- (1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by two Advocates claiming themselves to be the members of the Central Bar Association, Lucknow which is a Bar Association of the District and Sessions Court, Lucknow seeking the following reliefs:- i) "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to conduct repoll of Central Bar Association Election conducted on 02.09.2015. i)(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the election proceedings of Central Bar Association, Lucknow by the Elders Committee on 02.09.2015 after summoning the original records from respondents. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to conduct re-poll through Electronic Voting Machine, after conducting proper enquiry. iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to permit any stranger or non-member of Central Bar Association to participate in any manner in the re-poll. iv) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. v) Allow the writ petition with costs."
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that election to the aforesaid Bar Association, which is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1860') were held on 02.09.2015. It appears that the petitioners sat on 'Dharna' being dissatisfied with the manner in which the voting was conducted. Ultimately the counting of the votes took place on 07.09.2015 and the result was declared on the same day. The petitioner no.1 was the candidate for the post of the President and petitioner No.2 was the candidate for General Secretary. The petitioner no.1 lost the election allegedly by a margin of 2 votes whereas petitioner no.2 lost the election by margin of 1 vote. The election was held under the supervision of Elders Committee constituted under the Model Bye-laws framed by the Bar Council of State of U.P. Which is said to have been adopted by the Central Bar Association, Lucknow.
(3.) The contention of Sri Anu Pratap Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was as under:- i) The Elders Committee had not been constituted in accordance with Model Bye-laws framed by Bar Council of U.P. And it did not comprise of the senior members of the Bar. In this regard he invited the attention of this Court to an order dated 23.01.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 144 (MS) of 2013 relating to the earlier election held in the year 2013 when elections were ordered to be conducted under the supervision of Elders Committee constituted by the High Court. According to him the said Elders Committee had not resigned, therefore, there was no occasion for constitution of a new Elders Committee. He also invited the attention of this Court to another judgment and order dated 21.08.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4474 (MS) of 2015 wherein constitution of the Elders Committee under whose supervision the election in question have been held was itself challenged and this Court gave liberty to the petitioners of the said writ petition to approach the Bar council in this regard which shall look into the matter, hear the rival parties and shall take a decision as regards the validity of the resolution passed by the Central Bar Association regarding constitution of Elders Committee. The decision so taken shall be communicated by the Bar Council to the members of the Bar Association. The submission, therefore, is that the very constitution of Elders Committee was against the Model Bye-laws and the election held by it was ipso-facto invalid. iii) In the election in question about 200 Election Officers were appointed out of which many of them were strangers and many of them were not even member of the Bar Association. The counting of ballot papers was to be done on 03.09.2015 as per election programme but the same was postponed without any justification and it was ultimately held on 07.09.2015, which clearly goes to show that the process of election was neither free nor fair and the result had been manipulated. The applications were submitted to the learned District Judge, District Authorities, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court and on that very date in the evening at 4.00 p.m. the petitioners sat at 'Dharna' in the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. iv) As per result declared after counting of the votes 3533 votes were counted for the post of President and General Secretary whereas for the post of Senior Executives, Junior Executives and for the post of Vice President Middle 3528, 3518 and 3534 votes were counted respectively which according to them was evidence of the fact that number of votes counted varied from post to post. v) He invited the attention of the Court to other irregularities which have been mentioned in paragraph 17 of the writ petition. According to them earlier Sri Mrigendra Pandey was declared to be elected as the President by a margin of 2 votes but subsequently the margin of victory was declared as one vote. vi) Learned counsel for petitioner further invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 19 of the writ petition regarding video recording of the Chairman of the Elders Committee in which he is said to have admitted to having committed irregularities and is also said to have admitted the signing of 4300 ballots. The counsel offered to produce the C.D. as evidence. vii) Referring to the averments made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition it was submitted that only 2200 votes polled were valid votes and the remaining were fake votes. viii) Relying upon the averments made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, it was submitted that ballot papers were without serial number. (ix) He contended that the police authorities were also present during the polling and CCTV footage was also available, which could be summoned and report also could be summoned from the police authorities which could demonstrate the irregularities committed in the election. x) Learned counsel for petitioner also referred to the order dated 08.05.2015 passed in PIL No. 15895 of 2015 to submit that Bar Association is a Court annexed Association which is different from an ordinary society. The purity of the electoral process in the conduct of elections to the Bar Associations has a vital element of public interest since it is liable to affect the stability of the institution and the administration of justice. He referred to the direction issued by a seven Judges Bench of this Court in the said case to facilitate the holding of free and fair elections. Based on the aforesaid, the learned counsel submitted that impugned election is liable to be quashed and repolling is liable to be ordered. Sri Anu Pratap Singh learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention as also in support of the query made by the Court as regard the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the election of the Bar Association, which is a society registered under the provisions of the Act, 1860:- (a) Union of India and others vs. Tantia Construction Private Ltd., 2011 5 SCC 697. (b) K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan, 1999 4 SCC 526. (c) Gujrat University vs. N.U. Rajguru and others, 1987 Supp1 SCC 512. (d) Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi and others, 1978 1 SCC 405. He also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment rendered in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 61100 of 2011.;