This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the resolution passed in extra ordinary General Body meeting on 08.04.2011 from the file of 2nd Respondent and quash the same as unconstitutional.
O R D E R
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate, on 17.4.1985, bearing roll No.223/85. He had been elected as the President of the Vellore Bar Association, for four terms. However, a resolution had been passed in the General Body meeting of the said Association, which is the second respondent herein, on 8.4.2011. In the said resolution, it had been stated that no member of the second respondent Association could hold a post for more than two terms. If a member had served as an office bearer of the second respondent Association, for a period of two terms, cumulatively, he would not be eligible to contest the election for the same post, thereafter. Accordingly, the corresponding amendment had been made in the bye-laws of the second respondent Association. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the resolution passed in the Extraordinary General Body meeting of the second respondent Association, held on 8.4.2011.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is maintainable, in view of the fact that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein, had approved and recognised the second respondent Association, under the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Act and the Advocates Act, 1961. As per the provisions of the said Acts, including Sections 6 and 15 the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Act, the first respondent herein, which is a statutory body, has sufficient control over the second respondent Association to regulate its functioning. Therefore, the writ petition 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 further submitted that the second respondent Association is registered under the Tamil Nadu Advocate s Welfare Fund Act, 1987, and the Rules framed thereunder. It had also been stated that the bye-laws of the second respondent Association cannot be amended without following the procedures established by law. It had been further stated that the bye-laws of the second respondent Association had been amended, by way of a resolution passed in the Extraordinary General Body meeting, held on 8.4.2011, without a specific agenda relating to the debarring of the members from contesting for the same post, for more than two terms. The resolution had been passed without having the required quorum and without issuing a proper notice, as provided under the bye-laws of the second respondent Association. As such, the impugned resolution passed by the second respondent Association, in its extraordinary General Body meeting, held on 8.4.2011, is null and void. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:
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).
5. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents had 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 is not a registered Association. The bye-laws of the said Association is not a law, as claimed by the petitioner. Even though the first respondent may have certain control over the members of the legal profession, the first respondent cannot interfere with the functioning of the second respondent Association, which is in existence in accordance with the bye-laws of the said Association. It may be open to the petitioner to agitate the matter before the first respondent or before an appropriate civil forum, if so advised, in accordance with law.
6. It had been further stated that the petitioner has been relying on the unamended bye-laws to substantiate his claims. In fact, the bye-laws of the second respondent Association has been amended, based on the resolution passed in the Extraordinary General Body meeting, held on 8.4.2011, making it clear that a member of the said Association cannot contest in its election, for the same post held by him, for more than 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 second respondent Association the status of a statutory body. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available and in view of the decisions cited supra, this court finds it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, as it is not maintainable, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that there has been a violation of a statutory provision in the passing of the impugned resolution, by the second respondent Association. No principles of natural justice has been violated to warrant an interference 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 his claim that the second respondent Association is a registered Association. Even otherwise, it is a well settled position in law that bye-laws of an Association, even if it is a registered Association, cannot have the status of a law , as claimed by the petitioner. The second respondent Association is not a statutory body. Therefore, it cannot come under the definition of State , under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In view of the decision of a Larger Bench of this Court, in K.MARAPPAN Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL, (2006 (4) CTC 689), the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be held to be maintainable. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.