Sri Prashanta Kumar Pal vs Bar Council Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 416 Tri

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                             WA 109 OF 2022
1.Sri Prashanta Kumar Pal,
S/o Late Pijush Kanti Pal, R/o Joynagar, Agartala,
West Tripura, Pin-799001.

2.Sri Jayanta Majumdar,
S/o Sri M.K.Majumder, R/o Opposite West Gate near
Colonel Chowmohani, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001.

3.Ms. Rajashree Purkayastha, D/o Smti Rina Bhattacharjee &
Sri Biprajit Purkayastha, R/o Ramnagar Road No.4, Agartala,
West Tripura.
                                                          ....Appellants.
                           Vrs.

1. Bar Council of India,
Represented through its Secretary, having office at 21,
Rouse Avenue International Area, Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi-110002.

2. Bar Council of Tripura,
Represented through its Secretary, having office at
Tripura High Court Complex, Lichubagan, Agartala, West Tripura,
Pin-799006.

3. Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh &
Sikkim, Represented through its Secretary, having office at
Gauhati High Court Building, 2nd Floor, (Old Guwahati), Asasm-781001.

4. Tripura High Court Bar Association,
Represented through its Secretary, having office at Tripura High Court
Complex, Lichubagan, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799006.

11.Sri Siddhartha Shankar Dey,
Ld. Senior Advocate, Notices to Respondent No.11 to be served through

Tripura High Court Bar Association, having office at Tripura High Court Complex, Lichubagan, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799006.

....Respondents.

Present:

 For the appellants              : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
                                   Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

 For the respondents             : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Sr.Advocate.
                                   Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate.
                                 : Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Advocate.
                                   Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.

 Date of hearing                 : 25.04.2023

 Date of delivery of             : 18.05.2023
 judgment & order

 Whether fit for reporting       : No
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
         HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                            JUDGMENT & ORDER
[ Arindam Lodh, J.]

The instant writ appeal is directed against the impugned

judgment and order dated 19.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge

in WP(C) No.485 of 2022 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed

the writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case of the appellants (here-in-after referred

to as the petitioners) are that the original petitioners are the Advocates and

the members of the Tripura High Court Bar Association having their voting

rights and the cause of action arose to file the writ petition when the

election of the High Court Bar Association for the year 2022 was

commenced. In the month of February, 2022 the respondent no.4 had

sought the draft voter list from the Bar Council of Tripura, for the purpose

of conducting election of the Bar Association of the year 2022. On

10.03.2022 the respondent no.2, i.e. the Bar Council of Tripura had sent

one supplementary draft voter list to the Bar Association, i.e. the

respondent no.4 incorporating the name of Sri Siddhartha Shankar Dey,

learned Senior Advocate, respondent no.11 at Sl. No.1 along with another

name. Accordingly, the respondent no.4 had published the draft voter list.

After the draft voter list being published, the petitioners found that the

name of the learned Senior Advocate is not enrolled with the Bar Council

of Tripura, which is a prima facie condition for being a 'Member' of the

Bar Association with voting right and for this, the petitioners have raised

objection before the High Court Bar Association against such incorporation

of name. Subsequently, the High Court Bar Association vide letter dated

28.04.2022 had requested the Bar Council of Tripura, the respondent no.2

as to whether Sri Siddhartha Shankar Dey, learned Senior Advocate has

been enrolled as a member of Bar Council of Tripura, if so, from which

date and whether he had exercised his option to cast his vote in the Tripura

High Court Bar Association, if so, from which date. In reply to such letter,

the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 07.05.2022 informed/confirmed the

Bar Association that the name of respondent no.11 was not enrolled with

the Bar Council of Tripura. Thereafter, the Executive Body of the Tripura

High Court Bar Association by resolution dated 20.05.2022 had resolved to

keep the name of the respondent no.11 in the final voter list and had also

sent the same to the respondent no. 2 on 30.05.2022 for approval and

publication of final voter list. On the above perspective, the petitioners had

challenged this resolution of incorporation of the name of respondent no.11

in the final voter list by way of filing a writ petition before this court but

the said writ petition was dismissed and accordingly they have preferred

the instant appeal with the following reliefs:

I. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of Certiorari or in the nature thereof shall not be issued thereby quashing the resolution dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-6) thereby resolving to incorporate the name of the Respondent No.11 in the Final Voter list.

II. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of Certiorari, and/or in the nature thereof, thereby quashing the decision of the Respondent No.4 to finalise the Voter list keeping the name of the Respondent No.11 and thereupon forwarding of the same to the Respondent No.2 for approval;

III. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus, and/or in the nature thereof, for directing the Respondents to delete the name of the Respondent No.11 from the Resolved Voter list; IV. ISSUE RULE, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ Prohibition or in the nature thereof shall not be issued thereby refraining the Respondents, Respondent No.2 and 4 in particular, from acting in any manner in furtherance of the resolution dated 20.05.2022 and the forwarding of the approved voter list by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondent No.2 for publication of the final voter list;"

3. Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.

Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the original

petitioners at the time of hearing submitted that Clause II(i) of the

Constitution of the Bar Association under the Chapter 'Membership'

clearly mandates "Every Advocate who has been enrolled as an Advocate

under the Bar Council to which the State of Tripura falls and practicing at

Agartala shall be entitled and eligible to be a member of this Association

on payment of Admission fee subject however, to the condition as provided

hereunder." He has referred to Clause II(ii) wherein it speaks that-"Every

Advocate who does not practice in the High Court but intends to become a

Member of this Association may be enrolled as a non-resident Member of

this Association on payment of prescribed fee." Mr. Deb, learned senior

counsel further submitted that on a conjoint reading of Membership

Chapter and Rights of the Member Chapter, these two chapters clearly

reveal that to qualify for the status of voting Member of this Association,

an Advocate has to be enrolled with the Bar Council of Tripura as a pre-

condition; in absence of which he/she cannot be treated as a Member of this

Association, with voting right. So from the enrollment of Sri Siddhartha

Shankar Dey, learned senior counsel, respondent no.11, it is apparent that

neither he is enrolled with the Bar Council of Tripura nor he has transferred

his enrolment to the Bar Council of Tripura from the Bar Council of

Assam. Mr. Dey, learned senior counsel by virtue of his post of Advocate

General is an ex officio member of the Bar Council of Tripura. So, the ex

officio capacity of any post and individual capacity are completely different

in the eye of law having altogether different legal bearing and implication.

With the above submissions, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has strongly

contended that Sri Sidhhartha Shankar Dey, learned senior counsel cannot

be a Member of this Association and therefore, his name cannot be

included in the Final Voter list.

4. Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent no.2, Bar Council of Tripura contended inter

alia that the respondent no.11 was enrolled as an Advocate under the Bar

Council of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram &

Arunachal Pradesh vide Enrollment No.147 of 1985 on 16.08.1985. For all

intent and purposes, the said Bar Council at that relevant point of time was

acting as 'the Bar Council' to which the State of Tripura falls, as is required

under the Membership requirements stipulated under the MEMBERSHIP

eligibility of the High Court Bar Association Constitution. As per records

of respondent no.4 itself, the membership was conferred upon the

respondent no.11 by the respondent no.4 vide Sl. No.441, dated

30.01.2012. His further submission is that the respondent no.11 being not a

"non-resident member", as per the Constitution of High Court Bar

Association, the resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the

Tripura High Court Bar Association cannot be faulted with at any date. It is

reiterated by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel that neither any of

the Constitutional or any other legal rights guaranteed to the petitioners as

may be enforceable under law has been shown to have been violated giving

rise to any cause of action within the ambit of Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Hence, the instant appeal is absolutely frivolous and

is liable to be dismissed.

5. Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent no.4, i.e. the Tripura High Court Bar Association submitted

that before separation of the establishment of the Tripura High Court from

Gauhati High Court, respondent no.4 was under Gauhati Bar Council and

at that time respondent no.11 was a member under respondent no.4. After

setting up of the establishment of Tripura High Court, respondent no.2 has

been constituted as its own. All the Advocates practicing within the

jurisdiction of High Court of Tripura have been enrolled as members of

respondent no.2. It is contended that before the constitution of the Bar

Council of Tripura (respondent no.2), the respondent no.4 was within the

jurisdiction of common Bar Council in Gauhati as it stood at that time. As

per relevant rules, any Advocate who was not practicing within the

jurisdiction of the High Court of Tripura could however get his name

transferred to become a member under the respondent no.2 in accordance

with the rules of the respondent no.1. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel

further agitated that in compliance with the communication dated

21.09.2015 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit), Final Voter list of 2018

of Tripura High Court Bar Association, Agartala was published on

03.05.2018 which also included the names of all the Senior Advocates as

well as Advocates. The name of the respondent no.11 does not find place in

the said Final Voters' list 2018 published by the respondent no.2, neither

did the respondent no.11 raise any claim to exercise his voting right in the

said election held in 2019. Drawing attention to para 15 of the counter

affidavit filed by the respondent no.4, it is contended that the respondent

no.2 published its Final Voters' list of Tripura High Court Bar Association

both for Senior Advocates and Advocates under No.

BCT/F2/SBC/BAR/E/L/457/222 dated 02.06.2022 wherein the name of

respondent no.11 appears at Sl.No.15 of the list of Senior Advocate voters

of the respondent no.4. It is apposite to mention herein that before the

communication dated 16.03.2022, in none of the voters' list, either draft or

final, the name of respondent no.11 does not find place.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners as well as the respondents expressed quietus to the

controversy in issue. However, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended that the observations made in the judgment of the

learned Single Judge dated 19.07.2022 and the directions thereupon should

not be used as precedence for future litigations, if any. In other words, the

order of the learned Single Judge should be confined to the Bar Association

election held in the year 2022 only, which would not have any impact in

future.

7. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioners has been

generously conceded to by the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents.

8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties and as agreed upon by them, the instant writ appeal stands disposed

of maintaining the quietus to the controversy raised in this writ appeal with

further direction that the observations and directions made by learned

Single Judge in the order dated 19.07.2022, passed in WP(C) No.485 of

2022 will not be treated as precedence in any future controversy, if arises

out of Tripura Bar Association election.

         (ARINDAM LODH),J                  (APARESH KUMAR SINGH),CJ



sanjay