Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. A news item appeared in the Times of India in its Chennai Edition reported that some of the Bar Associations have sold out their votes en bloc was brought to the notice of the Court by Elephant Rajendran, who filed Application No.450 of 2011 seeking to implead himself as a defendant and praying for issuance of directions. Upon hearing the counsels, by the Order dated 2.2.2011 single Judge issued further directions involving the Judicial Officers in the conduct of the elections. The learned single Judge issued further directions. In pursuance of the Order of appointment of Commissioner - Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam (Retd.), the learned Judge  Commissioner issued general instructions to the candidates and voters in R.O.C.No.91 of 2011 dated 28.01.2011 and R.O.C.No.132 of 2011 dated 11.02.2011.

9. Factual Background of filing of applications  A.Nos.1244 and 1245 of 2011:- The 1st respondent  Elephant G.Rajendran filed A.No.1244 of 2011 to implead the appellant as 4th defendant in the suit and Application No.1245 of 2011 seeking for a direction not to allow the appellant to contest the elections to be held on 4.3.2011. The appellant was the Chairman of State Bar Council during 2005-2010. In the month of June, 2009, the appellant is alleged to have brought influence upon the then sitting Judge to pass a favourable order of anticipatory bail about which the learned single Judge is said to have made complaint to the then Chief Justice. In this regard, alleging that the conduct of the appellant was not befitting his status and his position as the Chairman, the 1st respondent has filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.17353 and 17354 of 2009. By the order dated 7.12.2010, Division Bench suspended the status of the appellant as Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Division Bench disposed of the Writ Petitions with the following directions:

16. Reiterating the findings of the learned single Judge, the 1st Respondent- Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran has submitted that when the learned single Judge has been continually monitoring the conduct of election, 1st respondent rightly moved the learned single Judge for appropriate directions.

17. We have heard Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent/Plaintiff-Tamil Nadu Advocates Association. Drawing our attention to various materials on record, Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel has submitted that elections were held in substantial compliance of various directions issued by the learned single Judge and therefore, no objection could be raised as to the maintainability of the suit. Learned counsel would further submit that having regard to the irregularities committed in the election in 2005, the learned single Judge has issued appropriate directions for free and fair conduct of elections and no exception is taken to the same.