IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.05.2011 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH O.S.A.NOS.122, 123, 126 to 128, 129, 138, 140 to 149 and 154 of 2011 V.N.Subramaniam ... Appellant in O.S.A.Nos.122,123, 148 and 149 of 2011 P.Paramasivam .... Appellant in O.S.A.Nos.126 to 128 and 138 of 2011 S.K.Velu ... Appellant in O.S.A.No.129 of 2011 K.R.R.Aiyyappamani ... Appellant in O.S.A.Nos.140 to 143 of 2011 N.Marappan ... Appellant in O.S.A.Nos.144 to 147 of 2011 Elephant G.Rajendran ... Appellant in O.S.A. No.154 of 2011 Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Advocate's Association represented by its Secretary M.Baskar 196, New Addl.Law Chambers, High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 2.The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, High Court Campus, Chennai- 600 104. 3.The Bar Council of India, rep.by its Secretary, 225, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase III, New Delhi – 110 020 ..... Respondents 1 to 3 in all Appeals https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Elephant G.Rajendran .. 4th Respondent in OSA Nos.122, 123 126,127, 128,129,138,140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149/2011 .. 5th Respondent in OSA No.144/2011 S.Vetrivel .. 5th Respondent in OSA No.122, 123, 126, 127, 140, 141, 145/2011 6th Respondent in OSA Nos.128, 138, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149/2011 7th Respondent in OSA Nos.129/11 4th Respondent in OSA Nos.144, 154/11 R.K.Chandramohan .. 5th Respondent in OSA Nos.128, 129, 138, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149/11 P.Paulpillai .. 7th Respondent in OSA No.128, 138, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149 8th Respondent in OSA No.129/2011 N.S.Ziauddin .. 8th Respondent in OSA No.128, 138, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149/2011 6th Respondent in OSA NO.129/2011 6. K.R.R.Aiyappamani 7. P.S.Amalraj 8. S.Prabakaran 9. R.Arunachalam 10. R.K.Chandramohan 11. K.K.S.Jayaraman 12. K.Kathiravan 13. V.Karthikeyan 14. K.Rajarajan 15. M.Velmurugan 16. P.Paramasivam 17. V.N.Subramaniam 18. V.Yuvaraj 19. T. Michael Stanis Prabhu 20. A.Natarajan 21.N.Sampath 22.E.T.Rajendran 23. D.Selvam 24. M.Varadhan 25. K.Veluchamy 26. S.K.Vel 27. K.Ranganathan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 28. G.Thalaimuthurasu 29. A.A.Venkatesan ...... Respondents 6 to 29 in O.S.A.Nos.144 and 145 of 2011 and Respondents 9 to 32 in O.S.A.Nos.146 and 147 of 2011 Respondents No.6 to 29 in O.S.A.Nos.144 and 145 of 2011, who are Respondents No.9 to 32 in O.S.A.Nos.146 and 147 of 2011 are given up. Original Side Appeals in OSA Nos.122 and 123/2011 are filed against the order dated 18.4.2011 made in Application Nos.1739 and 1740/2011 respectively in C.S.No.7/11 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeals in O.S.A.Nos.126, 127 and 128 of 2011 are filed against the order dated 18.4.2011 made in Application Nos.1739, 1740 and 2184 of 2011 respectively in C.S.No.7 of 2011 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeals in O.S.A.Nos.129 and 138 of 2011 is filed against the order dated 18.4.2011 made in Application No.2185 of 2011 respectively in C.S.No.7 of 2011 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeals in O.S.A.Nos.140 to 143 of 2011 are filed against the order dated 18.4.2011 made in Application No.1739, 1740, 2184 and 2185 of 2011 respectively in C.S.No.7 of 2011 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeals in O.S.A.Nos.144 to 147 of 2011 are filed against the order dated 18.4.2011 made in Application No.1739, 1740, 2184 and 2185 of 2011 respectively in C.S.No.7 of 2011 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeals in O.S.A.Nos.148 and 149 of 2011 are filed against the order dated 18.4.2011 made in Application Nos. 2184 and 2185 of 2011 respectively in C.S.No.7 of 2011 on the file of this Court. Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.154 of 2011 is filed against the Order dated 18.4.2011 in Application No.1740 of 2011 in C.S.No.7 of 2011 on the file of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellant in : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, O.S.A.Nos.122,123, Sr.Counsel 148 and 149 of 2011 and Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy For Appellant in O.S.A.Nos. :Ms.P.T.Asha 144 to 147 of 2011 for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Appellant in : Mr.T.R.Rajagopal,Sr.Counsel O.S.A.Nos.126 to 128 and and 138 of 2011 Mr.S.S.Rajesh For Appellant in : Mr.Vijay Narayan,Sr.Counsel O.S.A.No.129 of 2011 and Mr.S.Giridharan For Appellant in : Ms.Chitra Sampath O.S.A.Nos.140 to 143 for of 2011 M/s.Anand Abdul & Vinodh Associates For Appellant in : Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran O.S.A.Nos.154 of 2011 and - party in person for Respondent No.4 in O.S.A.Nos.122,123,126 to 129, 138, 140 to 143, 145 to 149 and Respondent No.5 in O.S.A.No.144 of 2011. For Respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Prabakaran in O.S.A.Nos.122, 123,126, for Mr.Abdul Majeed to 129,138, 140 to 149 and 154 of 2011 (T.N.Advocates Assn.) For Respondent No.2 in : Mr.K.Venkatakrishnan O.S.A.Nos.122, 123, 126 to for Mr.S.Y.Masood 129,138 and 140 to 149 and 154 of 2011 (Bar Council of Tamilnadu) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent No.3 in : Mr.K.Venkatakrishnan O.S.A.Nos.122, 123, 126 to 129, 138, 140 to 147 and 154 of 2011 (Bar Council of India) For Respondent No.8 in : Mr.A.K.Sriram O.S.A.Nos.128, 138,142, 143 and 146 to 149 of 2011 and for Respondent No.6 in O.S.A.No.129 of 2011 For Respondent No.5 in : No Appearance O.S.A.Nos.122, 123, 126 127, 140, 141 and 145 of 2011, for Respondent No.6 in O.S.A.Nos.128,138, 142,143 and 146 to 149 of 2011, for Respondent No.7 in O.S.A.No.129 of 2011 and for Respondent No.4 in O.S.A.Nos.144 and 154 of 2011. (Mr.S.Vetrivel) For Respondent No.5 in : No Appearance O.S.A.No.128 of 2011 and for Respondent No.5 in O.S.A.No.129 of 2011 (Mr.R.K.Chandramohan) For Respondent No.7 in : No Appearance O.S.A.Nos.128, 138, 142, 143 and 146 to 149 of 2011 (Mr.Paulpillai) For Mr.P.Vaithialingam, Advocate of Omalur : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj COMMON JUDGMENT R.BANUMATHI,J Being aggrieved by the common impugned Order dated 18.4.2011 in Application Nos.1739 and 1740 of 2011 filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran and Application Nos.2184 and 2185 of 2011 filed by Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen in C.S.No.7 of 2011, wherein and by which the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned single Judge interdicted the six elected members viz., Mr.K.R.R.Aiyappamani, Mr.N.Marappan, Mr.K.Kathiravan, Mr.P.Paramasivam, Mr.V.N.Subramaniam and Mr.S.K.Vel from exercising their voting rights as members of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and re-constituting the Election Tribunal and also directing the above six elected members to face enquiry before the re- constituted Election Tribunal, five elected members (except Mr.K.Kathiravan) have preferred these appeals. Being aggrieved by the order denying investigation by Crime Branch, C.I.D. in respect of alleged corrupt practices during the Election of Bar Council, Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran filed O.S.A.No.154 of 2011. 2. The suit – C.S.No.7 of 2011 arises on the following facts: The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is a statutory body created under the Advocates Act, 1961 with statutory rights and obligations. As per Section 3 of Advocates Act, there shall be a State Bar Council. As per section 3(3) of the Act, there shall be a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of each State Bar Council elected by the Council in such manner as may be prescribed. As per Section 8 of the Act, the term of office of elected member of a State Bar Council shall be five years from the date of publication of the result of his election. 3. The last election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was held on 20.9.2005 and the Council was constituted on 12.10.2005. The term of office of the State Bar Council expired on 11.10.2010. In terms of the provisions of Section 8 of the Advocates Act and by virtue of resolution No.77 of 2010 passed by the Bar Council of India, the term of office of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was extended for a period of six months with effect from 12.10.2010. On the strength of the said extension, the State Bar Council convened a meeting on 23.12.2010 and passed resolutions fixing the date of election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on 4.3.2011. By another resolution, special committee comprising of five senior advocates of High Court viz., Mr.G.Masilamani, Mr.M.Raveendran, Mr.S.V.Jayaramn, Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy and Mr.T.V.Ramanujam were appointed to scrutinise and monitor the conduct of the ensuing election with power to issue suitable instructions for the conduct of free and fair election and also power to nominate any number of advocates. To assist them in the conduct of elections., three advocates viz., Mr. T.V.Krishnakumar, Mr.S.Muthukrishnan and Mr.K.Mahendiran were appointed as Election tribunal as contemplated by the Rules. By 4th resolution, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu resolved to hand over the administration of the State Bar Council to the Advocate General with a power to sign the cheques and operate the Bank accounts jointly with the Secretary. The election notification was issued on 27.12.2010 and the same was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part VI - Section 1, No.51-A. The notification was also published in the news papers on the following day and Press Release was issued by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advocate General on 30.12.2010 confirming the election schedule and the appointment of the Secretary to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as the Returning Officer. 4. The 1st respondent – Tamil Nadu Advocates Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act with Registration No.98/2008. In the plaint in C.S.No.7 of 2011, the 1st respondent/Plaintiff Association alleged that in the earlier election held in 2005, the election was marred by unprecedented malpractices and gross irregularities were committed by many contesting members. Stating that Plaintiff Association is interested in ensuring a free, fair and transparent election for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to be held in March, 2011, the suit has been filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff represented by its Secretary seeking interalia various directions. 5. Pointing out that inspite of appointment of Committee in the previous elections, there were irregularities in the conduct of free and fair elections, on 12.1.2011, the learned single Judge passed an elaborate order appointing Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam (Retired) as a Commissioner to oversee and monitor the elections to the State Bar Council. In the said order dated 12.1.2011, the learned single Judge interalia issued various directions as to:- (i) printing of ballot papers; (ii) taking ballot papers to the respective polling stations; (iii) conduct of elections; (iv) involving judicial officers in the Districts and moffusal in nominating an independent observers and to receive ballot papers and sending them back to Madras with police protection and (v) directions as to the transportation of boxes containing polled ballot papers to Chennai and other directions. 6. By the Order dated 2.2.2011, learned single Judge issued further directions involving the judicial officers in the conduct of election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Detailed reference to various directions may not be necessary. Suffice it to note that the election to the State Bar Council was held on 4.3.2011 under strict vigil. The Judge – Commissioner has strictly monitored the conduct of election and the elections were held in strict compliance of the directions of the learned single Judge and also by the Judge-Commissioner. Excepting the stray incidents, the elections were held in free, fair and transparent manner. The counting of votes had commenced on 9.3.2011 and completed on 2.4.2011. The 25 members viz., (1) Mr.K.R.R.Aiyyappamani, Advocate, Salem, (2) Mr.P.S.Amalraj, Advocate, Chennai, (3) Mr.S.Prabakaran, Advocate, Chennai, (4) Mr.R.Arunachalam, Advocate, Coimbatore, (5) Mr.N.Marappan, Advocate, Karur, (6) Mr.R.K.Chandramohen, Advocate, Trichy, (7) Mr.K.K.S.Jayaraman, Advocate, Kancheepuram, (8) Mr.K.Kathiravan, Advocate, Gingee, (9) Mr.V.Karthikeyan, Advocate, Thanjavur, (10) Mr.K.Rajarajan, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Advocate, Virudhunagar, (11) Mr.M.Velmurugan, Advocate, Chennai, (12) Mr.P.Paramasivam, Advocate, Salem, (13) Mr.V.N.Subramaniam, Advocate, Erode, (14) Mr.V.Yuvaraj, Advocate, Krishnagiri, (15) Mr.T.Michael Stanis Prabhu, Advocate, Tuticorin, (16) Mr.A.Natarajan, Advocate, Chennai (17) Mr.N.Sampath, Advocate, Cuddalore, (18) Mr.E.T.Rajendran, Advocate, Madurai, (19) Mr.D.Selvam, Advocate, Chennai, (20) Mr.M.Varadhan, Advocate, Chengalpattu, (21) Mr.K.Veluchamy, Advocate, Madurai, (22) Mr.S.K.Vel, Advocate, Namakkal, (23) Mr.K.Ranganathan, Advocate, Puducherry, (24) Mr.G.Thalaimuthurasu, Advocate, Madurai and (25) Mr.Ariyalur Annasamy Venkatesan, Advocate, Chennai were declared elected as members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. Advocate General has certified the list of elected candidates. As per Rule 34 of the Election Rules of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the list of elected members was published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette on 5.4.2011. 7. As per the order in Application No.450 of 2011, 4th respondent – Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran was impleaded as 3rd defendant. The 4th respondent/3rd defendant filed applications – A.No.1244 of 2011 to implead Mr.Chandramohan, former Chairman of Bar Council as 4th defendant and A.No.1245 of 2011 seeking for a direction not to allow Mr.Chandramohan to contest the elections to be held on 4.3.2011. The learned single Judge ordered both the applications. On the orders in A.No.1244 of 2011, Mr.Chandramohan was impleaded as 4th defendant and in A.No.1245 of 2011, the learned single Judge directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu not to permit Mr.Chandramohan to assume office and discharge the functions as elected member of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in the event of his being declared successful till the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council of India or till he obtains appropriate direction from the Apex Court,which ever is earlier. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in O.S.A.Nos.78 and 79 of 2011 and both the appeals came to be dismissed by us by the judgment dated 9.4.2011. 8. Certain malpractices were reported in Nagercoil and Padmanabapuram of Kanyakumari District. On the report filed by the Polling Observers and Judge – Commissioner, earlier, by common order dated 8.3.2011 made in Application Nos.450, 1205, 1244 and 1246 of 2011, the learned single Judge has invalidated the votes polled at Nagercoil and Padmanabapuram. The applications filed by Nagercoil Bar Association in A.No.1600 of 2011 and the Padmanabapuram Bar Association in A.No.1628 of 2011 came to be dismissed on 23.1.2011, which was the subject matter of appeal before us in O.S.A.Nos.88 and 98 of 2011. Both the appeals were dismissed by us by the Judgment dated 9.4.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Our earlier judgments in the above appeals would have little relevance. We are referring to those appeals only to narrate the background facts. 10. The factual background of filing of Application – A.Nos.1739 and 1740 of 2011: As pointed out earlier, the counting of votes commenced on 9.3.2011 and completed on 2.4.2011. The 4th respondent – Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran filed the applications in A.Nos.1739 and 1740 of 2011 stating that he received letter/affidavits from some of the Advocates from the State – (i) Smt.Aruljothi of the Bhavani Bar stating that one of the contesting candidates contributed Rs.1 lakh to Bhavani Bar Association; (ii) one Mr.M.Siva Suresh of Mettupalayam has sworn to an affidavit to the effect that one of the contesting candidates by name Ayyappamani distributed gold coins and Rs.3,500/- to the voters; (iii) an Advocate by name Mr.G.Muniyandi of Mettupalayam has sent his sworn affidavit stating that one Mr.K.P.Narayanan had given diaries to the voters to lure them to vote in his favour; (iv) two other candidates by name Mr.S.K.Velu and Mr.V.N.Subramanian have distributed Rs.10 lakhs to the voters; (v) Advocate by name Mr.Thamarai Selvan of Salem District has sent an affidavit stating that the candidate by name Mr.Paramasivam gifted a travel bag to him to tender his vote in favour of Mr.Paramasivam. On those allegations, the 4th respondent in Application No.1739 of 2011 prayed for a direction to the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu not to declare the Bar Council Election results till the disposal of his applications. In Application No.1740 of 2011, 4th respondent prayed to "direct the Addl.D.G.P., Crime Branch C.I.D. to investigate the malpractice/ corrupt practices and other illegal happenings took place during the Bar Council Election and to file a report within two weeks." 11. The factual background of filing of Application – A.Nos.2184 and 2185 of 2011: Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen has filed these applications making allegations without actually naming any particular candidate. In these applications, Mr.N.S.Ziaudeen has alleged that there are F.I.Rs pending against members and further averred that extraneous considerations have played vital part in the election and alleged that a candidate from Salem has given gold coins to the voters along with money and also alleged various corrupt practices. In the said two applications, Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen prayed: (i) to constitute a Special Election Tribunal to enquire into the activities; and (ii) to stay the declaration of results of the elections held on 4.3.2011 pending submission of the report by the Special Election Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. The Judge - Commissioner had also filed the report expressing his concern about certain malpractices brought to his notice. In the report, the Judge – Commissioner expressed his concern about money playing a major part in the election. Observing that serious allegations of corrupt practices are averred in the affidavits and that the Court is continually monitoring the election process, by the impugned order, the learned single Judge interalia issued four major directions: ●(i) Advocate General is discharging the functions of Bar Council and that the Advocate General has consented that the new Election Tribunal could be re-constituted. The Election Tribunal already constituted was superseded and in the place of Election Tribunal already constituted, new Election Tribunal was directed to be constituted. ●(ii) Affidavits of Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran and Ziauddeen and other Advocates P.Vaithialingam, Advocate of Omalur, Mr.Thamarai Selvan, Advocate, Salem, Mr.G.Muniyandi, Advocate, Mettupalayam, Mr.M.Siva Suresh, Advocate, Mettupalayam were ordered to be forwarded to the Election Tribunal. ●(iii) Election Tribunal was directed to hold enquiry and after completion of the enquiry, Election Tribunal was directed to prepare a report regarding its findings and submit the same in a sealed cover to the Court on or before 30.6.2011. ●(iv) Six candidates viz., Mr.K.R.R.Aiyappa Mani, Mr.N.Marappan, Mr.K.Kathiravan, Mr.P.Paramasivam, Mr.V.N.Subramaniam and Mr.S.K.Vel shall not exercise any rights or discharge any functions as elected members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The above six persons may participate in the meetings of the Council, but they shall have no voting rights and the six persons shall not be nominated to any of the Committees of the Bar Council. The six persons shall not be entitled either to contest or to vote in the election to the post of Chairman. ●(v) On the basis of the outcome of the enquiry to be conducted by the Election Tribunal, the election to the post of Chairman shall stand deferred. 13. It is to be pointed out that the appellants, who are the elected members and Mr.K.Kathiravan were not parties in the applications in A.Nos.1739, 1740, 2184 and 2185 of 2011 filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran and Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen. Since the appellants were not parties in those applications, leave was granted to all the appellants to file appeals. On leave granted by this Court, challenging the impugned order, the appellants have preferred appeals. 14. We have heard all the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The Appellant in O.S.A.Nos.122, 123, 148 and 149 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2011 is represented by learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Parthasarathy appearing along with Mr.S.Lakshmanasamy. The Appellant in O.S.A.Nos.144 to 147 of 2011 is represented by Ms.P.T.Asha on behalf of M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates. The Appellant in O.S.A.Nos.126 to 128 and 138 of 2011 is represented by Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel and Mr.S.S.Rajesh. The Appellant in O.S.A.No.129 of 2011 is represented by learned Senior Counsel Mr.Vijay Narayan appearing along with Mr.S.Giridharan. The Appellant in O.S.A.Nos.140 to 143 of 2011 are represented by Ms.Chitra Sampath for M/s.Anand Abdul & Vinodh. We have also heard Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, who appeared as party in person in O.S.A.Nos.154 of 2011 as appellant and in other appeals as respondent. We have heard Mr.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Advocates Association, Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Mr.K.Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India and Mr.A.K.Sriram, learned counsel appearing for Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen. 15. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Vijay Narayan appearing for the Appellant - Mr.S.K.Velu has submitted that all the directions issued by the learned single Judge are in flagrant violation of the statutory rules and no Court can issue directions against the statutory provisions. Placing reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in POONAM VS. SUMITTANWAR, ((2010) 4 SCC 460), the learned Senior Counsel would further contend that Court should not issue any direction to waive the statutory requirement and Court cannot supplant the substantive law by ignoring the statutory provisions. The learned Senior Counsel laid emphasis that there is no provision of law to prevent the Appellant, who was elected as member from functioning as member of the State Bar Council. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the supporting affidavits of three advocates filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran are devoid of material particulars against the appellant. Arguments were also advanced assailing the direction of the learned single Judge reconstituting the Election Tribunal, when Election Tribunal constituted by the State Bar Council is already in existence. 16. On behalf of the appellant - Mr.V.N.Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Parthasarathy has submitted that the the affidavits are bereft of particulars and the impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in all the four applications viz., A.Nos.1739, 1740, 2184 and 2185 of 2011, the six elected candidates were not even made as parties and without impleading them the order came to be passed. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the matter is with reference to the proceedings initiated in the Suit and not in a public interest litigation and in the Civil Suit, the parties are governed by the Civil Procedure Code or the High Court Original Side Rules. Drawing the Court's attention to various affidavits, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the alleged three supporting affidavits of various advocates filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran are bereft of particulars and it would be unsafe to act upon such affidavits and the learned single Judge erred in referring those affidavits to the Election Tribunal. 17. Reiterating the above submissions, onbehalf of the appellant – Mr.P.Paramasivam, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.R.Rajagopal has submitted that when the appellants are elected by large number of legal fraternity, while dealing in a civil suit, the learned single Judge did not have jurisdiction to injunct the elected members from functioning as members. It was further submitted that based on one stray petition/affidavit, the learned single Judge erred in upsetting the entire democratic process of election, which the appellants have gone through. 18. On behalf of the Appellant - Mr.K.R.R.Aiyyappamani, learned Counsel Ms.Chitra Sampath drawing our attention to the various affidavits, has contended that learned single Judge erred in deviating from the statutory provision – Rule 36 of the Election Rules of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. Drawing our attention to the various affidavits, the learned counsel would contend that absolutely there are no specific allegations against the appellant – Aiyyappamani and the affidavits are bereft of particulars. It was further submitted that the averments in the affidavits are only hearsay. The learned counsel would further submit that only after appellant – Aiyyappamani has crossed the mark of the required votes, the applications came to be filed only with a view to discredit the appellant, who was successful in the election. 19. On behalf of the appellant - Mr.N.Marappan, learned counsel Ms.P.T.Asha has submitted that absolutely there is no reference about the appellant in any of the affidavits filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran. While so, the learned single Judge erred in debarring the appellant- Mr.N.Marappan from functioning as a member of the State Bar Council. 20. We have heard Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association. Supporting the findings of the learned single Judge, learned counsel Mr.Prabakaran has mainly assailed the validity of the Resolution dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The main contention of the learned counsel Mr.Prabakaran is that the tenure of the elected members of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu expired even on 12.10.2010 and in the absence of specific communication from Bar Council of India extending their tenure in terms of proviso to Section 8, on 23.12.2010, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was a non-existent body and it cannot pass resolution constituting the Election Tribunal. The learned counsel would further contend that when the term of the then members had already expired, the learned single Judge rightly issued direction re-constituting the Election Tribunal and there is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nothing to show that the single Judge exceeded the jurisdiction. It was further argued that under Section 94(e) of CPC – supplementary proceedings would empower the single Judge to pass appropriate orders to meet the ends