S RAJASUNDAR Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ petition pertains to the election to the General council of the State Bar Council. THE Notification for conduct of Election was made on 12. 7. 2005. THE date of Election is on 9. 9. 2005. THE petitioner is one of the contestant for the said election. He has approached this court for a direction that the Election to be held on 9. 9. 2005, should be conducted under the supervision and direction of a retired High Court Judge. In support of the said plea, the petitioner has averred that the Secretary-cum-Returning Officer of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was appointed as a Secretary only on 5. 7. 2005, i. e. one week prior to the date of Election Notification. He has no experience in the conduct of Election. THE decision to appoint him as Secretary was made by the Council without any application of mind. In the last Election, the ballot papers had been printed in excess and were misused by some of the candidates stood for election. THEre was tampering of ballot boxes when they were shifted from the concerned polling booths to Chennai for counting. THE grievance of petitioner is that the Election should be conducted in a free and fair manner and for the said purpose and more particularly taking into consideration of the instances that had happened during the Election held in the year 2000, the Election should be conducted under the supervision of a retired Judge of this Court.

(2.) MR. G. Rajagopal learned senior counsel would submit that, inasmuch as the Bar Council has very vital functions as referred in section 6 of the Act, the Election to the Bar Council should be conducted with utmost care and free from any complaint whatsoever. Even during the Election conducted in the year 2000, there were tampering of votes when the ballot papers were brought from polling booths in various parts of the State to chennai and number of names of the advocates who are dead or later on became judges of this Court have not been deleted and in their place votes were polled in the last Election and in fact the challenge made to the Election by filing petitions to the Committee of Advocates and such Petitions have not been disposed of and in fact, the learned senior counsel would submit that the petitions themselves are not traceable in the Office of the Bar Council of tamilnadu and in such circumstances to ensure a fair and free Election to the bar Council the prayer in the writ petition should be ordered.

(3.) IN exercise of power Under Section 28 of the Act, "the Bar Council of Tamilnadu, Election Rules 1975" were framed. Considering the above wider and vital functions, the functions of the State Bar council are vested in the Members and to elect such members, the Election is notified. IN exercise of Rule 2 (xiv), a Returning Officer shall be appointed by the Bar Council for the conduct of an Election. The said Rule does not restrict the power to appoint the Secretary of the Bar Council as a Returning Officer. The discretion for making such appointment shall vest with the State Bar council. However, considering the important role played by the State Bar council, the Elections must be certainly free and fair one and for the said purpose Returning Officer must be of experienced person to conduct Elections. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Returning Officer was appointed as secretary only on 5. 7. 2005 and in a period of one week, he was appointed as a returning Officer. With the lack of experience to conduct the Election, the election will not be free and fair if the Secretary is allowed to act as a returning officer. IN my opinion, the said submission cannot accepted. The returning Officer has got a standing of nearly 25 years in the Bar. Though there is no experience for the Returning Officer to conduct the Election, it is not specifically pleaded by the petitioner as to who will be the competent advocate, who has necessary experience for the conduct of Election and in that event, the council could have considered his name. Except an allegation as to the inexperience of the Secretary who was appointed as Returning Officer, no further materials are furnished to sustain the claim that the Returning Officer will be incompetent to conduct the Election due to his inexperience. Hence, I reject the said contention of the petitioner.