IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.161 OF 2009 Kailash Joshi ...….. Appellant Versus Bar Council of Uttarakhand through its Secretary, Uttarakhand, Nainital and another …….Respondents Dated: 24.08.2009 Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Yogesh Pacholia with Mr. Navnesh Negi, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Sunil UPadhyaya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Bhaskar Chand Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2009 primarily on the ground that the election process once has begun, the same cannot be stalled or stopped until it is over. In the course of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has made an observation about the appellant’s grievance with respect to the non-refundability of security deposit of Rs.15,000/- to be made by every intending candidate. Whereas we agree with the learned Single Judge that the election process once begun should not be allowed to be stalled, in so far as the non-refundability aspect of the security deposit is concerned, we have noted the oral submission made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant that the non-refundability of security deposit has been provided for in Rule 8(iii) of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand Election Rules- 2009. If there is a statutory provision with respect to the non- refundability of the deposit, unless the statutory provision is quashed or set aside or declared illegal or ultra vires, no relief can be granted to anyone. On this being pointed out, learned counsel for the appellant makes an oral prayer that the appellant be permitted to amend the writ petition to lay a challenge to the aforesaid statutory provision enacted u/s 15 of Advocates Act, 1961. We find force in the aforesaid submission and prayer and granting the same, permit the appellant to amend the writ petition to the aforesaid extent. As a consequence, even while the impugned judgment is upheld in so far as the refusal of any interim relief to the appellant is concerned, Writ Petition No.1318 (M/S) of 2009 is revived. The appellant/writ petitioner shall file amended writ petition within this week with advance copy to the learned counsel opposite, who shall file counter affidavits in reply thereto in two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, will be filed in one week thereafter. The writ petition shall be listed for consideration before the appropriate Bench in the week commencing 5th October, 2009. Special appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 24.08.2009 RG