SUNITA SHARMA Vs. DY. REGISTRAR CHITS FUNDS SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been filed by a practicing Advocate of this High Court who has been enrolled in 1995. The name of the petitioner has been registered at Serial No. A/S-1600 in the Advocates' Roll prepared by the Registrar General of this Court. Her name is borne on the voters' list for the ensuing elections of the High Court Bar Association.

(2.) On 3 April 2014, the General Body of the High Court Bar Association adopted a resolution to hold elections for the Executive Committee on 19 May 2014 as the term of the Executive Committee was to come to an end on 4 April 2014. Subscriptions of advocates were to be paid by 25 April 2014 for the period up to 31 June 2014. Under the provisions of of the Rules of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad ( "the Rules"), the meeting of the Annual General Body of the High Court Bar Association Association ("the Association") has to be convened at least a month before the expiry of the term of the office bearers by fixing a date for election. Under Rule 18, the office bearers of the Association and members of the Governing Council are to hold office for a period of one year from the date of the election, though in extraordinary circumstances, they may continue for a further period of one month with the prior approval of the Elders' Committee. Within this period, elections have to be completed, failing which the administration of the Association is to vest in the Elders' Committee. The Elders' Committee as defined in Rule 4 (c) is a body which is constituted under Rule 8, to consist of five designated senior most members of the Association actively practicing in the High Court at Allahabad. On 10 April 2014, two learned senior Advocates, Shri V.P. Srivastava and Shri S.M.A. Kazmi were appointed as Returning Officers. On 11 April 2014, the schedule for the election was notified. An objection was received by the Elders' Committee from Dr. C.P. Upadhyay, a member of the Association to the effect that the voters' list had not been prepared in accordance with the Rules. The submission which was urged before the Elders' Committee was that under Rule 5 (d), an ordinary member is required to be an advocate on the rolls of the High Court, regularly practicing in the High Court. Reliance was placed on the provision of Rule 4(d) and Rule 7(d) in support of the submission that unless an advocate is regularly practicing in the High Court as defined in Rule 4(h), he or she would not be entitled to be an ordinary member or to vote at the election. The Chairperson of the Elders' Committee issued a direction rejecting the submission and has come to the conclusion that despite the fact that certain members of the Association have been shown to be disqualified in the voters' list prepared by the Association which has been supplied to the Returning Officers because their names are not to be found in the roll of Advocates maintained by the High Court, they would be entitled to vote. The conclusion which has been arrived at by the Elders' Committee is as follows:

(3.) In these proceedings, the petitioner seeks to challenge the decision of the Elders' Committee dated 7 May 2014. Besides, the petitioner seeks a direction for setting aside the tentative list of voters published on 5 May 2014 and seeks the preparation of a fresh list of voters of those members who are entitled to cast their votes in view of the provisions contained in Rule 4(d) of the Rules.