- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming relief for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh dated 4th November, 1973 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to hold the election of its members on 7th and 8th January, 1974 and to issue direction to the respondents not to make any amendment in" the final electoral roll prepared and finalised for the election of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
(2.) THE term of the elected members of the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh expired on 5th April, 1973, but no fresh election was held with the result respondents Nos. 2 to 23 who are its members are continuing in the office. The matter relating to the election of members of the Bar Council came up for consideration before the meeting of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 22nd of April, 1973. The Bar Council adopted a resolution fixing the election programme. According to the resolution of the Bar Council, electoral roll was to be finalised by 29th of August, 1973, the nomination papers were to be filed between 17th to 30th September and polling was fixed for the 5th and 6th November, 1973. The election programme was published under the notification dated 29th of August, 1973. Some nomination papers were filed but the election could not be held as on 16th September, 1973, another meeting of the Bar Council was held wherein it decided to postpone the election for a short period and extended the date for filing the nomination papers up to 31st of October, 1973 and date for polling was changed from 5th and 6th November to 7th and 8th January, 1974. The petitioner and 92 other persons filed their nomination papers for contesting the election to the membership of the Bar Council. On 4th November, 1973, that is, after the expiry of the last date fixed for filing nomination papers, the Bar Council adopted another resolution postponing the election scheduled for 7th and 8th January, 1974. It was further stated that the next date for election would be fixed later on. On 5th November, 1973, the petitioner filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the resolution of the Bar Council dated 4th November, 1973 and for issue of a direction to the respondents to hold the election on 7th and 8th January, 1973, as scheduled. Subsequently, the petitioner got the petition amended claiming relief for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to make any amendment in the final electoral roll which had already been published prior to the filing of the nomination papers and to hold the elections within 31st day of the decision of the writ petition in case the petition was not decided before 7th of December, 1973. Initially the petitioner impleaded the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh through its Secretary and its members as respondents Nos. 1 to 22. Notices of the writ petition were issued to all the respondents as the petitioner had made allegations of mala fide against the members of the Bar Council. He alleged that the term of the elected members of the Bar Council expired on 5th April, 1973, but they were not holding elections deliberately, instead they have been postponing the elections on some pretext or the otter, so that they could continue hi office. Members of the Bar Council were alleged to have acted mala fide in postponing the A.I.R. elections on extraneous reasons for their own ulterior purpose. Notices were issued to all the members. Appearance was, however, put in by respondent No. 2, Sri Raja Ram Agarwal, the Chairman of the Bar Council, Sri S. N. Misra, Sri Harvind Dayal Srivastava, Sri A. P. S. Chauhan, Sri V. C. Misra, Sri G. C. Dwivedi and N. C. Rajvanshi, respondents Nos. 3, 6, 13, 20, 21 and 22. Sri S. N. Rakar respondent No. 4, Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh who is an ex-officio member of the Bar Council appeared before me during the course of the hearing of the writ petition and stated he has not been attending the meetings of the Bar Council since long, he was not interested hi postponing the election or hi continuing in the office. Respondent No. 14, Sri M. A. Ansari, appeared hi person before me and made a statement that he was opposed to the postponement of the election of the Bar Council, but when the election was postponed by the majority vote of the members, he tendered his resignation in protest. Sri V. C. Misra, respondent No. 19, also appeared in person before me, he made a statement that he had throughout been opposed to the postponement of the election and hi fact each and every time when the matter came up for consideration before the Bar Council he asserted that the election be held as required by the Act and rules within time. He got his dissent noted in the minutes of the Bar Council and in protest he walked out of the meeting.
(3.) DURING the hearing, on petitioner's own request respondents Nos. 4, 9, 11 and 14, Sarvashri S. N. Rakkar, Babboo Lal Misra, Devendra Swaroop and Mohd. A. Ansari were deleted from the array of the respondents. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bar Council by its Secretary. Sri Raja Ram Agrawal, lie chairman of the Bar Council has also filed his own affidavit denying the allegations of mala. fide. Sarvasri S. N. Misra, G. C. Dwivedi, N. C. Rajvansi, A. P. S. Chauhan and V. C. Misra have filed their own affidavits denying the allegations of mala fide made against them by the petitioner.;