(1.) These are two writ petitions which can be conveniently disposed of by one order. The petitioner in the first petition is Shri I. M. Lall, Advocate, and the second petition has been made by Shri Har Dev Singh, Advocate. The respondents in both the petitions are Shri Gopal Singh, Advocate, and the Committee ot Advocates comprising of Messrs. B. Sen, S. N. Andley and J. B. Dadachanjee, Advocates, appointed by the Attorney-Genera! of India. The Committee was appointed for deciding the dispute regarding the validity of the election of Shri Gopal Singh, respondent, as a member of the All India Bar Council.
(2.) In the petition under Articles 226 and 227, brought by Shri I. M. Lall, issuance of a writ of certiorari is prayed directing the removal of the record of enquiry held by respondent No. 2, Committee of Advocates, into the election of respondent No. 1 to the Bar Council of India and quashing the order of respondent No. 2 to the effect that Shri Gopal Singh had been validly elected as member of the All India Bar Council.
(3.) The relevant facts giving rise to the two petitions are that under the Advocates Act of 1961 it is required that there should be a Bar Council of India, consisting inter alia of one member elected by each State Bar Council from amongst its members. The Bar Council of Delhi had to elect one member to the Bar Council of India from amongst its members. This election had to take place under the All India Bar Council (First Constitution) Rules 1961 framed ty the Supreme Court under Section 57 of the Act. Rule 4 of these Rules, the construction of which figures in this case, is as under: