Telangana High Court
Dr. Eunice Lalnunmawii Chawngthu vs President Thcaa, And 4 Others on 29 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.622 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.26375 of 2022 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant/party-in-person has been dismissed as not maintainable with the liberty to the appellant to pursue any other remedy which may be available to her under the law.
2. Brief facts:
The appellant is enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of India, Telangana Chapter. The appellant was also a member of the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association'). The appellant made endeavours to contest the election of the Association for 2022-23 which was scheduled to be held on 30.06.2022. However, the appellant was informed that she has been removed from the rolls of the Association vide CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.622 OF 2022 2 Resolution dated 24.02.2022. On the strength of the aforesaid Resolution passed by the Association, the respondents deleted the name of the appellant from the voters list of the Association, which was published on 17.06.2022.
3. The appellant challenged the validity of the Resolution dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Association on various grounds in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 21.06.2022 inter alia held that there is neither any allegation of violation of statutory provisions nor failure to perform any legal duty cast on the Association. It was further held that the right to vote or right to contest in election is not a fundamental right, but is only a statutory right. The learned Single Judge further held that the Association is a Society registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 and therefore, the writ petition against the Association is not maintainable, it was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.622 OF 2022 3
4. The party-in-person submitted that she is a donor member of the Association. It is submitted that she as a member of the Association made efforts with the respondents to ensure facilities for ladies of the Association such as drinking water, parking area etc. However, respondents had un-democratically and autocratically removed her name from the Association and that by doing so, her right to practice as an Advocate and right to live a life of dignity has been set at naught. It is pointed out by her that she does not dispute the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that right to vote and contest an election is not a fundamental right, but only a statutory right which is controlled by various parameters of law. It is contended by her that neither any notice nor any opportunity was given to her before passing the impugned resolution. It is urged that the learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that the writ petition against the Association is not maintainable. It is also contended that despite interim order dated 15.03.2024, the respondents have not produced the record pertaining to Resolution passed by the Association, which has been impugned in the writ petition. It is urged that the impugned Resolution has CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.622 OF 2022 4 been passed contrary to the Byelaws of the Association as well as contrary to the aims and objectives, for which the Association has been formed. It is also submitted that Association, instead of supporting a hardworking Advocate who is eking out her livelihood by solely depending on the profession, has been unfair to her. It is submitted that the impugned Resolution has resulted in loss of reputation to her and she is entitled to compensation of Rs.100 crores. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Supreme Court Bar Association and Others v. B.D.Kaushik 1, Madras High Court's judgment in V.Madhesh v. Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and others 2 and Karnataka High Court's judgment in Chandrakant v. Karnataka State Bar Council 3.
5. On 01.04.2024, none had appeared on behalf of respondents, therefore, this Court had directed notice to be issued to the Telangana High Court Advocates' Association. Today when the matter was called in first round, none 1 (2011) 13 SCC 774 2 W.P.No.1571 of 2019, dtd 20.01.2021 3 W.A.No.100141 of 2020 (GM-RES), dtd 30.11.2020 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.622 OF 2022 5 appeared. Thereupon, we requested Mr. A.Ravinder Reddy, President of the Association to assist the Court. Mr. A.Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel has addressed this Court as amicus curiae.
6. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the Association is not made a party in the writ petition. It is urged that the Association is registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 and in view of Section 23 of the aforesaid Act, the disputes can be adjudicated by the civil court. It is, therefore, contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is pointed out that the tenure of the office bearers who were arrayed as respondents in the writ petition have completed their term on 31.03.2022 and the Resolution dated 24.02.2022 is passed in accordance with 11(b) of Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations of the Association. Learned amicus curiae has undertaken to produce the record relating to the impugned resolution before this Court during the course of the day.
CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.622 OF 2022 6
7. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record relating to impugned resolution, which was produced by learned amicus curiae.
8. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the cause title of the writ petition, which is extracted below for the facility of reference:
Dr. Eunice Chawngthu, D/o. Mr. C Dothanga, Aged about 40 years, S.T., C/o. THCAA Bar Association, High Court, Hyderabad - 500066, T.S. .. Petitioner AND
1. Mr. Ponnam Ashok Goud, President THCAA, Flat No.101, Legend Residency, Beside Khajana Jewellery, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082, T.S.
2. Mr. Mohammad Mumtaz Pasha, Vice President, THCAA, H.No.9-179, Ramalayam Street, Gandhi Statue, Uppal, Hyderabad-500039, T.S.
3. Mr Kalyan Chengalva Rao, Secretary THCAA, H.No.16-11-511/D/14, 1st Floor, Sai Sunitha Nilayam Shalivahana Nagar, Moosaramnagh, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad-500036, Telangana.
4. Mr. T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, Secretary THCAA, C/o. Villa No.122. Magadha Village, Kokapet, Gandipet Road, Rajendar Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Pincode-500075, CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.622 OF 2022 7 Telangana, Ph: 9160001435
5. Ms. Dontha Dhanalakshmi, Joint Secretary THCAA, C/o Mr. Mohammad Pasha, H.No.9-179, Ramalayam Street, Gandhi Statue, Uppa,l Hyderabad 500039, T.S. .. Respondents
9. The Bar Council is a statutory body under the Advocates Act, 1961, whereas the Telangana High Court Advocates Association is nothing, but a club or association. On a perusal of the record produced by the learned amicus curiae, it is noticed that a show cause notice, dated 31.12.2021, has been addressed to the appellant and from the General Body Register, it is seen that the agenda for 24.02.2022 was "To discuss about misbehavior of Dr. Eunice Lalnunmawii, Advocate, member of our Association." It is trite to extract Rule 11 of Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations as the Association has unanimously resolved to remove the appellant from the rolls of the Association, the said rule is as follows:
"11. a) Any member of the association may be removed by the executive committee from the rolls of the association if he is finally adjudged to be guilty of professional misconduct by the bar council under the Advocates Act.
CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.622 OF 2022 8
b) Any member who is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a member of the legal profession or detrimental to the interests of the association may be removed from the rolls of the association by the general body by a resolution supported by at least two thirds of the members present and voting at an extraordinary general body meeting convened for the purpose and attended by at least 100 members."
10. However, we need not advert to merits of the case. As has been noticed supra, the Association has neither been impleaded as a party in the writ petition nor in this intra court appeal. In the absence of the Association as a respondent either in the writ petition or in this writ appeal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue of deciding the maintainability of the writ petition against the Association does not arise. The writ petition preferred by the appellant without impleading the Association was not maintainable before the learned Single Judge. The said aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
11. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to maintainability of the writ petition CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.622 OF 2022 9 against the Resolution passed by the Association and we have set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that the issue with regard to maintainability of the writ petition against the Association was not necessary to be adjudicated in the absence of the Association as party to the proceedings. In the absence of the Association as respondent in this appeal as well, it is not necessary for us to examine the said issue. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant/ party-in-person to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to her in law.
12. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ appeal is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 29.04.2024 KRR