Oral Order Heard the petitioner in person and Senior Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar, who has been selected as the Returning Officer by meeting of the General Body of the Advocate Association held on 2.4.2012 under the Chairmanship of the Ad hoc Committee constituted by the Bihar Bar Council, Patna. The General Body among other decisions had also taken a decision that the members of the Advocate Association should clear their dues by 5.4.2012 and had also taken a decision that only name of those members would be included in the voter list, who have cleared such dues. 2. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Election Programme was announced as per Rule 18(8) of the Bar Council of India Model Rules framed by the Bihar State Bar Council for the Advocates Association of the State of Bihar. The said programme for the election of the Bar Council was published by the Returning Officer vide Annexure-4 dated 12.4.2012. 3. The provisional voter list was published on 9.4.2012 and objection could be filed by 10/11.4.2012. On 10.4.2012 the petitioner alongwith three other members filed objection within time on 10.4.2012. The petitioner's objection was rejected and communicated to the petitioner and others on 13.4.2012. His objection was rejected on the ground that he could not clear his dues before or on 5.4.2012. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he had no knowledge that the last date for making payment of dues was 5.4.2012 and he had not been informed by issuing show cause notice nor was it pasted on the notice board of the Association. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 19(5) envisages that "The practising member, whose name appear on the roll of Association shall be eligible to be entered in list". 4. On the basis of the aforesaid rule it is argued that the nomination paper of the petitioner should be accepted and that his name should be included in the voter list. 5. On perusal of materials and the admitted fact it would appear that the General Body in its meeting had already announced that the practising member of the association had to clear the dues by 5.4.2012. Notice of this extraordinary meeting was also pasted on the notice boards of the Association. 5. On perusal of materials and the admitted fact it would appear that the General Body in its meeting had already announced that the practising member of the association had to clear the dues by 5.4.2012. Notice of this extraordinary meeting was also pasted on the notice boards of the Association. In fact, it is submitted that even today, notice of the decisions of the General Body Meeting would be found on the notice board. On the request of the petitioner some advocates were directed to see the notice board. They found the entire election programme pasted on the notice board for all members to view. 6. Reference may be made to Rule 7, which speaks of the fee prescribed for becoming a member of any Association recognized by the Bihar State Bar Council, it specifies that members have to deposit a sum of As. 200/- to 1,500/- or a sum of money as fee as determined by the Association. Such a person (advocate) on being admitted as member of this Association, gives a declaration that shall abide by the Rules and procedure of the Association concerned. 7. Rule 8 prescribes a monthly subscription which would be Rs. 50/- per month for the designated senior advocates and Rs. 5/- to 25/- per month for other advocates, this amount is determined by the Association. 8. Rule 9(a) envisages that in case a member of the Association defaults in payment of subscription and other dues for three consecutive months, his name shall be removed from the register of the members, this, however, will be at the discretion of the Executive Committee of the Association on sufficient cause being shown by the member concerned. 9. Sub-rule (b) to Rule 9 envisages that Member whose name has been removed in the manner aforesaid, may be re-admitted as a member upon payment of dues and fresh enrolment fee. 10. In the present case the petitioner has not been struck of from the roll, rather he was given opportunity to make payment within the prescribed time. The petitioner has paid the dues after the cutoff date, even then in the opinion of this Court his name cannot be included in the voter list. The petitioner being an advocate, having a long standing presumably knows that he has to pay subscription on a monthly basis if not on yearly basis. The petitioner has paid the dues after the cutoff date, even then in the opinion of this Court his name cannot be included in the voter list. The petitioner being an advocate, having a long standing presumably knows that he has to pay subscription on a monthly basis if not on yearly basis. The Executive Committee had given opportunity to the petitioner to remit his fee, to pay up his dues by extending the time limit for one week, which the petitioner failed to comply with. An Advocate who wishes to contest in the elections should be aware of the rules and regulations of the Association so that he is included as a voter in the Electoral vote (sic-roll?) and can be eligible to submit his nomination form I, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of the petitioner. 11. The petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Jagarnath Singh vs. The Bihar State Bar Council reported in 2010(1) PLJR 345 . The facts of the case were that the election was to be held and all such advocates who had paid the fee, were included in the Electoral role. One of the grounds of rejection was non-payment of membership fee of the Advocates Welfare Trust established by the Bar Council of India. Sri Singh did not pay the welfare fee within the time but he subsequently deposited the money, however his name was not included in the voter's list, although he deposited the amount before publication of voter list. This Court held that since the petitioner had paid his fee and he was not defaulter it cannot be said that the petitioner was at fault. It was held that it was for the State Bar Council was to take the details and include the name of the petitioner in the Electoral vote (sic-roll?). Under such circumstance the Court intervened in the matter. But the case of the petitioner is on a different footing, as the petitioner was in default and had not submitted his fee within the stipulated time. 12. It is submitted that the petitioner was not called upon by the Committee to hear his objection which is in direct violation of the rules. But the case of the petitioner is on a different footing, as the petitioner was in default and had not submitted his fee within the stipulated time. 12. It is submitted that the petitioner was not called upon by the Committee to hear his objection which is in direct violation of the rules. The objection of the petitioner was rejected on the ground which, was well known to one to all, i.e., nonpayment of subscription fee is a ground for exclusion of the name in the voters list. Even before this Court the petitioner has not been able to state as to why he could not pay his subscription fee till 5th April, 2012. The defence has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that he could not pay subscription fee within time because he was unwell on 5th of April, 2012. However, the objection before the Committee, does not disclose these grounds nor is there an explanation for delays which occurs on 6th, 7th and 8th April, 2012. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that if he had been given opportunity of hearing by the Committee he could explain the delay is not convincing or even justifiable. 13. It is well settled law that once the process of the election has been initiated no' interference is warranted by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as such this Court does not think it a fit case to exercise its discretionary powers. 14. Lastly counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed nomination paper which was accepted by the Returning Officer. "This Nomination Paper is being issued to Sri Ravi Bhushan Prasad Verma, Advocate on account of Appeal having been preferred by him before Bihar State Bar Council. But he must bring necessary direction for accepting the nomination paper as valid, prior to scrutiny of the nomination paper, failing which his nomination would be rejected," 15. The petitioner's nomination paper was alternately rejected by the Bar Council, as such the nomination paper stood rejected by the Returning Officer. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given opportunity to file election petition. In fact, no leave is required, petitioner will have a remedy, if it is available under the Bar Council Act or Rules. 16. Under the above circumstances, this writ application is dismissed.