JUDGMENT : 1. Both the writ petitions which are connected have been heard together. WRIT - C No. - 3531 of 2023 2. Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior counsel along with Shri Mayank Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard in Writ-C No. 3531 of 2023. Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel has been heard for opposite parties No.4 to 8, who are members of the Elders Committee, as he is also appearing for the Elders Committee in the connected writ petitioner bearing Writ-C No.3433 of 2023. Shri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel has been heard on behalf of the Bar Council of U.P. As there is an elder committee managing the affairs of the Central Bar Association and Dr. V.K. Singh appears on behalf of the elders committee, therefore, opposite party No.3 has also been heard. Learned Standing counsel has been heard for opposite party No.2. 3. This petition bearing No.3531 of 2023 has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- (A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned resolution dated 18.04.2023 issued by the Elders Committee of Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (B). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order/circular dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Chairman, Elders Committee of Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow contained as Annexure No.12 to this petition. (C). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus to the Elder Committee of Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow to conduct the election of the Governing Body of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow in a free and fair manner in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. B.D. Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774 and Bar Council of India vs. Prahlad Sharma passed in SLP NO.23009-230011/2022 and strictly follow the principle of "One Bar One Vote" as held in the aforesaid judgments. (D). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party No.3 to appoint any other valid member of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow who after taking charge conduct the election of Central Bar Association in a very free and fair manner and as per the principle of "One Bar One Vote". 4. (D). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party No.3 to appoint any other valid member of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow who after taking charge conduct the election of Central Bar Association in a very free and fair manner and as per the principle of "One Bar One Vote". 4. As per bye law 6(c) of the Model Bye Laws for Bar Association, U.P. framed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, any person enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of U.P. wishing to become an ordinary/ non-resident/life member of a bar association shall file an affidavit inter alia declaring on oath that he neither at present or in future intends to become ordinary member/life member of any other association in State of Uttar Pradesh. This affidavit has to be submitted at the time of becoming member of a bar association in the State of U.P. The aforesaid Model Bye Laws have been adopted by the Central Bar Association in pursuance to order of this High Court dated 26.09.2008 passed in Special Appeal No. 940 of 2006 "Central Bar Association vs. Deputy Registrar", as informed by Shri Sudeep Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, bye law 54 of the Model Bye Laws aforesaid reads as under:- "54. The meeting of the General Body of the Association will convene at least a month before the expiry of the term of the office bearers and shall fix a date for Election. The Elders Committee will act as Penal of the Returning Officer to hold Election and be entitled to include any other member of the Association, provided one is not contesting the Election and the result of the Election shall be declared in the meeting of the General Body so convened by the Elders Committee. In order to meet the heavy burden of expenditure of the Bar Association, the Elders Committee will also fix security money for various posts, which shall not be refundable after the nomination is accepted and found valid. Only ordinary members, who have put in 2 years of continuous membership, will be entitled to vote and participate in the Election. The person, who has held office, will not be entitled to contest the following Elections in sequence. However, he can re-contest after a gap of one year." 5. Only ordinary members, who have put in 2 years of continuous membership, will be entitled to vote and participate in the Election. The person, who has held office, will not be entitled to contest the following Elections in sequence. However, he can re-contest after a gap of one year." 5. According to the counsel for the U.P. Bar Council, the purport of the aforesaid provisions inter alia is that any member of the Central Bar Association, if he has voted in an election to the Managing Committee of any other bar association, then he cannot participate in election of the Central Bar Association and an Advocate at one time should be member of only one Bar association where he ordinarily practices. 6. As per Schedule 1 of the Model Bye Laws which is format of the application for admission as member of the bar association, one of the declarations to be made is that the applicant declares that he has not obtained membership of any other association, in any case, he is not availing voting right in any other association to which otherwise he is entitled to be a member under bye laws. 7. In this context, learned counsel for the parties have also placed before us Certificate of Practice and Place of Practice (verification) Rules, 2015. The certificate of practice is issued under the said rules by the Bar council which is effective for five years. This is to ensure that fake persons and non-practicing advocates are not used by some office bearers/candidates for elections of Bar association or Bar council only for their votes. Certificate of practice is proof that the advocate is ordinarily practicing in a particular Bar association in terms of the said rule. The Bar association where he ordinarily practices is mentioned in the certificate of posting. This is in view of Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules 2015. According to Rule 6.1, an advocate after having obtained a certificate or enrollment under Section 22 of the Advocates Act, 1967 is required to get himself registered as a member of the Bar association where he ordinarily practises law or intends to practise law. In case, an advocate leaves one bar association and joins another for any reason, he shall intimate such change to the State Bar Council. In case, an advocate leaves one bar association and joins another for any reason, he shall intimate such change to the State Bar Council. As per the application to be submitted for issuance of a certificate for practice, proforma of which is contained in Form A, Column 1 to the aforesaid Rules 2015, the advocate is required to declare at point 18 of the said proforma the place where he intends to cast his vote in bar council election and in bar association election mentioning the name of the bar association and place. Further, as per Serial No.2 of Form A, Column 2 of the said Rules 2015, he is required to disclose the place where he intends to usually practice and also the State Bar Council and the Bar association with name and place of bar association where he intends to cast his vote. This is applicable where the advocate intends to be member of any bar association. Further, as per Form B to the said Rules 2015, containing the proforma of certificate of practice to be issued to the advocate on his application as referred above, it is to be mentioned that he is entitled to cast his vote for the election to a particular bar council mentioning its name and place as also the name and place of the bar association where he is entitled to cast his vote, thus, he cannot become a member or cast his vote in more than one bar association. This is to secure adherence to the principle of 'One Vote, One Bar Association'. 8. Shri Seth has invited our attention to Para 89 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of 'Supreme Court Bar Association and others Vs. B.D. Kaushik reported in (2011) 13 SCC 774 , which reads as under:- "After preparation of the final list of the regular practitioners, each member shall give a written intimation to S.C.B.A. whether he is a member of another Court annexed Bar. It shall be mandatory for a member, whose name is included in the said list, to give a permanent declaration that he would vote only in SCBA and would not vote in any of the elections of any High Court Bar Association or District Bar Association or Taluka Bar Association or Tribunal Bar Association or Quasi-judicial Bar Associations like BIFR, AIFR, CAT, etc. A copy of this declaration shall be put up/displayed on the website of SCBA as well as on the notice board of SCBA. The information about having filed such a declaration shall be sent to all the Bar Associations where the said advocate is a member. Once such a declaration has been given, it will be valid till it is revoked and once it is revoked a member shall forfeit his right to vote or contest any election to any post to be conducted by SCBA, for a period of three years from the date of revocation. The members of SCBA, whose names do not figure in the final list of regular practitioners, shall not be entitled to either vote at an election of the office bearers of SCBA or to contest any of the posts for which elections would be held by S.C.B.A." 9. The grievance of Shri Seth in this petition is that vide Resolution dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Elders Committee, which is managing affairs of the Central Bar Association as of now in absence of any elected Managing Committee, what has been done is that resolution No.2 which was passed in the earlier meeting dated 17.04.2023 has been deleted. The said Resolution 2002 dated 17.04.2023 reads as under:- ^^2- ftu lEekfur lnL;ksa dh lh0vks0ih0 ds dkMZ o Áek.k i= esa lsUVªy ckj ,lksfl,'ku y[kuÅ vafdr gS fdUrq mUgksus vo/k ckj ,lksfl,'ku] y[kuÅ ckj ,lksfl,'ku y[kuÅ ds vafre pquko esa ernku fd;k gS og Hkh vf/koDrk lsUVªy ckj ,lksfl,'ku y[kuÅ dh ernkrk lwph esa 'kkfey ugha fd, tk;saxsA** 10. He says that once this resolution 2002 dated 17.04.2023 is deleted, then it means that anybody, who had voted in any other bar association obviously, as its member will also be entitled to vote in the Central Bar Association which can never be the object as it is not only contrary to the Model Bye Laws framed by U.P. Bar Council, but also contrary to the Rules 2015 and the aforesaid decision wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to ensure fair election and also as only regular practitioners in the concerned Court can participate in the election, had ordered as already quoted hereinabove. 11. We are convinced with the arguments advanced by Shri Seth in this regard. 12. 11. We are convinced with the arguments advanced by Shri Seth in this regard. 12. As regards the contention of Shri Seth that the embargo of three years put by the impugned Resolution dated 18.04.2023 that the same is bad, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. We find that this argument is not acceptable. Even Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in B.D. Kaushik (supra) categorically provided that once a declaration as referred in para 89 is given, it will be valid till it is revoked and once it is revoked, the member shall forfeit his right to vote or contest any election to any post to be conducted by the Supreme Court Bar Association for a period of three years from the date of revocation. Of course, this was an arrangement made in the facts of the said case, but we can certainly take a cue from it. The object behind such an arrangement is to ensure that persons do not misuse and violate the provisions of the Model Bye Laws, and they stick to one bar association. The principle of 'One Vote, One Bar' is adhered in letter in spirit, this is the object to be achieved. 13. We are conscious of the fact that the embargo of three years mentioned in para 89 of the judgment in B.D. Kaushik (supra) would apply after the declaration submitted, but in principle, we feel that the Elders Committee is justified in imposing this embargo of three years to ensure the object behind the principle of 'One Vote, One Bar. This, of course, is subject to any challenge being made to the said Resolution by any aggrieved person before any authority prescribed in any statute or before the Civil Court. 14. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with part of the Resolution dated 18.04.2023 containing the embargo of three years. However, we find that the said Resolution insofar as it deletes Resolution No.2 passed on 17.04.2023 (Annexure No.18 to the petition) to be bad. We accordingly quash that part of the Resolution dated 18.04.2023 while protecting the other parts. 15. With these observations/directions, petition Writ- C No. 3531 of 2023 is allowed in part, in the aforesaid terms. WRIT - C No. - 3433 of 2023 16. We accordingly quash that part of the Resolution dated 18.04.2023 while protecting the other parts. 15. With these observations/directions, petition Writ- C No. 3531 of 2023 is allowed in part, in the aforesaid terms. WRIT - C No. - 3433 of 2023 16. Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ-C No.3433 of 2023 submits that the cut off date i.e., 02.03.2023 mentioned in resolution 4 of the impugned Resolution dated 17.04.2023 is arbitrary. 17. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the part (contained at item No.4) of impugned resolution dated 17.04.2023, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties more particularly opposite party No.4 to prepare the voter list by including the name of petitioner in the voter list and thereafter issue election programme so that election of Central Bar Association, Civil Court Lucknow may be held at the earliest. 18. Petitioner's counsel contends that the petitioner has all along been a member of the Central Bar Association and has never voted in the elections for the Oudh Bar Association or any other bar association other than Central Bar Association. The original COP issued by the U.P. Bar Council clearly mentions that the petitioner's ordinary place of practice as Central Bar Association, Lucknow, but, it appears that due to some inadvertent error or otherwise, in the records available with the U.P. Bar Council it got mentioned as practising in the High Court and a reference was made in COP in this regard about Oudh Bar Association. On coming to know about the aforesaid, the petitioner moved an application for correction and got the same corrected on 25.03.2023. He says that the election to the Managing committee of the Central Bar Association has not been notified yet, therefore, the cut off date of 02.03.2023 in the Resolution dated 17.04.2023 at Agenda item No.4 is arbitrary. There is no rational basis or nexus with the object sought to be achieved for such cut-off date i.e., 02.03.2023. 19. He says that the election to the Managing committee of the Central Bar Association has not been notified yet, therefore, the cut off date of 02.03.2023 in the Resolution dated 17.04.2023 at Agenda item No.4 is arbitrary. There is no rational basis or nexus with the object sought to be achieved for such cut-off date i.e., 02.03.2023. 19. Counsel for the U.P. Bar Council says that he has instructions to inform the Court that the petitioner was mentioned in the records of the U.P. Bar Council as ordinarily practising at the District Court, Lucknow and registered with the Central Bar Association, but it appears that for a short time, the entries in records were changed and in the COP details of the petitioner Oudh Bar Association got mentioned which has been rectified on 25.03.2023 by the U.P. Bar Council on the application moved by the petitioner. 20. Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Elders Committee says that the anxiety of the Elders Committee is that the principle of 'One Vote, One Bar' should be strictly adhered. He says that after 02.03.2023, which is the date of which orders were passed in Writ-C No. 1437 of 2023 wherein directions were inter alia issued for holding elections of Central Bar Association at the earliest, twelve hundred persons had applied for correction of COP and have got the same corrected which involves change of name of Bar Association. This would jeopardise the aforesaid principle of 'One Vote, One Bar Association' being applied in the elections to Managing Committee of the Central Bar Association. 21. He further says that as far as the petitioner's case is concerned, he has no opposition on facts of this case. 22. Counsel for the petitioner also informs us that the petitioner has been contesting elections to various offices of the Managing Committee of Central Bar Association for long and has never voted in the Oudh Bar Association or any other bar association other than Central Bar Association. 23. 22. Counsel for the petitioner also informs us that the petitioner has been contesting elections to various offices of the Managing Committee of Central Bar Association for long and has never voted in the Oudh Bar Association or any other bar association other than Central Bar Association. 23. In view of the peculiar facts noticed hereinabove, the petition is disposed of with the observation/direction that in the event, the petitioner has not voted in the elections to the Oudh Bar Association or any other bar association other than Central Bar Association in the past three years and is a member of the Central Bar Association, then, he shall be allowed to vote in the elections to the Managing Committee of the Central Bar Association as also to contest the election, if he so chooses. However, if he has voted in the Oudh Bar Association or any other bar association other than Central Bar Association in the last three years, then, he can neither vote nor contest the election to the Managing Committee of the Central Bar Association. 24. The question with regard to cut-off date mentioned in the Resolution dated 17.04.2023 is left open for consideration in any other matter. 25. At this stage, Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the Elders Committee says that proper security arrangements be ordered to be made by the concerned authorities to ensure free and fair elections. We, accordingly, provide that as and when such elections are scheduled to be held, the District Judge, Lucknow shall make a request to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow for making adequate security arrangements for ensuring free and fair elections to the Managing Committee of the Central Bar Association, whereupon, the Commissioner of Police shall provide adequate security and make such arrangements promptly and effectively. 26. We also take judicial notice of the fact that for the past two years Elders Committee has not taken steps for holding of elections to the committee of Management of the Central Bar Association or if it has taken steps the same have not fructified into such elections. We, therefore, direct the Elders Committee to ensure that such elections are notified at the earliest after finalizing the voters' list but positively by 30.07.2023. It shall thereafter proceed to hold the election as per law. 27. With these observations/ directions, the petition Writ-C No. 3433 of 2023 stands disposed of. 28. We, therefore, direct the Elders Committee to ensure that such elections are notified at the earliest after finalizing the voters' list but positively by 30.07.2023. It shall thereafter proceed to hold the election as per law. 27. With these observations/ directions, the petition Writ-C No. 3433 of 2023 stands disposed of. 28. We have entertained and adjudicated the issues involved in there writ petitions considering the fact that Central Bar Association is a Court annexed Bar and in exceptional circumstances we do entertain such petitions so as to ensure fair and proper elections to its Managing Committee as ultimately in the absence of fair and proper elections the functioning of the Courts and dispensation of justice can also get affected on account of unrest amongst the members of the Bar Association in this regard. 29. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of.