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

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

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

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

(2011) 13 SCC 774

W.P.No.1571 of 2019, dtd 20.01.2021

W.A.No.100141 of 2020 (GM-RES), dtd 30.11.2020 CJ & JAK, J W.A.No.622 OF 2022

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

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

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

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.