1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LG.) NO. 459 OF 2005 Manubhai Paragji Vashi ...Petitioner Versus Bar Council of India & Ors. ... Respondents The Petitioner present Mr. Nitin Jamdar for Respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. Atul Damle for Respondents No. 3 to 6. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2008. P.C.:- This is a public interest litigation, in which two grievances are made: firstly, that the State Bar Council was not making regular audits, and secondly, Rule 40 of the All India Bar Council Rules was not being complied with, and thousands of lawyers in the State of Maharashtra have not contributed in terms of of the said Rule. 2. In the latest affidavit filed by the Secretary, Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, it has been stated that there are 30,000 lawyers out of 1,20,000 advocates registered as advocates in the State of 2 Maharashtra, who have not contributed in terms of Rule 40; and before any action against those advocates, the requirement of law is that they should be given notices by the Bar Council, and it will take a period of 6 months to issue the notices to such defaulter-advocates. The respondent-Secretary has also undertaken that the notices shall be sent within 6 months. 3. We accept this submission, and direct that notices be served within the period of 6 months, and any follow-up, which needs to be taken in terms of law, shall be taken within three months thereafter. 4. About the audit, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that audit has been completed and gazetted up to March, 2005; and internal audit for the year 2005-06 is also over and the report is awaited; and audit for the year 2006-07 is in progress. Therefore, on this count also, no further directions are needed to be given. 5. The last grievance made by the petitioner is that the various State Bar Associations are not contributing towards the State Advocates Welfare Fund, which is maintained by the Central Bar Council. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the Bar Council of India that many 3 States do not contribute in terms of the Rules; and in terms thereof, they are supposed to contribute 20% of the amounts collected by them under Rule 40. The Bar Council has no supervisory jurisdiction over the State Bar Councils in such matters, and they cannot take any action against the State Bar Councils, as no rule is framed in that behalf, but the Bar Council was conscious of such a problem. Therefore, the Bar Council of India took a decision in the year 2003, which made the contribution of the State Bar Council relevant for the purpose of providing financial assistance to the particular State Bar Council; and every State Bar Council, according to the decision of 2003, would be entitled to the interest at 6% of the amounts contributed by it as financial assistance for the particular year. Therefore, if a State Bar Council contributes more, that would get more, and if a State Bar Council's contribution is less, it would get less. 6. We feel that no further orders are necessary to be passed in this Writ Petition. It is, accordingly, disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. S.A. BOBDE, J.