BRUNDABAN PRADHAN Vs. ORISSA STATE BAR COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1, who is an Advocate and President of the Banpur Bar Association, along with four others, in this writ petition have questioned the propriety of the instructions issued, by opposite party No. 1, Orissa State Bar Council under Annexures 3 and 5, to follow the Rules and Regulations of Banpur Bar Association in convening general body meeting on or before 5th September, 2012 and for conducting election on or before 13th September, 2012 when some members of the Banpur Bar had complained to opposite party No. 1 regarding the illegalities committed with regard to the election of office bearers of Banpur Bar Association under Annexure 2 series.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the direction of the opposite party No. 1 to convene the general body meeting on or be-fore 5-9-2012 as well as for conducting election on or before 30-9-2012 amounts to interference in the functioning of the association and is without jurisdiction as the oppo-site party No. 1 has no authority to interfere with the internal affairs of the association because of the simple reason that under the old bye-law, the office bearers are to be selected and not elected.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel appearing for opposite parties 3 to 8. Perused the resolu-tion book of Banpur Bar Association along with connected materials, which were produced pursuant to, our direction in connection with election of office bearers of Banpur Bar Association. It is an admitted fact that Banpur Bar Association is a registered association since 1987 and it has its own bye-law since the date of its registration. Article 6 of the bye-law of Banpur Bar Association candidly discloses that the Executive Committee of the Association, namely, President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and two annually elected members are to be included in the Executive Body of the Association and they shall be elected at the Annual General Body meeting of the Association and shall continue to hold office until the next Annual General Body meeting. This bye-law, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is the old bye-law, never speaks that the Executive Committee of Banpur Bar Association including the President are to be selected, but not elected. This bye-law has been produced before us by the petitioners, among whom, petitioner No. 1 is claiming to be the President of the Banpur Bar Association. This bye-law still holds full force as the proposed amendments to the bye-law have not yet been submitted to the competent authority under the Society Registration Act. The resolution book, which has also been produced before us shows that as per the general body meeting, which was held on 6th September, 2000, certain amendments to the bye-law was felt necessary and accordingly, the Association in its resolution No. 10 dated 21-9-2000 pro-posed the amendments. Under Article No. 6 it is again reiterated that the Executive Members shall be elected in the election of the association. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the case of the petitioners that under the old bye-law, the President and other office bearers of the Association are selected, but not elected is without any substance and basis and that is enough for this Court not to entertain this writ petition as it tantamount that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. Besides that we also found serious infirmities in the so-called election of the office bearers, which took place on 30-11-2011 pursuant to the notice issued by petitioner No. 1 on 23-11 -2011. This notice has been issued for holding election is not sup-ported by any resolution adopted by Banpur Bar Association as the resolution book shows that after 5-10-2002 there is no further en-try. We are not interested to deal with that aspect of the matter in this writ petition as we are not called upon to decide that fact. But suffice to say that everything is not in order. The so-called notice for holding he election of the office bearers of Banpur Bar Association for the year 2011-12 contains the election schedule, which shows that polling of votes would commence from 10.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. on 30-11-2011 and the counting of votes would start at 3.45 p.m. onwards. But the result-sheet, i.e. the counting of votes clearly indicates that the counting of votes took palce at 3.30 p.m. in the Bar room on 30-11-2011. This shows that the counting of votes took place when the voting hour was not over. Perusal of the record also reveals another sordid affair, which is a tell tale story about the election that took place on 30-11 -2011. The said paper contains the follow -I ing:-