MANUBHAI PARAGJI VASHI Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an Advocate, has prayed that this court set aside the elections to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa held on 7/1/2010 as illegal, null and void and a further direction that the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 i.e. Advocate General of Maharashtra, Mr. Pramod Joshi, Advocate and Mr. M.T.Q. Sayyed, Advocate be ordered to continue to hold the charge of the State Bar Council till the fresh elections are held according to the provisions of law.

(2.) The respondent nos. 6 to 30 to the petition are Advocates elected to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa in the impugned elections. In elections to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa voters were supposed to compulsorily give the first preference vote to any candidate and the giving of other preferences was optional. In the year 2002-2003 the Rules were amended so that every voter had to compulsorily indicate 10 preference votes on the ballot paper, failing which the ballot paper was to be treated as invalid vide Rule 32(g) (hereinafter referred to as "the 10 Preferences Rule). Another Rule i.e. Rule 6(h) (hereinafter referred to as "the Paid Up Subscription Rule") provided that the name of an Advocate would not remain on the electoral roll if he has not paid his subscription to and obtained a receipt from the State Bar Council. The Rule, regulating the method of voting, was amended so that vote would be invalid if the voter had indicated preferences to less than 10 candidates; thus making the indication of 10 preferences compulsory.

(3.) The petitioner challenged the aforesaid two Rules and the elections held in March-April 2004 by filing Writ Petition No. 903 of 2004. After a difference of opinion was resolved by a third learned Judge of this Court, the Division Bench held by a judgment dated 21/6/2007 that both the Rules i.e. Rule 32(g) and Rule 6(h) invalid and passed the following order:-