(Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana, JJ.)
Deepak Kundu & Ors. ____________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. ____ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 8362 of 2015, decided on October 7, 2015
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26871/2015]
With
Civil Appeal No. 8363 of 2015, [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25712/2015], Civil Appeal No. 8364 of 2015, [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25731/2015], Civil Appeal No. 8365 of 2015, [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25737/2015], Civil Appeal No. 8366 of 2015, [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26864/2015]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Permission to file additional documents is granted.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard the learned Advocate General for the State of Haryana and the Chairman of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana who have appeared in response to the Court’s order dated 5th October, 2015. We have also heard the learned counsels present.
4. By the impugned order dated 04th August, 2015, a bunch of writ petitions was disposed of by the High Court in the following terms:
“(i) The 2015 Rules be enforced.
(ii) Clause (e) of Rule 11 which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any dispute with regard to election of the Bar Association, would be deleted by the Bar Council. In clause (c) of Rule 3 the Registration Fee for every Bar Association having strength of members upto 500 would be reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- and for Bar Associations having more than 500 members the registration fee would be reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Chairman Bar Council, who is present in Court, assures to take appropriate action in this regard.
(iii) Where ever election to the Bar Association has been held before 11.05.2015, the elected office bearers would hold office till fresh elections are held as per the 2015 Rules.
(iv) Where elections were not held and the elected body has completed its term or where elections were held after 11.05.2015 on which dte the interim order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, staying the operation of the order dated 22.4.2015 of this Court, such elected bodies will cease to function and in their palce an ad hoc body will be elected by the Bar Association under the supervision of the Bar Council. This ad hoc body will function till fresh elections are held in terms of the 2015 Rules. Such ad hoc body/Committee would be constituted within six weeks. The existing bodies shall continue to function till the ad hoc bodies are constituted.”
5. As would be evident from the reading of the aforesaid order, the order of the High Court was a consent order. This is apparent from the following extract from the order in question:
“Though, in two petitions there was a specific challenge to the Rules, but during the course of hearing when these Rules were examined and discussed in detail and the purpose and objective of their formulation was highlighted, the challenge to the Rules was given up. A consensus was arrived at between the counsel for the parties and accordingly the case is being disposed of in terms of the following agreed order”
6. A grievance has been raised before us in the Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26871 of 2015 by the Rohtak and Panipat Bar Associations. The said Associations were not parties to the proceedings before the High Court. The consensus and the consequential directions recorded in the impugned order has the effect of dislodging the elected bodies of the said Bar Associations and, therefore, the same should be construed to be non est in law. There is no dispute that the Rohtak and Panipat Bar Associations were, in fact, not the parties before the High Court and they were not heard. Despite the above, the impugned directions do affect them adversely.
7. In the above situation, we do not consider it necessary to go into any of the other issues raised before us as the impugned order so far as the aforesaid two Bar Associations are concerned has been rendered to their prejudice without hearing them. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and the consequential directions and request the High Court to decide the writ petitions on merits after hearing all the contesting parties.
8. It has come to our notice that an issue with regard to the validity of the Rules framed by the Bar Council with regard to election to a Bar Association has been sought to be raised before us. As we are remitting the matter to the High Court, we decline to go into the said question and leave it open for the aggrieved parties to move the High Court, if they are so advised, in this regard.
9. Consequently and with the aforesaid directions and observations, the appeals shall stand disposed of.
———
