A SUBBAIAH Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the respondent-Society is present in court.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and having received a clarification from the learned Government Pleader, we are of the opinion that it is not a case for any hearing of the respondents in the appeal. Learned single Judge has,in our opinion passedaproper order and any person who has interest of the cooperative movement, should accept the directions issued by the learned single Judge.

(3.) The chronology of events, which the appellants have produced before the Court, shows that there has been aperiod of long wait and demand for being enrolled as members of the respondent- Society which however, passed through an intervention by a Minister in the Government of the State and representation of the case of the appellants in the meetings of the Society by a certain advocate. Learned Government Pleader has conceded that the Minister has no power under the law and the law in behalf of enrolment of members of the Society is clear that applications have to be made in a particular manner and processed within a stipulated time and if the same is not done within the time stipulated, there is a provision for the competent authority to intervene in membership accordingly granted to such a person. It is indeed not difficult to understood why political executives interfere in such matters where the laws occupy the field and do not admit of any interference by them. If there is a set back to the democratic process which such societies of individuals are required to adopt and follow, it is because some men inpower forget that they have to abide by the laws of the land and are not expected to go beyond it Advocates represent that section of the learned and skilled persons in the polity, who, by virtue of their specialised learning are enrolled as members of the profession by the State Bar Councils and their rights to practice are controlled by Section 30 of the Advocates Act. It is difficult to understand, however, how an advocate can engage himself in matters which falls exclusively with in the domain of the Co-operative Society and which matters members at ameeting are required to resolve. The statements enumerated clearly show that appellants' advocate associated himself even at the meetings of the Society ad thus there was such interference by him in the affairs of the Society which the system cannot approve. We felt at one stage of the instant proceedings that the court should ask the State Bar Council to take the matters and consider whether it shall prefer on its roll such persons who do not abide by the provisions of the Advocate Act and the rules framed thereunder. Since, however, the advocate concerned has not been afforded any opportunity by us to represent his point of view and learned counsel for the appellants has completely dissociated himself from him and has stated he has no knowledge of the conduct of the advocate concerned, we make, however, no order in this behalf except that we observe that it is high time that professional bodies like the Bar Council should take notice of the affairs in which some advocates appear to indulge, and do not find sanction of the Advocates Act and the rules framed thereunder.