Kailash Joshi v. Bar Council of Uttarakhand & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Special appeal stands disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Advocates Act, 1961 s. 15
Judgment
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia with Mr. Navnesh Negi, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Sunil UPadhyaya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Bhaskar Chand Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2009 primarily on the ground that the election process once has begun, the same cannot be stalled or stopped until it is over. In the course of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has made an observation about the appellant(cid:146)s grievance with respect to the non-refundability of security deposit of Rs.15,000/- to be made by every intending candidate. Whereas we agree with the learned Single Judge that the election process once begun should not be allowed to be stalled, in so far as the non-refundability aspect of the security deposit is concerned, we have noted the oral submission made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant that the non-refundability of security deposit has been provided for in Rule 8(iii) of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand Election Rules-
Operative part
2009. If there is a statutory provision with respect to the non- refundability of the deposit, unless the statutory provision is quashed or set aside or declared illegal or ultra vires, no relief can be granted to anyone. On this being pointed out, learned counsel for the appellant makes an oral prayer that the appellant be permitted to amend the writ petition to lay a challenge to the aforesaid statutory provision enacted u/s 15 of Advocates Act, 1961. We find force in the aforesaid submission and prayer and granting the same, permit the appellant to amend the writ petition to the aforesaid extent. As a consequence, even while the impugned judgment is upheld in so far as the refusal of any interim relief to the appellant is concerned, Writ Petition No.1318 (M/S) of 2009 is revived. The appellant/writ petitioner shall file amended writ petition within this week with advance copy to the learned counsel opposite, who shall file counter affidavits in reply thereto in two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, will be filed in one week thereafter. The writ petition shall be listed consideration before the appropriate Bench in the week commencing 5th October, 2009. Special appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) RG
24.08.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Special appeal stands disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Advocates Act, 1961 — s. 15.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 24 Aug 2009. The bench was DHARAM VEER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.