BAR COUNCIL OF WEST BENGAL Vs. AJANTA AUGHSTIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is at the instance of the defendants, the Bar Council of West Bengal and two others, and it is directed against order No. 12, dated April 5, 1977, of the learned Judge, Second Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta. By the said order the learned Judge decided issue No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff. That issue relates to the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain and try the suit instituted by the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff is a practising advocate and her name has been entered in the State Roll maintained by the Bar Council of West Bengal, under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed thereunder. The defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 held an election of the members of the Bar Council of West Bengal on Aug. 11 and 12, 1975. It is the case of the plaintiff that she came to know about the said election from her advocate friends, and on Aug. 12, 1975 the plaintiff went to cast her vote in the said election, but she was refused to cast vote by the Polling Agent, who was conducting the election at the election booth situate in the City Civil Court building, Calcutta. It is alleged by her that her name was not in the electoral roll on the basis of which the said election was held. It is alleged that the electoral roll was not published by the defendants. It is also the plaintiff's case that she came to know that the names of 9,000 advocates have not been included in the electoral roll of the State Bar Council. The result of the said election held on Aug. 11 and 12, 1975 has not yet been declared. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants by their conduct debarred her from exercising her right of franchise. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the electoral roll has been prepared illegally by eliminating the name of the plaintiff and the names of 9,000 advocates and, accordingly, the election which has been held on the basis of such illegal electoral roll is void and liable to be set aside. The plaintiff has prayed for a declaration in that regard. She has also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing the result of the said election.

(3.) The defendants, including the Bar Council of West Bengal, have been contesting the suit by filing a written statement. One of the defences of the defendants is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit inasmuch as under Clause (4) of Rule 34 of the West Bengal Bar Council Rules, there is an Election Tribunal to decide all disputes relating to election. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge framed certain issues of which issue No. 2 is as follows :-- "Has this Court jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit in view of Rule 34, Clause (4) of the Bar Council Rules".