HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32930 of 2011 Date:15.12.2011 Between: Komireddi Krishna Vijay Azad ..... Petitioner And: The Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Reptd by its Secretary. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Karuna Sagar Counsel for the Respondent: Sri G.M.Mohiuddin The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare proceedings vide Roc.No.790 of 2011 Ele 31/2011, dated 12.12.2011, of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Clause 13.2 of Handbook for Returning Officers issued by the Election Commission of India. I have heard Sri M.Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.M.Mohiuddin, learned counsel representing the respondent. The petitioner is a practicing advocate. In response to the notification issued by the respondent for holding elections, the petitioner filed his nomination. The scrutiny of names was held on 12.12.2011. The petitioner averred that at the time of scrutiny, when he has learnt that the respondent is preparing the list of contesting candidates on ballet papers by showing the petitioner’s name as ‘Krishna Vijay Azad.K’, he has addressed a letter requesting the respondent to show his name as ‘Komireddy Krishna Vijay Azad’ in the ballet paper. On the same day, the Secretary of the respondent has rejected the said request. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the initial ‘K’ indicates the surname of the petitioner as ‘Komireddy’ and that the transfer certificate issued by Mahatma Gandhi Law College at the time of the petitioner leaving the college after completing his 5-year law course has mentioned the petitioner’s name as ‘Komireddy Krishna Vijay Azad’. Learned counsel also relied on Clause 13.2 of Handbook for Returning Officers issued by the Election Commission of India, which provided that if a candidate considers that his name is incorrectly spelt or is otherwise incorrectly shown in his nomination paper or is different from the name by which he is popularly known, he may, at any time before the list of contesting candidates is prepared, furnish in writing to the returning officer in proper form and spelling of his name and the returning officer shall on being satisfied as to the genuineness of the request make the necessary correction or alteration in the list in Form 4 and adopt that form and spelling in the list of contesting candidates.” The respondent filed a counter-affidavit seeking to justify its decision. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner’s name is shown as ‘Krishna Vijay Azad’ in the provisional certificate issued by the Osmania University; that the same name is entered in the rolls of the respondent in terms of Rule 23(a) of the Bar Council of India Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) and that the respondent is, therefore, bound by the name that is appearing on its rolls while preparing the ballet paper. In the impugned order, the request of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that his name has been entered on the rolls of the Bar Council of State of Andhra Pradesh as Krishna Vijay Azad as mentioned in the law degree certificate and that therefore, the same name requires to be shown in the ballet paper. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that his name is shown as ‘Krishna Vijay Azad’ in the provisional law degree certificate. Under Rule 23(a) of the Rules, the name of the advocate shall be the same as entered in the law degree certificate issued by the University. Afortiori it logically follows that the same name as entered in the rolls should reflect in the ballet paper. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the respondent has not committed any illegality in rejecting the petitioner’s request for change of name different from the one as appearing on the rolls of the respondent. The Handbook for Returning Officers issued by the Election Commission of India, on which the petitioner places reliance, has no application to the elections held by the respondent. The respondent is a statutory body created under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and is governed by the statutory Rules framed thereunder. Neither the Rules framed by the Election Commission of India are made applicable to the elections of the respondent nor any rule or instruction similar to the one contained in the Handbook for Returning Officers issued by Election Commission of India exists in the case of the respondent. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner on the strength of the said Handbook cannot be accepted. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.40931 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15thDecember 2011 DR