ABHAY KUMAR VERMA Vs. BAR COUNCIAL OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the five writ petitions pertain to the elections to the Bar Council of Delhi for which polling was held on two dates being 29.9.2003 and 30.9.2003 where the venue of the polling was the High Court of Delhi and Tees Hazari Complex respectively. The counting process of the votes polled on the aforesaid two dates began on 2.10.2003 and continued upto 4.10.2003. The first round of counting was concluded in the afternoon on 4.10.2003. However, in the subsequent round, allegations were made by some candidates that some of the ballot papers had been defaced. The allegations led to disputes and ultimately it emerged as a law and order problem and the Returning Officer had to suspend counting of votes in the evening of 4.10.2003. There was no counting on 5.10.2003. The Supervisory Committee appointed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA 610/2003 prior to the polling had discussions with the Returning Officer but, the Returning Officer resigned on 6.10.2003 and submitted his report to the said Supervisory Committee. The ballot papers have been sealed and placed within the premises of this Court. Since then counting has not resumed.

(2.) The prayer in Abhay Kumar Verma (CW 6526/2003) is that directions be issued for the resumption of counting. In CW 5419/ 2003, a petition which had been filed prior to the holding of the poll, the grievance is that the electoral roll is faulty and ought to be revised before a poll is held on the basis thereof. In CW 6222/2003 the challenge is to the extension of the term of the Bar Council of Delhi. This extension was granted on 23.2.2003 but with effect from 1.4.2003. The contention of the petitioner in that writ petition is that the extension was bad as it was beyond time and, therefore, there existed no Bar Council of Delhi thereafter and the entire electoral process which was conducted by the Bar Council of Delhi would be non-est. In CW 6576/2003 a similar allegation has been made and it is prayed that a Special Committee be appointed in place of the Bar Council of Delhi to revise the electoral rolls and to hold elections after such revision. Lastly, in CW 6223/2003, a similar prayer had been made and the prayer is for the stay of elections on 29.9.2003 and 30.9.2003 on the ground that the extension granted to Bar Council of Delhi was invalid and, therefore, the entire electoral process continued by the Bar Council of Delhi thereafter was bad.

(3.) From the aforesaid, it becomes clear that in one petition (CW 6526/2003) the prayer is for resumption of counting and completing the electoral process. In all the other petitions the prayers are for halting this process and declaring it to be a nullity on essentially two grounds - (a) that the electoral rolls are faulty and large numbers of names have been excluded therefrom; and (b) the extension of the term of the Bar Council of Delhi was bad and, therefore, the entire electoral process conducted by the Bar Council of Delhi after such extension was a nullity.