Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Bar Council Of Madhya ... vs Disrict Bar Association Sagar on 9 August, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Review Petition No.559/2021
(State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. District Bar Association Sagar & others)
2
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Vikas
Mahawar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Priyank
Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ-petitioner.
Shri Satyendra Jyotishi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent No.3/State.
Shri Rameshwar Singh Thakur, learned counsel for intervener-
Devendra Singh Thakur.
This review petition has been filed by the State Bar Council of
Madhya Pradesh seeking review of the order passed by this Court on
20.7.2021 in Writ Petition No.9497/2021 (District Bar Association, Sagar
Vs. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh & others). Review has been
sought that aforesaid order be recalled and some other suitable person be
appointed as Election Officer.
Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
State Bar Council contended that the appointment of Shri Roop Singh
Yadav as Election officer as per suggestion given by the learned Senior
Council appearing for the writ-petitioner, is not acceptable to the other
group of the Bar. It was wrongly conveyed to the Court that he is a Senior
Counsel and also a member of the State Bar Council. This Court should
have confined to deciding validity of the order appointing the Adhoc
Committee rather than appointing the Election Officer and finalizing the
programme of election
Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel relying on the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in Bar Association, Lahar, Dist. Bhind
Vs. State Bar Council of M.P. and another reported as 2018 (4) MPLJ
387 submitted that as per ratio of that judgment, the State Bar Council has
no authority, power or jurisdiction to interfere with election process or
election of Bar Association. The election process has already started.
Provisional voter list, objections thereto have already been decided and
final voter list has been published. The election is due to take place on
24.8.2021.
The name of Shri Roop Singh Yadav was suggested at the Bar by the
learned Senior Counsel for the writ-petitioner after verification from the
local Bar that he is a fairly Senior Counsel. According to Shri Anil Khare,
learned Senior Counsel, he is senior member of the Bar, and was enrolled
with the State Bar Council in 1975 and is aged about 72 years. He is a
regular practitioner at Bar and commands respect of all. There is nothing to
object about his continuation as Election Officer. He has already started
process of election by co-opting two other Advocates.
This Court had passed the order, of which review is sought, in a writ
petition challenging appointment of the Adhoc Committee by the State Bar
Council in a situation where election of the Bar Association had become
long due since April, 2020 to put a quietus to the matter. A very senior
member of the Bar was appointed as Election Officer. What was intended
to be conveyed was that he is Senior Counsel, not necessarily notified
Senior Advocate and Member of the Bar. Preliminary voter list was
published on 31.7.2021, objections were decided on 5.8.2021, final voter
list was published on 7.8.2021, nomination forms are to be issued from
11.8.2021 and polling is scheduled to take place on 24.8.2021. At this stage
when the process of election is ongoing and progressed this far, we are not
persuaded to review the order.
The review petition is therefore dismissed.
(Mohammad Rafiq) (Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Chief Justice Judge
C.
Digitally signed by
CHRISTOPHER PHILIP
Date: 2021.08.11 12:06:17
+05'30'
