IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14258 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE CUM MEMBER, BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF KERALA, AMERICAN INSTITUTE BUILDING, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.AJAYAN, RETURNING OFFICER CUM SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 21 ROUSE AVENUE, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI - 110 002. 4. AJITH T.S., ADVOCATE, ATHITYA, MAMMIYUR, GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR - 680 101. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. MR. GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 14258 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd June , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : i, To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the election of the 4th respondent as a member to 3rd respondent by declaring that election was done by 2nd respondent in violation of the mandatory rule 2 (2) of Part II, Chapter I of the Bar Council of India Rules pertaining to the election of a State Bar Council member to a member of the Indian Bar Council. ii, To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to 3rd respondent not to accept the 4th respondent as member of it from 1st respondent, as his election to that was in violation of mandatory rules. iii, To issue any other further order or direction this Honourable Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case. and iv, To allow costs to this proceedings. W.P. (C) No. 14258 of 2011 : 2 : 2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement disputing the averments and allegations raised in the writ petition, also producing copy of the notification published in the official gazette as Ext. R1(a). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the rights and liberties are quite wrong and misconceived; more so, when there is an alternate remedy under the Statute. There is absolutely no merit or bonafides in approaching this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, submits the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In view of the fact that, the petitioner is having an effective alternate remedy, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed; however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy as provided under the Statute. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd