JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi And Attau Rahman Masoodi, JJ. Heard Sri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ankit Pandey for the Bar Council, respondent no. 2. Learned Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned resolution dated 8.1.2016 and the subsequent resolutions dated 27.1.2016 and 24.2.2016 stated to have been passed by the respondent no. 3 association, as a result whereof petitioners' functioning as the office bearers of the Bar Association, Alapur, District Ambedkarnagar has been impeded. 3. A mandamus has also been sought for taking action against the respondents no. 4 to 14 for their having indulged in illegal activities. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and what we find is that the occasion and the cause arising out of the action is purely individual to the petitioners and is not related to the dispensation of justice in courts by virtue of being office bearers of a court attached Bar Association. In such a situation, in our opinion, a writ petition for the nature of the relief, as prayed for, would not be maintainable, moreso when the dispute or the doubt relating to the continuance of an office bearer of a registered association under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would be amenable to the authority of Section 25 of the 1860 Act. 5. Apart from this, the remedy of approaching the civil court against the impugned action of the Bar Council can be availed of, if permissible. 6. However, so far as the contents of the resolution are concerned, we find that the impugned resolution has been passed against the petitioners not due to any financial complaint or any other disciplinary matter. It is only on the ground that the petitioners had been instrumental in getting the strike, which was continuing for about four months, withdrawn and that they were seen in the company of the contesting opposite parties in the dispute of raising of a wall that had given rise to the strike. We may put on record that the Seven-Judges Bench of the Allahabad High Court has already taken cognizance of such strikes and has, in a particular case, declared them to be unlawful following the decisions of the apex court. We may put on record that the Seven-Judges Bench of the Allahabad High Court has already taken cognizance of such strikes and has, in a particular case, declared them to be unlawful following the decisions of the apex court. In our considered opinion, a strike which endlessly continues for months together, therefore, does call for an appropriate action against those who are fostering such strikes but that would be a separate forum and not this writ petition. 7. So far as the question of the Bar Council taking any action is concerned, it would be appropriate that once the Bar Council takes notice of any such unlawful strike then it is for the Bar Council to take an appropriate action, in case unauthorised resolutions, as alleged, are sought to be given effect to by such persons who want the continuance of unlawful strikes. 8. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the writ petition, therefore, is consigned to records, with the aforesaid observations.