JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners' grievance is that the election to the Executive Committee of Advocates' Association, Channapatna is being held on the basis of the list of members/voters prepared by the third respondent and not on the basis of the list of members/voters prepared by the Executive Committee of the said Association in accordance with its bye-laws. 2. Sri K.N. Puttegowda, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is indeed the founder of the said Association. Petitioner No.1 was once the President and also the General Secretary of the said Association. He submits that all the 17 petitioners are the advocates practising in Channapatna. He submits that the list of members of the said Association for the year 2015-16 is at Annexure-G. Based on the said list, all the petitioners have taken part in the process of electing the Executive Committee for the period 2015-17. 3. He submits that the consolidated list of different categories of the members of the said Association is prepared by the Executive Committee of the Association for the forthcoming elections. In that regard, he brings to my notice a copy of the list at Annexure-M consisting of 118 members. 4. This being the state of affairs, the third respondent (Election Officers) started issuing the notices to some of the members stating that their membership would be cancelled, if they do not produce certain documents. The petitioners and other recipients of such notice have submitted their detailed reply. He submits that even as per the Karnataka State Bar Council's records, the petitioners are all the registered law practitioners. Without any authorization and for no reasons, the respondent No.3 deleted 24 names from the list of the members by preparing a downsized list of 94 members. He submits that bye-law No.36 of the said Association gives the power to the General Secretary of the Association to publish the draft list of voters, inviting objections and thereafter prepare the final list. Under the bye-laws, the third respondent Election Officers have no competence to revise the members' or voters' list. 5. He submits that the issue was also taken up with the State Bar Council. After considering all the relevant materials, the State Bar Council vide its letter, dated 30.06.2017 has expressed the considered view that the electoral roll drawn by the respondent No.3 runs contrary to the bye-laws. 5. He submits that the issue was also taken up with the State Bar Council. After considering all the relevant materials, the State Bar Council vide its letter, dated 30.06.2017 has expressed the considered view that the electoral roll drawn by the respondent No.3 runs contrary to the bye-laws. It has called upon the third respondent to keep the election process in abeyance until the proper electoral roll is prepared. 6. Sri D.L. Jagadish, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri B. Ravindra for the respondent No.2 submits that the third respondent has to go on with the election process based on the list of members/voters prepared by the Executive Committee of the Association. 7. Sri G. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submits that the stand of the State Bar Council is contained in its letter, dated 30.06.2017. He brings to my notice that the State Bar Council has categorically stated that the Election Officers have no power to delete anybody's name from the list prepared by the Executive Committee of the Association. 8. Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the elections are to be held as per the Association's bye-laws and the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the Rules framed thereunder. 9. Sri Mahesh R.Uppin, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the General Secretary of the first respondent Association has failed to revise the members' list as per Clause 36 of the bye-laws. He submits that the Election Commissioners have sought certain information/documents pursuant to the resolution passed by the General Body in its meeting held on 07.04.2017. The portions of the General Body Meeting resolution read out by Sri Mahesh R.Uppin are extracted hereinbelow : “KANNADA” 10. He submits that some members of the first respondent Association have left the legal profession and have taken up other avocations and that some members have become the members of other Advocates' Associations. 11. He submits that the respondent No.3 has issued the notices to 45 persons. Some have not submitted reply, some have submitted evasive and derogatory replies. One petitioner has not even paid the subscription fee. He submits that some of the members of the first respondent Association have joined the services of the Government. 12. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. Some have not submitted reply, some have submitted evasive and derogatory replies. One petitioner has not even paid the subscription fee. He submits that some of the members of the first respondent Association have joined the services of the Government. 12. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The first question that falls for my consideration is whether the third respondent Election Officers have the competence to revise the electoral rolls. My emphatic answer is in the negative. There is no provision in the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 or the Rules framed thereunder or the bye-laws (Annexure-B) of the first respondent Association. Bye-law No.36 confers the power of calling for the objections and revising the voters' list upon the General Secretary of the Association. Under the bye-laws, the Returning Officer's duty is to prepare and publish calendar of events and hold the elections. It is not permissible for the Returning Officer to enlarge or downsize the members list. 13. It is also worthwhile to notice that the State Bar Council has expressed its considered view that the Election Officer has no power to delete anybody's name from the members' list. It has further opined that the list prepared by the Election Officer runs contrary to the bye-laws. 14. The Election Officers cannot justify the deletion of certain names from the members'/voters' list by raising an argument with reference to the resolution, dated 7.4.2017 (Annexure-L) passed in the meeting of the General Body of the first respondent Association, for two reasons: (i) the resolution of the General Body cannot over-ride the provisions of bye-laws. If there is conflict between the General Body's resolutions and the bye-laws, latter have to prevail over the former (ii) My plain reading of the relevant portions of the resolutions, which are extracted supra, reveals that the Election Officers are not clothed with the power to delete anybody's name from the members'/voters' list. 15. Yet another impropriety, which cannot be glossed over, is that the Election Officers have issued the notice only to 45 members out of 118 members. In the fitness of the things, identical notices ought to have been issued to all the 118 members. If the Election Officers have to call for the documents, the same has to be done on an uniform basis. It cannot be done selectively in respect of some members of the Association. In the fitness of the things, identical notices ought to have been issued to all the 118 members. If the Election Officers have to call for the documents, the same has to be done on an uniform basis. It cannot be done selectively in respect of some members of the Association. The Election Officers should not import their personal knowledge into the conduct of the elections, about the status of the members of the first respondent Association. 16. All these findings and observations of the Court should not be construed as passing of any strictures against the Election Officers. It is quite possible that the Election Officers have done certain things with the best of intentions. But in cases of this nature, intentions cannot justify actions. Even when the Election Officers may be over-enthusiastic on cleansing the system, they have to perform their duties in a manner prescribed by law. 17. I also notice with concern that some of the recipients of the notices have given the reply, the language of which is offensive and vituperative. They have to exercise self-restraint and avoid making any statements which would not be in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. 18. At the risk of repetition also, it is made clear that the Election Officers do not have the competence or power to revise the members'/voters' list. For the purpose of conducting election to the Executive Committee of the first respondent Association, the Election Officers shall take the final members' list consisting of 118 members (Annexure-M) prepared by the Executive Committee. The Election Officers shall not act on the list consisting of 94 members (Annexure-T) prepared by them. 19. Nextly, I am left with the examination of the question as to whether the Election Officers can insist for the filing of the affidavit by the members to the effect that they are not employed elsewhere or that they have not become the members of some other Advocates' Association. As per the resolution, dated 7.4.2017, the Election Officers are required to insist for the affidavits from each one of the members confirming that they are not employed in some organizations, that they continue to be legal practitioners and that they have not acquired the voting right in any other Advocates' Association. As per the resolution, dated 7.4.2017, the Election Officers are required to insist for the affidavits from each one of the members confirming that they are not employed in some organizations, that they continue to be legal practitioners and that they have not acquired the voting right in any other Advocates' Association. If any one of the 118 advocates, whose names figure in the list at Annexure- M, fail to submit the said affidavit, he shall not be entitled to vote in the forthcoming election. 20. The allied question that falls for my consideration is whether the Election Officers can insist for the production of the Certificate of Practice ('C.O.P.' for short) from the advocates, who have enrolled themselves with the State Bar Council after 2010. To examine this question, I thought it fit to hear the functionaries of the State Bar Council as to whether the C.O.P.s are being issued and if not, why they are not being issued. 21. Sri Muniyappa, a member of the State adhoc Bar Council submits that the C.O.P.s are not being issued, because the marks-cards produced by the advocates, are sent to the respective Universities for ascertaining as to whether they are genuine. Therefore, the State Bar Council is in no position to issue the C.O.P.s. 22. The condition imposed by the General Body meeting held on 7.4.2017 for the production of C.O.P.s is therefore incapable of being complied with. Consequently, the insistence for production of C.O.P.s cannot but be held as untenable. The Election Officers are therefore directed not to insist for the production of the C.O.P.s. 23. At this juncture, Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the advocates, who have enrolled themselves with the Bar Council after 2010 have to produce the passing certificate in respect of All India Bar Examination. 24. His prayer is acceded to. The advocates, whose names figure in the list at Annexure-M and who have registered with the State Bar Council after 2010, are required and directed to produce the said passing certificate. 25. The Election Officers are directed to transmit the said directions to all the 118 members through all the possible modes of communication including sending the SMS on mobile. 26. 25. The Election Officers are directed to transmit the said directions to all the 118 members through all the possible modes of communication including sending the SMS on mobile. 26. Sri K.N. Puttegowda, the learned counsel for the petitioners also undertakes to inform the petitioners of their obligation to submit their affidavits and passing certificate in respect of All India Bar Examination forthwith. 27. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.