoly in the same. It is further stated that certain candidates are, on the one hand, holding the post of office bearers or members of MHAA and on the other hand, they engage themselves in the office of profit with the State Government by serving as Law Officers or any other similar post. According to the petitioner, such a practice of holding dual posts must be prohibited for effective administration of MHAA. It is also submitted that some office bearers, who have held various posts in the Association, once again submit their nomination to contest in the election scheduled on 09.01.2023 or in some cases, the candidates are holding the post continuously by getting re-elected in the elections conducted periodically. In other words, the candidates, who were elected to the post of office bearers of MHAA for two year term, continuously hold the posts for another four years viz., for three terms, which is against Rule 12 (3) of the Bye laws of MHAA.

(iii) Elaborating further, the petitioner stated that a person shall not be permitted to simultaneously hold a post in more than one Association which includes a body, organisation, body corporate etc. By placing reliance on Rule

12 (3), it is stated that no person shall be entitled to hold the same post in the association, whether office bearer or as a committee member for more than two consecutive terms. However, contrary to the same, the persons who held the post of Member or Office bearer of MHAA for two consecutive terms viz., four years, are once again permitted to contest the election for another two year term and it has to be prohibited. That apart, certain candidates are holding the post as Members of State Bar Council and other committees as well. Being a statutory body having disciplinary powers, the State Bar Council must ensure that those persons are kept at a safe distance and restrained from contesting the election to MHAA. This would result in a new stream of office bearers getting elected to MHAA with innovative thoughts to contribute for the immense growth of MHAA.

(iv) Referring to the provisional voters list dated 06.12.2022 prepared by the second respondent for the election, the petitioner would contend that ineligible members are included in the list and it has gone unnoticed all these years. A member is entitled to vote unless he or she paid arrears of the subscription fee, if any, and those who failed to pay the subscription for two years, must be excluded from the voters list. In the list dated 06.12.2022, it is seen that around 530 members paid subscription in multiple terms i.e., proxy payment made to a member as double payment, triple payment and five payment, approximately. Further, subscription has been paid in the name of deceased members. Above all, arrears of subscription have been paid by the candidates who intend to contest in the election, whereby, indirectly they induce such members to cast vote in his or her favour. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the advocates, who are not p