THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1046 OF 2009 Dated: 08-06-2010 Between: Smt. S. Jayashree ... APPELLANT AND The Secretary, AP Bar Council, High Court Building, Hyderabad and 32 others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1046 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) The appellant filed a writ petition to declare the election of the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh held on 28-04-2006 as null and void alleging it to be arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice with an interim prayer to command the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct enquiry into the said process of election. Interim relief sought was declined to him, consequently this writ appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner placing reliance on the judgments in Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Limited vs. State of West Bengal[1] and M/s. Popcorn Entertainment vs. City Industrial Development Corporation[2] contended that an alternative remedy could not work as a bar for maintaining a writ petition. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Bar Council referred to the Rules of the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh brought into being by dint of sections 15 and 28 of the Advocates Act, 1961 to contend that validity of the election could be questioned only as per the remedies prescribed therein. She also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in K.K. Shrivastava vs. Bhupendra Kumar[3] which disapproved the intervention of the High Court in a matter of election of the bar council. The argument of the learned counsel for the Bar Council although goes to the root of the writ petition itself, but regard being had to the fact that before us it is the order denying the interim order which is questioned, we deem it appropriate to refrain from expression of opinion in respect of maintainability of the writ petition. Reverting to the order itself, we find no material which would prima facie indicate commission of fraud and on that count alone we decline to interfere with the impugned order. Writ appeal is dismissed. SANJAY KUMAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 08-06-2010 K. Shyleshi [1] AIR 1962 SC 1044 (1) [2] 2007 AIR SCW 2010 [3] (1977) 2 SCC 494