Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. In the meanwhile, Mr. Sunil Gupta had preferred election petition No. 01/2014 before the BCI, asserting his right as an elected member of SBCMP to represent them in BCI and questioning election of Mr. Pratap Mehta in the special GBM held on 2nd August, 2014. While the election petition was pending, in the GBM of SBCMP held on 7th February, 2015, seventeen members present vide Resolution No. 19/GB/2015 had unanimously resolved that election was held on 29th June, 2014, as per the prescribed agenda issued by the Secretary of the SBCMP, and Mr. Sunil Gupta was elected as representative to the BCI. Resolution had recoded that Sunil Gupta had taken charge thereof and started discharging the duties and had not resigned from the post till date. Resolution passed was to show confidence in Mr. Sunil Gupta. It was resolved to recommend to the BCI that Mr. Sunil Gupta was the elected representative of SBCMP. The resolution declared as void, resolution dated 2nd August, 2014 by which Mr. Pratap Mehta had been elected as the representative to BCI.

18. Thereupon, learned Single Judge held that the issue could be best resolved by directing the SBCMP to hold fresh elections for the post of the representative to the BCI. Accordingly, the following directions have been issued:-

"45. The prayers in the writ petitions, so far as they seek implementation of the Petitioner's Resolutions dated 29.06.2014 and 07.02.2015 electing the Respondent No. 3 as a member representative of Petitioner/SBCMP in the Respondent No. 1/BCI, are rejected. However, the prayer quashing the Respondent No. 1's Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015 is allowed and accordingly the Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015 is quashed and set aside. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2142/2016, i.e., the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh is directed to hold within a period of 4 weeks, fresh elections for electing its representative member in the Respondent No. 1/BCI by following the procedure as prescribed in the BCI Rules. Upon the Petitioner communicating the result of the election to be held in terms of the aforesaid directions to the Respondent No. 1/BCI, the said Respondent No. 1 would take consequential steps to include the name of the person elected by the Petitioner/SBCMP as its representative member in the Respondent No. 1/BCI."

In our opinion, Rule 1 of the BCI Rules, would apply to every meeting of BCI and its committees. Rule 1 refers to "council", which has been defined in Part I clause (f) of the BCI Rules to mean, the BCI. "State Council" has been defined in Part I clause (J) of the BCI Rules to mean a "Bar Council"

constituted under Section 3 of the Advocates Act,1961. Thus, Rule 1 applies specifically to "council" i.e. BCI and not to the State Councils like SBCMP.

21. We will now refer to Rule 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the BCI Rules which read as under:-

26. "Election" of Mr.Sunil Gupta had not been challenged before BCI. He had not ceased to be a member under Rule 4 of the BCI Rules. Several issues were raised in the appeal preferred by Mr.Sunil Gupta, before BCI. Whether SBCMP, vide a subsequent resolution dated 2nd August, 2014 could have nullified the „election‟ of Mr. Sunil Gupta as per minutes of the GBM on 29th June, 2014 without his election being challenged or being set aside by the BCI? What was the report of the Returning Officer for the "election" on 29th June, 2014 and effect thereof? Whether and when "election" would be complete? Whether SBCMP would be permitted to take a u-turn vide resolution dated 7th February, 2015 and the legal effect thereof? Aforesaid substantial questions have not been decided by the BCI. Perfunctory and cryptic order dated 5th December, 2015 passed by the BCI by simply relying on the sub-committee report has not helped. We would also observe that repeated change in position and stand of SBCMP on their representative to BCI is a cause of concern and has contributed to the litigation.