UNREPORTED * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 21/2008 and CM Nos.548-551/2008 % Date of Decision: 14th January, 2008 SUNITA RANI SHARMA ..... Appellant Through: In person versus DELHI BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS ..... Respondents Through CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT % 14.01.2008 : DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the grievances of the appellant should be raised before the appropriate forum and the said dispute should be allowed to be resolved through arbitration. 2. The appellant herein filed a writ petition in this Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the Delhi Bar Association to hand over to her complete charge of the library as she allegedly was elected to the post of Library In-charge on 29.09.2006. LPA 21/2008 Page 1 of 4 3. The appellant, who appears in person, has submitted before us that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the Delhi Bar Association as, according to her, the Delhi Bar Association has failed to discharge statutory duties, which are cast upon them. She has also assailed the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge contending, inter alia, that the said findings are wrong and erroneous. She has specifically stated before us that the Constitution of the Delhi Bar Association does not permit resolution of dispute by filing a suit, but has fairly submitted that such disputes, if any, could be resolved through the process of arbitration, for which there is a specific provision in the said Constitution of the Delhi Bar Association. 4. The learned Single Judge has held that the grievance of the appellant is directed against the functioning of the Delhi Bar Association, which is a registered Society, comprising of Advocates who practise in the law courts of Delhi. In the particular issue which is raised, it was held that, there is no element of public law, and only because the Delhi Bar Council donates money occasionally for the functioning of the Delhi Bar Association, the same would not equate the Bar Association to an authority or a public body against which proceedings are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. We find no error in the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge. The Delhi Bar Council, no doubt, discharges a statutory obligation as cast upon it, but same LPA 21/2008 Page 2 of 4 position cannot be said to be applicable so far as the Delhi Bar Association is concerned, which is a registered Society. The Constitution of the Delhi Bar Association also specifically provides that any dispute between a member of the Society and the Society, i.e., the Delhi Bar Association should be resolved through the process of arbitration. There is no element of public law involved in the issue which is sought to be raised nor in the dispute which is sought to be raised in the present writ petition and the appeal arising therefrom. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in holding that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Appellant appearing in person relies upon a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of V. Abdul Azeez and Ors. vs. The Alappuzha Bar Association and Anr. reported in AIR 1993 Kerala 201. The facts of the said case are completely different as the Bar Association had expelled certain members. A learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court held that the fundamental right of the members concerned to practise their profession was violated by their expulsion from the Bar Association and, therefore, it was held that the writ petition is maintainable. It was observed that since welfare stamps to be affixed on every vakalat could be sold by the Bar Association only to members of the Association, expulsion from membership of the Bar Association virtually disabled the petitioners from practising the profession. Clearly, the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and, therefore, have no application in the present case, as we have already held, no issue of public law is LPA 21/2008 Page 3 of 4 involved. LPA 21/2008 and CM Nos.548-551/2008 are accordingly dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL, J JANUARY 14, 2008 km LPA 21/2008 Page 4 of 4