ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed to issue a writ or direction quashing the proceedings of the respondent in Roc No.APWF/419/92 dated 2-12-1992 and for a consequential direction to grant the death benefits of late Sri Shaik Mahaboob, Advocate, Guntur entitled under the Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 to the petitioners with interest from June, 1989 and costs.
2. The first petitioner is the daughter, second petitioner is the son and the third petitioner is the wife of the deceased Shaik Mahboob, Advocate.
3. It is stated that late Shaik Mahaboob practiced as an Advocate at Guntur and he was the member of Guntur Bar Association. He died on 8-2-1990. Before his death, he paid the admission fee and also the subscription in June, 1989 for enrolment as member under the provisions of A.P. Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') and he submitted the necessary application in his behalf as prescribed by the Bar Council.
4. It is stated that the first petitioner being the nominee to receive the death benefits, after the death of her father sent an application dated 21-3-1990 for grant of the death benefits. But the respondent vide his letter dated 16-7-1990 informed her that all the legal heirs of the deceased should apply for grant of death benefits, and that thereafter all the petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased Sri Shaik Mahaboob, filed their applications for granting death benefits. But the said application was rejected by the Advocates Welfare Fund Committee (hereinafter called Committee) on the ground that the deceased Advocate was not the member of Advocates Welfare Fund by the date of his death. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal in Appeal No.2 of 1991 to the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. White the said appeal was pending, Section 21 of the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 was amended by deleting the appeal provision and that instead conferred powers on the Committee to review its own orders with effect from 15-4-1992. In view of that amendment, the petitioners have filed a review application No.16/92 on 1-7-1992 but the said application was rejected by the Committee again at its meeting held on 31-1-1992 on the ground that the deceased was not admitted as a member of the fund as he died on 6-2-1990 and that before 3-3-1990 when his application for admission was taken up for consideration by the Committee. The rejection of the application of the petitioners for grant of death benefits of their father was impugned in this writ petition.
5. It is stated that late Shiak Mahaboob, Advocate, Guntur, was a member of Guntur Bar Council till his death and he paid the admission fee and subscription to the Bar Council in June, 1989 through the Bar Council for admission to the A.P. Advocate Welfare Fund and he also submitted his application for the said purpose in a prescribed proforma and also nominated the first petitioner to receive the death benefits and therefore, deceased Shaik Mahaboob, Advocate shall be deemed to have been admitted as a member in June, 1989, i.e., from the date of payment of admission fee etc., and therefore, the petitioners being the legal heirs of the Shaik Mahaboob are entitled to receive the death benefits.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention drew my attention to the provisions of the Act, 1987. Under Section 3 of the A.P. Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, the Government by notification constitute a fund to be called the Andhra Pradesh Advocate's Welfare Fund and all the amounts paid under Section 12, any contribution made by the Bar Council, any voluntary donation or contribution made to the fund by the Bar Council of India, any Bar Association, any other association or institution, any advocate or any other person, any grant made by the Central Government or the State Government to the Fund, any sum borrowed under Section 10, any profit or dividend received from the Life Insurance Corporation of India in respect of policies of group insurance of the members of the Fund, any interest or dividend or other return on any investment made of any part of the fund, and all sums collected under Section 15 by way of application fee and annual subscription and interest thereon, and the sums specified above, shall be paid or collected by such agencies, at such intervals and in such manner and all the accounts of the Fund shall be maintained in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 4 of the Act empowers the Government by notification to establish with effect from such date as may be specified therein, a Committee to be called the Andhra Pradesh Advocates, Welfare Fund Committee. Accordingly, theGovernment has constituted the said Committee. Section 9 castes a duty on the Committee to administer the fund. Sub-section (2)(b) provides for receiving applications for admission or re-admission to the Fund, and dispose of such applications within ninety days from the date of receipt thereof;
7. Therefore, as per Section 9(2)(b) of the Act, the Committee should consider the application submitted by the advocate to the fund within the time stipulated. But instead of doing so, the Committee has considered the application after the lapse of the prescribed time, i.e., after ninety days and rejected the said application on the ground that on the date of consideration of the application of the deceased. Sri Shaik Mahaboob, Advocate died and hence the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to receive any death benefits. The said action of the Committee is quite contrary to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, which is liable to be quashed.
8. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the A.P. Advocates' Welfare Fund, while admitting the receipt of the application of late Shaik Mahaboob with subscription through Bar Council, Guntur, for admission to Advocates' Welfare Fund, contended that on the date of consideration of the Committee, the said Shaik Mahaboob expired, therefore, his case was not considered on the aground that as on the date of consideration he was not alive. But he has not given any explanation as to why the application of late Shaik Mahaboob was not considered within the period of 90 days, as stipulated under Section 9 of the Act. It is manifest that the respondents have treated the application as if it was filed by a litigant public and with all prejudice they have rejected his application. Though it was submitted within time and it is an obligation on the part of the respondents to considerthe same within 90 days, but they have rejected his application as he died. Therefore, if the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is accepted, the very purpose for which the Fund was constituted will be defeated.
9. It is pertinent here to consider the statement of objects and reasons of the A.P. Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 which is as under:
' The Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh had represented originally in 1975 and later in 1985 for the formulation of some welfare schemes for the Advocates of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Previously, it was proposed to enact a legislation for the purpose of constituting a welfare fund for the promotion of welfare of the Advocates in the State, but it was deferred. The State of Kerala had already enacted the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1980 (Act 21 of 1980) and the State of Karnataka is also having a proposal in this regard. The advocates of the State have been continuously demanding for the constitution of a Welfare Fund for their benefit. It is therefore, proposed to constitute a welfare fund for the payment of retirement benefits to Advocates in the State.'
10. A bill (LA Bill No. 37 of 1987) to give effect to that proposal was prepared and thereafter it was enacted as the A.P. Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987.
11. Therefore, from the Statement of objects and reasons of the Act, it is evident that it was enacted with a view to constitute a Welfare fund for the promotion of welfare of the Advocates in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This enactment was made due to the constant demand of the advocates of the State for constituting a welfare fund to receive some benefit after the retirement from the profession or aftertheir death by their legal heirs and on their demand ultimately the Government has passed this Act.
12. Admittedly the deceased advocate who practised for about 37 years at Guntur Bar and submitted his application along with the prescribed subscription to the Advocates Welfare Fund Committee in June, 1989 through the Bar Council at Guntur for admission to the Advocates Welfare Fund and the Committee as per Section 9 of the Act has to consider the same within a period of ninety days from the date of application from a advocate for admission in to the welfare fund. But the Committee did not hold its meeting during that period, but it met and considered the application of the deceased Advocate on 3-3-1990 and rejected the same on the ground that on the date of consideration of his application, the said advocate Shaik Mahaboob was not alive and died on 6-2-1990. As per Section 9 of the Act, the application of the deceased should have to be considered within the stipulated time. But the same was not considered within the stipulated time by the respondent and for non-consideration of the application of the deceased within the time of 90 days for admission to the Welfare Fund, the petitioners herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased Shaik Mahaboob should not be deprived of the death benefits of their deceased father to which they are legally entitled. The said Committee should have taken the date of receipt of the application of the advocate for its consideration for admission to the Welfare Fund instead of date of death of the advocate as eligibility date for admission to the Welfare Fund to calculate 90 days under Section 9 of the Act. The Committee which is constituted by the Government under the Act with a laudable object to lookafter the welfare of the Advocates, has failed to discharge its functions, in this case, as it has failed to consider the petitioners case within a period of 90 days, as contemplated underSection 9 of the Act. In these circumstances taking into consideration the objects and reasons of the said Act, I hold that it is mandatory on the part of the A.P. Advocates Welfare Fund Committee, Hyderabad to consider any application submitted by any advocate for admission to the Welfare Fund, within 90 days from the date of submission of application and communicate to such Advocate the order of admission or rejection of his application for admission with reasons to the Welfare Fund within the stipulated time under Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, in the above circumstances, I direct the A.P. Advocates Welfare Fund Committee, Hyderabad to treat that late Shaik Mahaboob, Advocate Guntur was admitted to the Welfare Fund within 90 days from the date of receipt of his application through Bar Council of Guntur as contemplated under Section 9 of the Act as he was survived during the period of 90 days from the date of his application, though the died when his application was considered by the Committee on 3-3-1990 and grant the death benefits to the petitioners who are his legal heirs within a period of 8 week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with costs and the impugned proceeding is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to grant the death benefits of late Sri Shaik Mahaboob, Advocate Guntur entitled under the Andhra Pradesh Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987 to the petitioners herein within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.