Find a Lawyer

Rr. 7.1 & 7.6‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Recognition of Bar Association‑It was the Bar Association which was to be recognized and not person making application for recognition Fact that petitioner had filed application for recognition of Bar Association earlier and respondent had done later was of no conse quence.

(b) Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1974‑---

‑‑ R. 7.10‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9 Transfer of votes from recognized Bar Association to newly‑recognized Bar Association‑Such transfer effected with consent of all Advocates present including petitioner, on occasion of visit of Chairman, Execu tive Committee Bar Council and fresh election were decided with consent of all present, including petitioner‑Contention of petitioner that he had given a memorandum earlier, held, of no consequence because "after prolong discussion, it was agreed upon that one mutually agreed Election Officer be appointed to conduct election" After agreement in general meeting, held further, it did not befit to petitioner Advocate to go back‑Fresh elections fixed by Bar Council on 12‑4‑1984 and proposals date fixed

was 19‑5‑ 984‑Petitioner himself filing nomination papers but filing a constitutional petition against whole action of Bar Council on last day‑Petition, held, belated and had no force on merit in circumstances and dismissed.

Raja Muhammad Safdar for Petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as President of Kallurkot Bar Association, District Bhakkar on 24‑12‑1983. He sent an application for recognition of the Bar Association under Rule 7.1 of the Punjab Legal Prac titioners and Bar Council Rules, 1974. Another gentleman Mr. Ghulam Musa Saggu, Advocate also sent a similar application as President of Kallurkot Bar Asso‑ration on 28‑1‑1984 stating that the earlier application of the petitioner be not considered as he was not entitled or competent to move the said application. The Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council in its meeting held on 21‑3‑1984 considered the entire matter and resolved that Mr. Aman Ullab, Chairman, Executive Committee may visit Kallurkot Bar Association and probe into the entire matter. He did so. He recommended that Kallurkot Bar Association be recognized and affiliated without going into the facts as to who heads the organization at the moment". He further, observed that it was very difficult for me to find out the real intentions of some of the Members present at the meeting After prolong discussions, it was argued upon that one mutually agreed Election Officers be appointed to conduct the elections of Kallurkot Bar Association after its recognition by the Punjab Bar Council. Syed Bashir Ahmad Shah was agreed upon to act as Election Officer. It was further agreed upon unanimously amongst the Members present that within one month of the recognition by the Punjab Bar Council, those who want to become Voter Members of the Kallurkot Bar Association must apply to the Punjab Bar Council for the change of their voting right to Kallurkot Bar Association. After complying this for mality, the Member/Members concerned will apply to the Election Officer, Kallurkot for enlistment of his name with Kallurkot Bar Association, subject to fulfilment of conditions regarding obtaining Membership i.e. Admission Fee, Membership Fee, etc. This is dated 5‑4‑1984. It was accepted by the Punjab Bar Council on 2‑4‑1984. The Punjab Bar Council issued a Schedule for the election of Kallurkot Bar Association. Date of receipt of proposals was fixed as 19‑5‑1984. The petitioner has filed nomination papers, it is stated by his learned counsel, under protest. He has also filed this Constitu tional petition on 19‑5‑1984.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an application for recognition of t3ar Association is to be filed by the President or Secretary of the Bar Association under rule 7.1. It was so done by the petitioner. Another application for the similar purpose was filed by respon dent No. 3 later. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Executive Committee of the Bar Council under rule 7.6 had only to accept one or the other application. The petitioner's application being first in time should have been accepted. His second contention was that under rule 7.10 as amended, the respondents Nos. 3 to 15 who had voted in January, 1984 election of the District Bar Association, Bhakkar had no right to get their votes transferred to Kallurkot Bar Association in pursuance of the recommendation of the Chairman, Executive Committee dated 5‑4‑1984, quoted above. The transfer of their votes is illegal. The third contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is that the petitioner had given a memorandum signed by the majority of members present on the occasion of the visit of the Chairman, Executive Committee that the petitioner was their President. The petitioner had not agreed to holding of fresh election as stated by the Chairman of the Executive Committee.

3. So far as the first contention is concerned reading of rules 7.1 and 7.6, makes it quite clear for it is the Bar Association which is to be recognized, not the applicant. Therefore the fact that the petitioner had filed an applica tion for recognition of the Kallurkot Bar Association earlier and respondent No. 3 had done later is no consequence. The Bar Association had been recognized. As regards the second contention about the transfer of votes, that has been dose in accordance with the consent of all the Advocates present, including the petitioner, on the occasion of the visit of the Chairman, Executive Committee who had gone to Kalurkot Bar Association to probe into the matter. Fresh election had been ordered with the consent of all present including the petitioner. The contention that the petitioner had given a memorandum earlier is of no consequence because" after prolong discussion, it was agreed upon that one mutually agreed Election Officer be appointed to conduct the elections ". After agreement in general meeting, it does not befit the petitioner Advocate to go back. The fresh elections were fixed by the

Punjab Bar Council on 12‑4‑1984. Proposals date was fixed on 19‑5‑1984. The petitioner had filed this Constitutional petition on the last date. It is belated. He has filed nomination papers. He may as well see elected office of the President by majority of votes. The petition has no for or merit. It is dismissed accordingly.

M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.