PARAMJEET SINGH Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment we will dispose of aforementioned four writ petitions as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.

(2.) THE facts : c. W. P. No. 13864 of 2002 the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the. Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to hold elections to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana on validly prepared electoral rolls keeping in view Rule 2 (f) contained in Part-Ill, chapter-I of the Bar Council of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). He has further prayed that a writ of quo warranto be also issued quashing the continuation of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Chairman and member of the Bar Council of Punjab and haryana being full-time salaried employees of the Government of Punjab. 2a. The grievance of the petitioner, In brief, is that the Returning Officer appointed to conduct elections to the Bar Council of punjab and Haryana has issued notice dated 18-5-2002 (Annexure P2) under Rule 4 of the Rules, which requires compliance of Rule 2 and clause (f) thereof debars Advocates, who are in full time service, from being on electoral rolls or contesting election, but without taking action in accordance with the said notice, the election programme has been finalized permitting ineligible persons to take part in the elections. It has been averred that respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are employed as full time Deputy Advocates general with the State of Punjab, are already working as Chairman and Member of the bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which is against the mandate of Rule 2 (f) of the rules.

(3.) IT has also been pleaded that keeping in view the ensuing elections, a resolution has been passed by the existing Executive of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana making production of Identity Cards by the advocates mandatory at the time of casting of votes, which will debar several Advocates from voting as during the past five years no steps had been taken in that regard. The appointment of the Secretary to the Bar council has also been questioned by the petitioner by contending that under the rules, a whole time Secretary should be appointed.