Raj Kumar, S/o Rajendra Prasad vs Jharkhand State Bar Council, represented through its Secretary

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: -

I. An Appropriate writ/s or order/s or direction/s for setting aside/ staying the illegal election process initiated by the respondents by the communication contained in the Letter No. 371/2025 dated 08.03.2025 (Annexure-10) issued by the Secretary-in-Charge of Jharkhand State Bar Council without following any of the mandatory procedures as stipulated in the Model Rules of the Advocate/Bar Association within the State of Jharkhand framed by Jharkhand State Bar Council (JSBC in brief), notified and approved by Bar Council of India vide BCI:D:4423:2007 (3C/07,June,07) dated 17.09.2007 vide BCI:D:2356:2013 (Council Mtg. 31.3.13) dated 22.05.2013, for conducting elections.

II. For issuance of an appropriate writ/s or order/s or direction, directing and commanding upon the Respondents to follow all the mandatory procedures of election as provided under Rule 52 of the Model Rules of the Advocate/Bar Associations within the State of Jharkhand after holding General Body Meeting of the Sub Divisional Bar Association, Chandil and to appoint observer/observers from amongst its member of the JSBC to supervise and conduct election and all the work undertaken by the election committee of the aforementioned Bar Association.

III. For issuance of appropriate writ/s or order/s or direction, directing and commanding upon the Respondents concerned to get the accounts of the Sub Divisional Bar Association, Chandil audited as per the Model Rules of the Advocate/Bar Association within the State of Jharkhand and make the correct list of advocates/ members practicing at the Sub Divisional Court, Chandil prior to the conducting of the election to elect office bearers for the advocates bar association.

IV. For issuance of appropriate writ/s or order/s or direction, directing and commanding upon the Respondents to institute an independent committee to look into and redress the grievances raised in the representation dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure-9) by the petitioner and other members of the Sub Divisional Bar Association, Chandil prior to conducting of election to choose the office bearers to the Bar Association.

An interlocutory application (I.A. No. 5667 of 2025) has been filed challenging the result of the election held on 27.03.2025.

The petitioner is a lawyer and is a member of Chandil Sub Divion Bar Association and seeks cancellation of election as the said election having not been held in consonance with the model rules of Advocate Association.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the election was held dehors the model rules of the Advocate Bar Association within State of Jharkhand especially Rule No. 52 for conducting election to choose the office bearer of the Sub Division Bar Association. It is further submitted that a communication contained in Letter No. 371/2025 dated 08.03.2025 issued by the Secretary-in-charge of Jharkhand State Bar Council was illegal since prima facie, none of the mandatory requirement to conduct election was followed.

It is submitted by Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Bar Council, that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 637 of 2025 wherein it has been held that “we are not inclined to interfere with the election process by entertaining this Writ Petition on the above aspects (expect as regards the validity of the Rule 52 mentioned supra) as we are of the opinion that a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate remedy in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, Boddula Krishniah v. State Election Commissioner, A.P and Anugrah Narain Singh V. State of U.P. The aggrieved parties can approach the competent forum including the Civil Court and seek relief of setting aside the election, if they are so advised.”

In view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue alternative legal remedy.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.