Orissa High Court
Bula Kishore Nath vs Bar Council Of India on 5 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.9926 OF 2023
Bula Kishore Nath .... Petitioner
Mr.A. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Bar Council of India, New Delhi & .... Opposite Parties
Others
Mr.A.P. Bose, Advocate,
Bar Council of India.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
ORDER
Order No. 05.04.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical) mode.
2. The Petitioner by filing this writ petition has prayed to set
aside the resolution / order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the
Returning Officer, Odisha State Bar Council with further
direction to allow the Petitioner to contest the Petitioner to the
post of Member, Odisha State Bar Council.
3. Heard Mr. A. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Counsel for the Bar Council of India.
Perused the averments taken in the writ petition as well as
the documents annexed thereto.
4. By the resolution dated 10.03.2023 under Annexure-12,
the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination of the
Petitioner, which he had filed on 03.03.2023 to contest the
election of Member, Odisha State Bar Council. The nomination
having been rejected, the Petitioner by filing this writ petition has
called in question the said resolution, taking the ground that in
view of the order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the Disciplinary
Committee of Bar Council of India in DCE No. 55/2022, the
// 2 //
Returning Officer ought not to have rejected the nomination filed
by this Petitioner which is illegal.
In the present writ petition, the Petitioner having stated
that his nomination has been illegally rejected, he is challenging
the same when the process of election has already been
commenced.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ponnuswami v. Returning
Officer; AIR 1952 SC 64 has held that once the election process
starts, it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the
election process. Similar view was taken in Sri Sant Sadguru
Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak
Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra; 1976(3) SCC 211 and Sri Sant
Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj Sahakari Dugdha
Utpadak Sanstha and another v. State of Maharashtra and others;
2001 (8) SCC 509.
The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the
settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of
election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the
process of election for the simple reason that if the process of
election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election
would be completed without court's order. Very often, for
frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by
virtue of interim orders passed by the courts, the election is
delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of
having election and getting an elected body to run the
administration is frustrated. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court
has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be
dealt with only after completion of the election.
// 3 //
The Petitioner on the above projected ground of illegal
rejection of the nomination has the remedy to question the
election after the result is declared and if so advised he may
approach the State Election Tribunal as provided in Chapter-VI of
the Bar Council of India Union Rules (Mandatory Guidelines) for
the Elections of Bar Councils, 2016, published in the Gazette of
India on 21st September, 2022.
6. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition seeking the
reliefs as aforesaid stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(D. Dash)
Judge.
Narayan
