Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2554 (ALL)

Manish Tripathi v. Bar Council of U. P.

2015-08-21

RAJAN ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri S.C. Shukla and Sri Yogesh Gurnani, Sri Deepanshu Das and Sri Ramesh Pandey learned counsel for opposite parties. 3. The two members of the Central Bar Association have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: - "(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the nomination of new elders committee, constituted by the Executive Body of the Association. (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the opposite party no.4 and 5 to work and functioned as elders committee and executive body of the Cental Bar Association, Civil Court, Lucknow. (c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the opposite party no.7 to take ad ministration and control of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court, Lucknow being chairman of the elders committee constituted by the order and direction of this Hon'ble Court. (d) any other order or direction deemed to be just and proper under the fact and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice. (e) to award cost in favour of the petitioner." 4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the elders committee is to be constituted as per clause 18 of the Model Bye Laws for Bar Associations U.P. framed by the State Bar Council but it has not been so constituted. According to petitioners under clause 7, the senior most members of the association actively practicing in District Courts are to constitute the elders committee. The seniority of members of the elders committee for the District Courts will be determined taking into account the date of enrollment as an Advocate by the Bar Council and having atleast rendered 10 years regular practice in that Court and continuing as regular practitioner of that Court. The senior most member of the elders committee will be the Chairman. 5. The contention of Sri S.C. Shukla learned counsel for petitioners is that five members who are part of the elders committee constituted in the alleged meeting of the General-body do not comprise the senior most members of the Bar Association. The senior most member of the elders committee will be the Chairman. 5. The contention of Sri S.C. Shukla learned counsel for petitioners is that five members who are part of the elders committee constituted in the alleged meeting of the General-body do not comprise the senior most members of the Bar Association. He also placed reliance on the certificate which forms part of the affidavit of the petitioners, as given by the senior members of the Bar Association stating that they had never been approached for being part of the elders committee. 6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for opposite parties submit that there are certain allegations against the earlier members of the elders committee which had been constituted under the directions of the High Court, therefore, in a meeting of the General-body convened on 21.04.2015 a new elders committee was constituted. The constitution of the said elders committee was notified on the notice Board on 05.06.2015 inviting objections thereto. As no objections were received, the same was finalized and it is the said elders committee which is in control of the affairs of the Central Bar Association since 04.07.2015. 7. As per Sri Yogesh Gurnani appearing for opposite party no. 8 the allegations against the members of the earlier elders committee are frivolous. These allegations had been made even prior to the constitution of the said committee by the High Court in the earlier proceedings. 8. Sri Ramesh Pandey submits that the schedule of elections having been declared the same should not be interfered. 9. Learned counsel Sri S.C. Shulka appearing for the petitioners submits that as the very constitution of the committee is in violation of Model Bye Laws, therefore, further election proceedings should be stayed and there is no such bar in doing so as it is not an election under the provisions of Representation of People Act. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record and affidavits the Court finds that in the Model Bye Laws, itself, there is a provision contained in rule 54 note III which provides that if any resolution has been passed by the Bar Association in contravention of the provisions of the Bye Laws without the approval of the Bar Council of U.P. it is deemed to be void. The contention of the petitioner in nutshell is that the decision of the General-body and the resolution passed on 21.04.2015 is in contravention of clause 7 of the Model Bye Laws framed by the State Bar Council. 11. In view of the above, the ends of justice would suffice, if, it is provided that the petitioners may approach the Bar Council within a period of three days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, whereupon the State Bar Council shall look into the matter, hear the rival parties and take decision as regards validity of the resolution passed by the Central Bar Association regarding constitution of elders committee. This exercise shall be done within a period of 15 days from the date of submission of the application by the petitioners before it. The decision so taken shall be communicated by the Bar Council without any delay to the petitioners. 12. As far as the stay of election proceedings is concerned, this court is not inclined to do so. In the event, the State Bar Council holds that the constitution of the elder committee is in violation of the Model Bye Laws, the consequence shall follow as per law. 13.With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.