JUDGMENT B. N. Agrawal, J. This writ application bas been filed by three advocates, enrolled by the Bihar State Bar Council (hereinafter to be referred to as 'State Bal Council'), for Issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the State Bar Council not to hold its election, which was scheduled to be held on 1st of August, 1994. 2. In this case, argument was heard on 29th of July, 1994 (Friday) and election was going to be held on 1st of August, 1994 (Monday) and there was no time for delivering a reasoned Judgment, therefore, we passed operative portion of the order dismissing the writ application and directed that reasons would follow, which are recorded hereinafter 3. The short facts for disposal of this writ application are that election of State Bar Council was held in the year 1988 and upon completion of the process of election, its result was declared on 8th of February, 1989, on which day the present body came into effect. According to Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as amended by Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Act No. 70 of 1993), the term of office of elected members of State Bar Council is five years from the date of publication of the result of election. According to the petitioners, the life of the elected body could be extended for a further period of six months by an order to be passed by Bar Council of India before expiry of the term of five years. But no such order could be passed before expiry of term of five years, that is by 7.2.1994 and on 13.02.1994 order was passed by the Bar Council of India extending the term of State Bar Council by six months, that is, till 7.8.14994. It is said that after expiry of the term of five years, the programme for election of members of the State Bar Council was published according to which nomination papers were required to be filed between 27.06.1994 and 2nd of July, 1994, 1st August, 1994 was fixed for poll and from 4th of august, 1994, counting of votes was to commence. According to the petitioners, since the order of extension for a period of six months was invalid, the existing body of State Bar Council had no jurisdiction to conduct the election, which was scheduled to be held on 1st of August, 1994. According to the petitioners, since the order of extension for a period of six months was invalid, the existing body of State Bar Council had no jurisdiction to conduct the election, which was scheduled to be held on 1st of August, 1994. But since the election was going to be held on that day, the same necessitated filing of the present writ application 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Bar Council and its stand is that the order of extension was in accordance with law, therefore, existing body of the State Bar Council was quite competent to conduct the election. 5. Though in the writ application several points have been taken, but learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of the writ application his challenged the jurisdiction of existing body of State Bar Council to hold election on two grounds. Firstly, it has been submitted that under proviso to Section 8 of the Act as amended the order extending the life of the State Bar Council ought to have been passed before expiry of term of five years : and, secondly, no reasons have been recorded in the order of extension pissed by the Bar Council of India as required under the aforesaid proviso. 6. For consideration of the first point raised on behalf of the petitioners. I may use fully quote the provision of section 8 of the Act as duly amended:- “8. The term of office of an elected member of a State Bar Council (other than an elected member thereof referred to in section 54) shall be five years from the date of publication of the result of his election : Provided that where a State Bar Council falls to provide for the election of its members before the expiry of the said term the Bar Council of India may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said term for a period not exceeding six months." On a bare perusal of section 8 of the Act, referred to above, it would appear that term of office of an ejected member of State Bar Council would be only five years from the date of publication of the election. Proviso to the aforesaid section lays down that where State Bar Council falls to provide for the election of its member before the expiry of the said term or five years, the Bar Council of India may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said term or five years not exceeding six months. Under the proviso power of extension can be exercised only if, before expiry of the term, the State Bar Council fails to hold election. Therefore, from a plain reading of the said provision, it would appear that election can be held even by the last day on which the term is to expire and the question of extension arises only if by the last day the election is not held. If the power of extension is exercised before expiry of the term, the same, in my view, would be pre-mature. If the Legislature would have intended that order of extension would be passed before expiry of five years nothing prevented it in incorporating in the provisio that Bar Council or India may, before the expiry of the term, by order, extend the said term. Since, the Legislature did not intend that power of extension should be exercised before expiry of the term such a language was not used in the Statute. In the present case, it has come in the counter affidavit that the State Bar Council by its letter dated 27.1.1994 requested the Ball Council of India for extension of the term for a period of six months from the date of its expiry. A copy of resolution dated 13.2.1994 of Bar Council of India has been produced on behalf of the respondents for our perusal, the correctness of which has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. A copy of resolution dated 13.2.1994 of Bar Council of India has been produced on behalf of the respondents for our perusal, the correctness of which has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. From this resolution, it appears that request has been made on behalf of the Bar Councils of Bihar, West Bengal, Himanchal Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil, Nadu and Uttar Pradesh for extending their term by six months and upon the said request Chairman of Bar Council of India, Sri V.C. Mishra, and its member, Sri K. J. Sethana, submitted their reports recommending therein to extend the term by six months and upon perusal of the said report, the Bar Council of India by its resolution dated 13.02.1994 extended the terms of other State Bar Councils by 25th of June, 1994 and Bihar State Bar Council for a period of six months from the date of its expiry meaning thereby 7.8.1994. From the aforesaid facts, it become clear that process of extension commenced before expiry of the term but order of extension was passed after its expiry. In view of the forgoing discussion, I am of the view that under proviso to section 8 order of extension could have been passed after expiry of the term, therefore, I do not find any substance in the first raised on behalf of the petitioners. 7. Turning now to the second point, I may state that according to the proviso, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the term can be extended. In the present case, from the aforesaid facts, it would appear that Bar Council of India at the time of passing the order of extension has taken into consideration request of the State Bar Council and report submitted by the Chairman and member of the Bar Council of India on the said request therefore, it cannot be said that the order has been passed without recording any reason. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the second point as well. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the second point as well. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Bar Council of India, by which term of State Bar Council was extended by six months, and, therefore, the present body of Bihar Bar Council was quite competent to hold the election, which was scheduled to hold the election, which was scheduled to be held on 1st of August, 1994, duly held according to that schedule and result of election has also been declared, as such it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioners in this application. 9. In the result, this application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs. O. N. Asthana, J. : I agree. Application dismissed.