IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37364 of 2010(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY, ADVOCATE, AGE 62, S/O.VARKEY, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, COCHIN-18. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 21, ROUSE AVENUE, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW BAL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-2. 2. THE BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 4. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, BAR COUNCIL BHAVAN, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. R1 BY ADV. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37364 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Advocate enrolled with the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition, his prayer is to quash Ext.P6 resolution, whereby the 2nd respondent has resolved to fix the date of polling to 12/3/2011. He also seeks a direction to respondents to conduct the polling as per Ext.P1 and the schedule attached thereto. Among the various grievances urged, main one was that, on coming to know of Ext.P6, he along with others made Exts.P7 to P9 representations to the Bar Council of Kerala requesting that the election be held as per Ext.P1 itself or atleast on any other working day. It is stated that inspite of having made representations, the Bar Council has not considered the requests. 2. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Bar Council submitted that, the Bar Council has already decided to consider the representations made, in its next meeting. Now that the Bar Council has agreed to consider the representation of the petitioner in its next meeting, which is schedule to be held on 9th of this month, I do not think it necessary for this Court to enter WPC No. 37364/10 :2 : into the merits of the controversy raised in the writ petition. Therefore, recording the submission of the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent that the representations made by the petitioner and others requesting for rescheduling the election now notified pursuant to Ext.P6, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp