Vipul M. Pancholi, J - (1.) By way of this appeal which is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants - third party, seek to challenge the order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.952 of 2017 by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition on the basis of the consensus arrived at between the original petitioner and the original respondents. 2.1. It is the case of the present respondent No.1 - original petitioner in the petition that he is a lawyer practicing at Rajkot and he is also a member of Bar Association of Rajkot. Since last few years, several other Associations of Advocates have been formed in Rajkot and many advocates cast their votes for election of office bearers of more than one Bar Association. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association v. B. D. Kaushik in C.A. No. 3401 of 2003 passed an order, whereby, direction is given to adopt the rule of "one Bar one Vote". In pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Bar Council of India in its meeting held on 25.07.2015 passed Resolution No.169/15 wherein it is observed that it will be good for the health of the institution and the associations that rule of "one Bar one Vote" be implemented. As per the said resolution, every advocate has to fill-up a form wherein he/she has to furnish the particulars as regards his/her enrollment number in Bar Council of Gujarat, date of enrollment, his/her permanent membership number of a particular Bar Association and the names of other Bar Associations in which he/she is a member. In the said form, it is also to be stated that he/she will contest the election at only one Bar Association and also cast vote at only one Bar Association. It is further stated that election of office bearers of Rajkot Bar Association was scheduled on 23.01.2017 in the premises of Civil Court Building, Rajkot. It is alleged that some candidates contesting the said election are members of more than one Bar Associations and they are going to cast their votes at election of more than one Bar Associations, which is violative of the resolution passed by the Bar Council of India and the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner initially submitted an application to the President of Bar Association, Rajkot and requested to furnish copy of the resolution of Bar Association of Rajkot in relation to the election of office bearers. In pursuant to the same, it was informed to the petitioner that the Bar Association has resolved that the said election will be held as per the constitution of Bar Association and not as per the rule of "one Bar one Vote". Petitioner has, therefore, filed the captioned petition before this Court in which the petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s: "(a) This petition be admitted and allowed; (b) YOUR LordSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondent not to hold election of office bearers for the year 2017 in accordance with Resolution no.2 (AnnexureF) and set aside the Resolution No.2. (c) YOUR LordSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ, order or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to Bar Association, Rajkot to hold the election of office bearers for the year 2017 by observing the Resolution No.169/2015 (Annexure-A) of 'One Bar one vote' as above; (d) During pendency of admission and till final disposal of this petition, this Hon. Court may be pleased to stay the election of office bearers of Bar Association, Rajkot scheduled on 23.1.2017; (e) Such other better relief or reliefs as this Hon. Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this petition may be granted; (f) The costs of this petition may be awarded from the respondent." 2.2. The learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 20.01.2017 in the said petition and observed in para 6 as under: "6. As far as interim relief is concerned, it is trite principle that the elections cannot be stayed. Therefore, the stay of the elections cannot be granted. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in order that an irreversible situation does not arise, the result of the elections to the respondent Bar Association which is scheduled to take place on 23.01.2017 shall not be announced and shall be kept in a sealed cover subject to further orders which may be passed by the Court after hearing the parties." 2.3. Thereafter, when the aforesaid petition came to be listed for hearing, in view of the Gujarat Bar Association Rules of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2015') framed by the Bar Council of Gujarat, the petitioner as well as the original respondent No.1 arrived at the consensus for disposal of the petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner has not pressed the petition in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties and therefore the learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition observed that the election of Rajkot Bar Association would be held as per the procedure prescribed under Rules of 2015. However, the learned Single Judge also observed that as per the interim order passed by this Court on 20.01.2017, the result of the election which was held on 23.01.2017, will be subject to outcome of further orders that may be passed by this Court and the votes are to be kept in a sealed cover. However, when it was reported before the learned Single Judge jointly by the learned advocates for the petitioner as well as learned advocate for the respondent No.1 that as votes had not been counted, the ballot papers will be inoperative and will be destroyed and the same will not be used in any other manner.
(3.) The present appeal is, therefore, preferred by the appellants who are some of the candidates and contested the election which was held on 201.2017. The application for leave to appeal was granted by this Court and therefore the present appeal is listed for hearing.
(4.) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Yatin Oza assisted by learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni for respondent No.1 - original petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Amit Panchal appearing for the present respondent No.2 - President, Bar Association of Rajkot and learned advocate Mr. R.C.Jani appearing for the respondent - Bar Council of Gujarat. It is therefore contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside only on this ground.;