Adish C. Aggarwala vs Bar Council Of Delhi And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 1023 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. I have already taken the view in CW No.6333/2003 that the Petition has become infructuous. The gravamen of the Petitioner's grievance was that his Membership of the Bar Council of Delhi had been illegally terminated. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner subsequently successfully stood for Elections to the current term of the Bar Council of Delhi.

2. What all that had been done by the Respondents was to leave the Notice with the clerk of the Petitioner's brother one day prior to the Meeting. The expulsion of the Petitioner was not on the Agenda of the Meeting. It has further been contended that Section 10(B) of the Advocates Act should be struck down or natural justice must be read into it. In the latter case an effective opportunity of being heard should have been granted to the Petitioner. Furthermore, Section 4(3) of the Advocates' Act envisags that the constitution of the Counsel remains until their successor is elected. On behalf of the Respondents it had been contended that the Election was for a period of five years, that is, from 31.3.1998 to 31.3.2003 and an extension had been necessitated which expired on 31.8.2003. On 23.12.2003 the Bar Council of India had accepted the Resolution of Bar Council of Delhi. The matter had been rendered infructuous.

3. Inasmuch as he has invoked the extraordinary civil jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution it is my opinion that this Court need not adjudicate matters which have already become infructuous. There is a dichotomy in the views expressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri. Stay applications have been subsequently withdrawn. I cannot persuade myself to agree with the Petitioners that a stigma attached to the impugned Resolution.

4. I had occasion to consider some of the controversies raised in this Petition in WP(C) No.7281 of 2005 titled Dr. K.K. Arora v. Union of India decided on 31.5.2005, in which the Issues were strikingly similar. I was of the opinion that adequate notice must be given to every Member and that an important question must be contained in the Agenda itself.

5. Writ Petitions are disposed of as infructuous.