M.BASKAR v. BAR COUNCIL OF TAMILNADU REP.BY ITS SECRETARY N.S.C.BOSE ROAD PARRYS CHENNAI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:17.04.2012CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.14710 of 2011M.BASKAR [ PETITIONER ] Vs1 BAR COUNCIL OF TAMILNADU REP.BY ITS SECRETARY N.S.C.BOSE ROAD PARRYS CHENNAI.2 VELLORE BAR ASSOCIATION REP.BY SECRETARY COMBINED COURT BUILDING SATHUVACHARI VELLORE.[ RESPONDENTS ]This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling forthe resolution passed in extra ordinary General Body meeting on08.04.2011 from the file of 2nd Respondent and quash the same asunconstitutional.For petitioner : Mr.R.Margabandhu For respondents : Ms.R.TamilSelvi for R1 Mr.V.Karthik for R2 for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.,O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well asthe learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. It has been stated that the petitioner was enrolled as anAdvocate, on 17.4.1985, bearing roll No.223/85. He had been elected asthe President of the Vellore Bar Association, for four terms. However,a resolution had been passed in the General Body meeting of the saidAssociation, which is the second respondent herein, on 8.4.2011. In thesaid resolution, it had been stated that no member of the secondrespondent Association could hold a post for more than two terms. If a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ member had served as an office bearer of the second respondentAssociation, for a period of two terms, cumulatively, he would not beeligible to contest the election for the same post, thereafter.Accordingly, the corresponding amendment had been made in the bye-lawsof the second respondent Association. In such circumstances, thepetitioner had preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226of the Constitution of India, challenging the resolution passed in theExtraordinary General Body meeting of the second respondentAssociation, held on 8.4.2011. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submittedthat the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is maintainable, inview of the fact that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the firstrespondent herein, had approved and recognised the second respondentAssociation, under the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Act and the AdvocatesAct, 1961. As per the provisions of the said Acts, including Sections 6and 15 the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Act, the first respondent herein,which is a statutory body, has sufficient control over the secondrespondent Association to regulate its functioning. Therefore, the writpetition filed by the petitioner is maintainable before this Court,under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had furthersubmitted that the second respondent Association is registered underthe Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Welfare Fund Act, 1987, and the Rules framedthereunder. It had also been stated that the bye-laws of the secondrespondent Association cannot be amended without following theprocedures established by law. It had been further stated that the bye-laws of the second respondent Association had been amended, by way of aresolution passed in the Extraordinary General Body meeting, held on8.4.2011, without a specific agenda relating to the debarring of themembers from contesting for the same post, for more than two terms. Theresolution had been passed without having the required quorum andwithout issuing a proper notice, as provided under the bye-laws of thesecond respondent Association. As such, the impugned resolution passedby the second respondent Association, in its extraordinary General Bodymeeting, held on 8.4.2011, is null and void. The learned counsel forthe petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of hiscontentions:1. AJAY HASIA Vs. KHALID MUJIB (AIR 1981 SC 487)2. A.UMARANI Vs. REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS (2004) 7 SCC 112. 3. K.MARAPPAN Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL CIRCLE, NAMAKKAL. (2006 (4) CTC 689). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondentshad submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner,challenging the resolution passed by the second respondent Association,on 8.4.2011, is not maintainable. The second respondent Association isnot a registered Association. The bye-laws of the said Association isnot a law, as claimed by the petitioner. Even though the firstrespondent may have certain control over the members of the legalprofession, the first respondent cannot interfere with the functioningof the second respondent Association, which is in existence inaccordance with the bye-laws of the said Association. It may be open tothe petitioner to agitate the matter before the first respondent orbefore an appropriate civil forum, if so advised, in accordance withlaw. 6. It had been further stated that the petitioner has been relyingon the unamended bye-laws to substantiate his claims. In fact, the bye-laws of the second respondent Association has been amended, based onthe resolution passed in the Extraordinary General Body meeting, heldon 8.4.2011, making it clear that a member of the said Associationcannot contest in its election, for the same post held by him, for morethan two terms. The registration of the second respondent Association,under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Welfare Fund Act,1987, and the Rules framed thereunder, cannot give the secondrespondent Association the status of a statutory body. As such, thewrit petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits andtherefore, it is liable to be dismissed.7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, aswell as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available andin view of the decisions cited supra, this court finds it appropriateto dismiss the writ petition, without going into the merits of thecase, as it is not maintainable, before this Court, under Article 226of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that therehas been a violation of a statutory provision in the passing of theimpugned resolution, by the second respondent Association. Noprinciples of natural justice has been violated to warrant aninterference by this Court, by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction,under Article 226 of constitution of India. 9. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner to substantiate hisclaim that the second respondent Association is a registeredAssociation. Even otherwise, it is a well settled position in law thatbye-laws of an Association, even if it is a registered Association,cannot have the status of a ‘law’, as claimed by the petitioner. Thesecond respondent Association is not a statutory body. Therefore, itcannot come under the definition of ‘State’, under Article 12 of theConstitution of India. In view of the decision of a Larger Bench ofthis Court, in K.MARAPPAN Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL, (2006 (4) CTC 689), the writ petition filed by thepetitioner cannot be held to be maintainable. Therefore, the writpetition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011are closed. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lanTo:1 THE SECRETARY BAR COUNCIL OF TAMILNADU N.S.C.BOSE ROAD PARRYS CHENNAI.2 THE SECRETARY VELLORE BAR ASSOCIATIONCOMBINED COURT BUILDING SATHUVACHARI VELLORE.+1 C.C. to M/S.S.Y.Masood, Advocate, Sr.No.25779.+1 C.C. to M/S.T.S.Gopalan & Co, Advocate, SR.No.25306.+1 C.C. to M/S.R.Margabandhu Advocate, Sr.No.25240.pre-delivery order in Writ Petition No.14710 of 2011VS(CO)KP(29.05.2012)