BAR COUNCIL OF GUJARAT Vs. VINOD HARJIVANDAS DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A lawyer-academician has suddenly found himself out-witted by the pure professionals and alienated by his fellow academicians landing himself in a state of suspended animation due to the professional territorialism seeking absolute loyalty in the respective fields.

(2.) In this appeal, the State Bar Council challenges the order of the learned single Judge granting interim relief in favour of the respondent to a limited extent that the appellant shall not fill in the office of a member of Bar Council, which is said to have fallen vacant on account of the letter dated 12th July, 2000 written by the respondent, by which he informed the Chairman of the State Bar Council that he had ceased to practise law and that he was not practising as an Advocate in any Court of India, forwarding his declaration and the original sanad to the Bar Council along with this letter.

(3.) In his petition, the respondent challenged the resolution dated 22-7-2000 of the Enrolment Committee resolving that in view of his application dated 12th July, 2000, stating that the respondent had ceased to practice as an Advocate, a casual vacancy had occurred under Rule 10 of The Gujarat Bar Council (Constitution and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Conduct of Business Rules") and that the respondent who was an elected member of the Bar Council of Gujarat shall be deemed to be vacated his office with effect from 22-7-2000 under Sec. 10B of the Advocates Act, 1961. The respondent challenged the process undertaken for the purpose of filling up the vacancy, by the letter of the Secretary of the Bar Council dated 26-7-2000 written to all the members of the Bar Council pursuant to the said resolution and as directed by the Chairman of the Bar Council inviting nominations. It was mentioned in the said letter that the respondent was deemed to have vacated his office as an elected member of the Bar Council of Gujarat as provided under Rule 10 in Para III of the Rules of the Bar Council of India and that a casual vacancy had occurred in the Bar Council on the respondent having ceased to practice as an Advocate. An election notice was enclosed with this letter as provided by Rule 11 of the Gujarat Bar Council (Constitution and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1968. As per that election notice dated 26-7-2000, it was notified under Rule 11 of the said Conduct of Business Rules that the election of one member will be held as per the time schedule notified therein which the last date for filing nomination was 8th August, 2000, for scrutiny 9th August, 2000, and for withdrawal of candidature l lth August, 2000. The election was to be held in the next meeting of the Bar Council of Gujarat as contemplated by Rule 11 of the Conduct of Business Rules. The prescribed nomination form was available from the office of the Bar Council as per the note below the said notice. The petition was presented on 14th August, 2000 and when it was circulated for admission hearing on 24th August, 2000, the learned single Judge issued rule, making it returnable on 30-11-2000 and after hearing the parties, granted the aforesaid interim relief apprehending that an irreversible situation would otherwise arise if the Bar Council proceeds with the process of holding the election for filling in the said vacancy alleged to have arisen due to the respondent's letter and deposit of his sanad.