Allahabad High Court
Ayodhya Prasad Shukla vs District Judge Basti And 2 Others on 9 July, 2021
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis, Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14832 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ayodhya Prasad Shukla
Respondent :- District Judge Basti And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Goyal
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the resolution dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Executive Council of the Civil Bar Association, Basti and a consequential order dated 14.12.2016 whereby the petitioner has been expelled from the primary membership of the Civil Bar Association, Basti.
3. The only ground on which such resolution and order appear to have been passed is the fact that the petitioner, as a member of the Bar, had participated in a judicial proceeding on a day when the Bar Association had called for a strike.
4. It is a settled proposition in law that the strikes by lawyers are illegal. For that reason, the petitioner could never have been penalised for defying the resolution of the Bar Association.
5. Taking note of the above, this Court on 11.04.2017 passed the below quoted order:
"It is not necessary to issue notice to respondent nos. 1 and 2 at this stage.
Normally this Court will not interfere in respect of membership of a Registered Society but in the facts of the case we find that the Registered Society is the Civil Bar Association Basti, District Court Basti, which answers the description of Court attached Association.
The Association as well as its members are entitled to certain privileges as has been explained in the Public Interest Litigation No. 15895 of 2015.
We further find that petitioner is stated to be expelled from the Membership of the Civil Bar Association, Basti with the further direction to vacate the chamber allotted to him etc. only on the allegation that on a particular day when a call for strike was given by the Association, he appeared before the District Judge in a bail matter.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that call for strike as made by the Association itself was per se illegal, in view of the above judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another, matter does require enquiry by the Court.
Let notice be issued to the respondent no. 3 fixing 1st May, 2017 as the date.
Steps must be taken by speed post within a week.
List on 1.5.2017.
Till the next date of listing, operation of the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 passed by Civil Bar Association, Basti shall remain stayed."
6. Office report dated 29.04.2017 reveals that though notices were issued by Registered Post AD to the Civil Bar Association, Basti/respondent no.3, neither the notices have been returned unserved nor have the acknowledgement been received back after service. Four years have passed and no appearance has been filed by the State-respondents. Service is deemed sufficient.
7. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not at fault in not complying with an illegal resolution, is accepted. The interim order dated 14.12.2016 is made absolute.
8. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2021
S.Chaurasia
