IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.74 of 2011 Brajesh Kumar Singh,Advocate, Son of Late Ganpati Sharan Singh, R/o Ward No.7, P.S. and District- Supaul; Popularly elected Secretary of District Bar Association, Supaul…………………… Appellant Versus 1. The Bihar State Bar Council, Patna through its Officiating Secretary. 2. The Special Committee, Bihar State Bar Council, Patna through its Chairman. 3. Raj Kumar Chouhan, Advocate son of late Harsh Narain Singh, R/o Ward No.,6 At & P.S. and District- Supaul. 4. Binod Kant Jha, Advocate S/o Late Kamal Narain Jha, Hat Khola Road, Supaul 5. Sunil Kumar Singh 1, Advocate Son of Shri Shatrughan Prasad Singh, R/o village- Sundarpur,P.S. & Distt. Supaul 6. Ananta Kumar Verma,Advocate, Son of Late Shyam Narain Verma, R/o Ward No.12, P.S. and District- Supaul 7. Toshif Ekram,Advocate, son of Late Akram Hussain, R/o Ward No.23, P.S. & District- Supaul 8. Chandeshwari Mehata,Advocate, S/o Fudan Mehata,R/o Mohalla- Vidyapuri, P.S. & District- Supaul 9. Nand Kishore Yadav, Advocate, son of Bambholi Yadav, R/o Ward No.10, P.S. & District- Supaul 10. Prem Kumar Jha, Advocate, son of Shri Gangadhar Jha at Chamber No. 162, Bihar State Bar Council Building, Patna High Court, Patna……………………………………………… Respondents ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh,Sr.Advocate, Mr.Amrit Abhijat- Advocate, Mr. Nagendra Yadav- Advocate For Bihar State Bar Council :- Mr. Shantanu Kumar Advocate -------------- 4 29-6-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Bihar State Bar Council. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-10-2010 whereby the learned writ court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing C.W.J.C.No.4635/2009. On behalf of appellant it has been submitted that 2 the grounds for challenge to the decision of the Bihar State Bar Council not to permit the Executive Committee of District Bar Association Supaul to function for two complete years from the date of election, and further action of constituting an Ad hoc Committee of seven members to take charge from the elected Executive Committee were not considered by the writ court in proper perspective and that such a treatment meted on the ground of Rule 15 of the Model Rules was used arbitrarily only against District Bar Association of Supaul and not against other various Bar Associations in the State. It was further submitted that the mala fide alleged against one of the members of the Bihar State Bar Council ought to have been accepted by the writ court. So far as this issue is concerned, we are not persuaded to go into details because admittedly the two years tenure of the Executive Committee expired long back on 27- 4-2009 and subsequent elections have already taken place which are not under challenge. Hence, this issue which fell for consideration before the writ court is no longer alive and in that regard the writ petition and this appeal must be treated 3 as infructuous. The only other issue raised on behalf of the appellant is in respect of challenge to resolution no.04 of Special Committee of the Bihar State Bar Council dated 5-5- 2009 and also Resolution dated 14-5-2009 of the Special Committee giving rise to a disciplinary proceeding against the appellant bearing D.C.E. No. 07/09. This issue was raised before the writ court through I.A. No. 7141/2009 and paragraph-2 of the order under appeal shows that the Interlocutory Application was allowed and the appellant was permitted to pursue for the relief claimed through the I.A. in respect of the disciplinary proceeding. Although the writ petition has been dismissed for various reasons, but the order under appeal has not considered the challenge made by the appellant to the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him for alleged dis-regard of the directions of the Bihar Bar Council to hand over charge of the Executive Committee of District Bar Association, Supaul of which the appellant was elected Secretary. Learned counsel for the Bihar State Bar Council has placed before us the original record of disciplinary 4 proceeding against the appellant, the Ex-Secretary of District Bar Association, Supaul which discloses that the correct case No. is DCE 08 of 09. On going through the records of that case it is apparent that while the appellant had raised a dispute against dissolution of the Executive Committee and its super session by an Ad hoc Committee, simultaneously there was a direction upon him to hand over charge of the Executive Committee. Apparently, the appellant delayed in handing over charge under a belief that he had a good case against dissolution of the Executive Committee and he may get relief from the court on filing of the writ petition. Under such belief he found out different excuses for not handing over charge of the Executive Committee within the time indicated by the Bar Council. Now the election disputes are over and further elections have already taken place. The charges or allegations, when examined carefully in the back ground of resentment against supersession of Executive Committee and the appellant being then elected secretary of the Supaul District Bar Association, it is apparent that disciplinary proceeding, which has remained pending for more than a year, will serve no useful purpose and shall only generate bad feeling 5 amongst the members of the District Bar Association, Supaul. After one year the disciplinary proceeding ought to have been transferred to the Bar Council of India, but that has not been done and the original records of the proceeding are still with the Bihar State Bar Council. Having considered the nature of charges/allegations, the back-ground material and the present situation, we are inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that it is in the interest of justice to quash the disciplinary proceeding pending against him. Hence the appeal is allowed in part and the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding pending against the appellant is quashed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( V. Nath,J)