BY AD v. M.T.SURESHKUMAR

SREEKANTH SOMAN M ROOM NO.N.FBXII/14 IST FLOOR VRINDAVAN SHOPPING COMPLEX , CHUNKAM , FEROKE P O , KOZHIKODE - ( SECRETARY ELECT), PIN - 673631 RAJESH KUMAR P SHAHIER SINGH AND ASSOCIATES , EAST NADAKAVU, CALICUT - (VICE PRESIDENT ELECT), PIN - 673011 MIDHILI MOHAN M MOHANAM HOUSE, ERANHIKKAL P O , KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673303 JASIM K.T ADVOCATE , ROOM NO. 14 , 2ND FLOOR , CHALATHU TOWER, OPPOSITE DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, ( TREASURER ELECT), PIN - 673032 ANJANA V NANDAVANAM HOUSE, MOOTHAL PARAMBIL, POLOOR , KONOTTU P.O , KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571 SUDEEP S ROOM NO. 10, CHALATHU TOWER, OPPOSITE DISTRICT COURT, COURT ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001 MANU RAVEENDRAN P PUTHUKKUDI HOUSE, PADINJATTUMURI , KAKKODI P O , KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611 AKHIL ADVOCATE , SREESASTHA BUILDING, OPPOSITE POLICE CLUB, PAVAMANI ROAD, THAZHEKKODE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004 JINCY U K ADVOCATE , 11/296-A, ROOM NO. 6 A , FIRST FLOOR , ALSA COMPLEX , SAHIL BLOCK , WESTERN SIDE , DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX , KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673032 ASHER GEORGE MATHEW ADVOCATE , ROOM NO. 4, ZOYA ARCADE, CHEROOTY ROAD , CALICUT, PIN - 673001 BY ADVS. P.A.HARISH NIRMAL S R.SUDHISH M.MANJU(K/003562/1999) MITHUN P.(K/000292/2019) MERIN THOMAS(K/000292/2022) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 44060 OF 2023 3 JUDGMENT The petitioners are stated to be Senior Members of the “Calicut Bar Association” (“Association” for short), whose nomination to the elections conducted, pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, was rejected through Ext.P4. They assert that the rejection of their nominations, namely as recorded in Ext.P4, is illegal and unlawful; and therefore, that the said proceedings, along with Exts.P3 and P5, are liable to be set aside.

2. However, pertinently, Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar -learned counsel for the petitioners, expressly conceded that the 1st petitioner has already moved the Munsiff Court-I, Kozhikode, through O.S.No.524/2023, against Ext.P4 and that interim injunction, as sought for, has been declined. He argued that, nevertheless, this WP(C) NO. 44060 OF 2023 4 Court has jurisdiction to consider at least the second prayer in this writ petition, namely that the elections conducted on 14.12.2023 is null and void.

3. Sri.P.A.Harish – learned counsel appearing for respondents 1,3,4 and 5; Sri.Sudheesh – learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 16; and Sri.S.Nirmal – learned counsel for the 6th respondent, in response, vehemently argued that this writ petition is not maintainable, particularly after the 1st petitioner invoked his alternative remedy, by filing a suit as mentioned above and after having failed to obtain interim protection. They also added that the order of the learned Munsiff has not been appealed against by the 1st petitioner until now.

4. Apart from the fact that the 1st WP(C) NO. 44060 OF 2023 5 petitioner has invoked his alternative remedy, it is without doubt, as is conceded by Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, but that the petitioners have sought that the elections conducted on

14.12.2023 be declared null and void solely for the reason that their nominations had been rejected through Ext.P4. There is no other reason impelled or projected in support of their above said 2nd prayer in the writ petition; and and obviously, therefore, everything depends upon the validity of Ext.P4.

5. It is here that the submissions of the respondents come into relevance because, when the 1st petitioner admits unequivocally that he had approached the learned Munsiff through a suit challenging Ext.P4, but was not able to obtain any interim injunction; and that the said proceedings are still pending, indubitably, the WP(C) NO. 44060 OF 2023 6 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India becomes totally untenable to be invoked. In the afore circumstances, leaving full liberty to the petitioners to pursue their alternative remedies before the competent Civil Court, I close this writ petition, however, leaving open all rival contentions without being answered, in any manner whatsoever. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 44060 OF 2023 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 44060/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE- LAW OF THE CALICUT BAR ASSOCIATION AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME WITH LATEST AMENDMENT CARRYOUT ON 8-12-2005 . TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 30-11-2023. TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 6-12-2023. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RETURNING OFFICER DATED 7-12- 2023. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1-12-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE SEAL AND SIGNATURE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO 11 MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION DATED 9-11-2023. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLAY SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN ABOVE IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P6 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 20-11-2023 .