RAM NATH TYAGI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Advocate practising at Ghaziabad and having taken the membership of the Bar Association, Ghaziabad (Civil Courts) [respondent No. 3 - hereinafter referred to as ''the Association'/'the Bar Association'], seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 3rd December 2014 whereby, he has been debarred from the membership of the Association for a period of one year; and also seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Association to accept his membership fees and permit him to contest the elections of the year 2015 for the post of President of the Association.

(2.) Put in a nut-shell, the submissions of the petitioner in this writ petition are that the respondent No. 3 Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ['the Act of 1860'], and is affiliated to the Bar Council of U.P. [respondent No. 2] and as such, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 3 Association is registered with its bye-laws, which are in consonance with the model bye-laws framed by the Bar Council of U.P. and if any Governing Body or the Committee of the Association deviates from the bye-laws, this Court could interfere in the writ jurisdiction. As regards the background aspects leading to the impugned order dated 3rd December 2014, the petitioner submits that in a meeting of a Committee known as ''High Court Bench Staphana Sangharsh Samiti Western U.P.', he wanted to put forward his views, but was prevented from doing so; and when being pushed off, he caught hold of the President of the Society, so as to be saved from tumbling. According to the petitioner, immediately thereafter, the impugned order dated 3rd December 2014 was passed in a hurried manner without extending him any opportunity of hearing and was thrown in his Chamber. The petitioner submits that the act and actions on part of the respondent No. 3 Association are clearly violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner further states the grievance that despite request, he has not been supplied with the copy of bye-laws of the Society and the copy of proposal whereunder the impugned order came to be issued.

(3.) It is borne out that earlier, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 2572 of 2015, which was considered on 21st February 2015, but was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh with a copy of the Rules/Regulations of the Bar Association who had expelled him. In the present petition, of course, the petitioner has filed a copy of the registration certificate of respondent No. 3 and also a copy of its bye-laws.