K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) RAVI Kiran Jain, an Advocate of this Court, and sixteen other Advocates have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging validity of the election of respondents Nos. 6 to 30 as members of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners have claimed relief for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the election of respondents Nos. 6 to 30 and the resolution of the Bar Council dated 31st March, 1974 constituting Election Tribunal, and for the issue of a writ, order or direction to the Bar Council of India to take recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 48-B of the Advocates Act, 1961, and to hold fresh elections under its auspices according to law.
(2.) THE Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, the Bar Council, of India and the Returning Officer Sri R. K. Kaul, who conducted the election, and the Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh have been arrayed as respondents. In addition to that, respondents Nos. 6 to 30 who have been declared elected to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh have been arrayed as respondents. Further the other candidates who contested the election and also the members of the erstwhile Bar Council whose term expired have also been arrayed as respondents. The Superintendent, Government Printing and Stationery, U. P. Allahabad, has also been arrayed as respondent No. 81. The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, the Bar Council of India as well as the newly elected members of the U. P. Bar Council, respondents Nos. 6 to 30 have filed counter-affidavits and contested the petition. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the term of the members of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh expired on 4th April, 1973. According to the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Rules framed thereunder the preparation of electoral roll should have been done within 120 days before the expiry of the term of members of the Bar Council but this was not done. The electoral roll was, however, published on 29th August, 1973, and a notification was issued fixing the election programme according to which polling was to take place for election of members on 5th and 6th November, 1973. Subsequently, the Bar Council postponed the election and fixed 7th and 8th January, 1974, but on 4th November, 1973 the Bar Council postponed the election sine die. Thereafter Ravi Kiran Jain petitioner filed Writ Petn. No. 7113 of 1973 : (reported in AIR 1974 All 211) challenging the action of the Bar Council in postponing the election and for the quashing of the resolution of the Bar Council dated 4th November, 1973. During the pendency of the writ petition the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, vide its resolution dated 25th December, 1973, fixed 15th and 16th April, 1974, for holding of election. On behalf of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh an undertaking was given to this Court in that Writ Petition that there would be no further postponment of the election; the writ petition was thereupon dismissed. The contention of Ravi Kiran Jain that the Bar Council had no jurisdiction to change the dates fixed for holding the election was rejected. The judgment is reported in AIR 1974 All 211. Thereafter the elections were held on 15th and 16th April, 1974. The seventeen petitioners including Ravi Kiran Jain and respondents Nos. 6 to 30 along with others contested the election. After the polling counting commenced on 25th April, 1974, and continued up to 7th May, 1974. The results of the election of all the members of the Bar Council, respondents Nos. 6 to 30, were declared by 8th May, 1974. All the 17 petitioners were eliminated. Instead respondents Nos. 6 to 30 were declared elected as they had obtained majority of valid votes. But before the results of the election could be notified in the Official Gazette the present petition was filed by the seventeen unsuccessful candidates challenging the validity of the election as aforesaid.
(3.) SRI Bashir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the entire election was null and void because the electoral roll was not prepared within 120 days of the expiry of the term of the elected members of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as required by Rule 4 (a) and (b) of the Bar Council of India Rules framed in exercise of the powers contained in Section 15 (2) of the Advocates Act. He further urged that those Advocates who were enrolled after 29th August, 1973, were not entitled to be included as voters in the electoral roll. Since the electoral roll which is the essence of the election was vitiated the entire election was rendered void. In that context the learned counsel further urged that once the date for holding election had been fixed by the Bar Council and 7th and 8th January, 1974 for polling, the Bar Council was divested of its power to alter dates of election or to fix the election programme afresh. These very questions had been raised by Ravi Kiran Jain in Writ Petn. No. 7113 of 1973 : (reported in AIR 1974 All 211), but these contentions were repelled and it was held that the Bar Council did not exceed its jurisdiction in changing dates of election and that it acted within its jurisdiction in postponing the date and fixing dates for polling. The contention that the electoral roll had been prepared in violation of Rules 4 (a) and 4 (b) was also repelled. A Special Appeal had been filed against that judgment by Ravi Kiran Jain but he did not press the same and got that appeal dismissed by making a statement that since the election was being held the Special Appeal had been rendered infructuous, although the contention with regard to invalidity of the election on the ground of electoral roll was very much alive even at that stage. We are in agreement with the reasons recorded in the judgment in AIR 1974 All 211. We find no good reason to take a different view.;