Case: PRATAP MEHTA Vs. SUNIL GUPTA

2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding these appeals are:State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh held the elections for its constituent members in the month of May-June, 2014. After declaration of the result notice dated 09.06.2014 was issued for holding the first meeting of newly elected members on 29.06.2014. Agenda for the meeting to be held on 29.06.2014 was to conduct the elections for the various offices and the Committees of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh including the office of its representative member in the Bar Council of India. In these appeals we are concerned only with one Agenda item which is to the following effect:al No.1: Discussion, consideration and decision regarding the election of the representative member of the Bar Council for the Bar Council of India.Pursuant to notice dated 09.06.2014, a meeting was held on 29.06.2014, which was presided over by the Advocate General of the State of Madhya Pradesh and was attended by all the 25 members of the State Bar Council of M.P. In the meeting, one Shri Rameshwar Neekhra was elected as Chairman.The case of the respondents, who were writ petitioners before the High Court was that in the said meeting, election for other office bearers including election for representative member of the State Bar Council to Bar Council of India was held in which Shri Sunil Gupta was unanimously elected. Shri Sunil Gupta, also started working as member representative in the Bar Council of India. On 29.06.2014, 9 members of the State Bar Council wrote a letter to its Secretary requesting him to organise a meeting for conducting elections to the various offices and Committees of the State Bar Council. It was further alleged in the letter that after the election of Chairman on 29.06.2014, the meeting has been adjourned and the members without any further notice to the members who had thereafter left the place of meeting, reconvened the meeting and elected Shri Sunil Gupta as representative of the Bar Council of India. A letter dated 13.07.2014 was also sent to the above effect by 13 members.On 13.07.2014 another letter was sent to the Secretary by 13 members requesting to consider a no- confidence motion under Rule 122A of the State Bar Council of M.P. Rules against Shri Rameshwar Neekhra, the Chairman. Taking cognizance of the letters dated 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 sent by various members to the Secretary, notice dated 16.07.2014/19.07.2014 was issued to the members of State Bar Council informing them of a special meeting scheduled to be held on 02.08.2014 for deciding the issues brought forth in the said letters. The special meeting was convened on 02.08.2014. The proposed no-confidence motion against Chairman was withdrawn, Chairman relying on the various letters sent by the members declared all the elections held on 29.06.2014 except his own, as void. All the office bearers and members who were elected on 29.06.2014 submitted their resignations from their respective posts except Shri Sunil Gupta who refused to resign as representative to the Bar Council of India. On 02.08.2014, election of several officer bearers including representative to the Bar Council of India was conducted in which Shri Pratap Mehta was declared elected as representative of the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India.6. Aggrieved by the Resolution dated 02.08.2014 electing Shri Pratap Mehta, Election Petition No.01/2014 was filed by Shri Sunil Gupta before the Bar Council of India. During pendency of the aforesaid Election Petition, State Bar Council passed Resolution on 07.02.2015, with a majority of 17 votes, withdrawing its earlier Resolution dated 02.08.2014, thereby re- affirming that Shri Sunil Gupta is its representative member in the Bar Council of India. Shri Sunil Gupta filed an application on 11.02.2015 before the Bar Council of India for seeking leave to withdraw his Election Petition No.01/2014. However, instead of permitting for withdrawal, Chairman of the Bar Council of India passed an order dated 16.11.2015 observing that Pratap Mehta has prima facie case, hence, he permitted Pratap Mehta to join as representative of the State Bar Council in the Bar Council of India pending the final report of the sub-committee which was constituted for enquiring into the elections of Shri Sunil Gupta and Shri Pratap Mehta. The sub-committee submitted its report in which report sub-committee found that election of Shri Sunil Gupta cannot be held to be valid as representative of State Bar Council in the Bar Council of India rather it is Shri Pratap Mehta who was elected on 02.08.2014 in continuation of the meeting held on 29.06.2014 which meeting was held to dispose of and transact the un-transacted business which was fixed for 29.06.2014. The Bar Council of India passed an order dated 05.12.2015, dismissing the Election Petition filed by Shri Sunil Gupta. Bar Council of India held that there is no infirmity in the election of Shri Pratap Mehta as representative to the Bar Council of India.The State Bar Council of M.P. withdrew Writ Petition (C) No.No.973 of 2016 challenging order dated 16.11.2015 and Writ Petition(C) No.2142 of 2016 was filed by the State Bar Council of M.P. challenging order dated 05.12.2015 of the Bar Council of India. Another Writ Petition (C)No.2215 of 2016 was filed by Shri Sunil Gupta challenging order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Bar Council of India. Both the writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge and have been decided by a common judgment dated 06.07.2018. Learned Single Judge held that election of Shri Sunil Gupta as representative in the Bar Council of India dated 29.06.2014 is not valid. Learned Single Judge also held that election dated 02.08.2014 electing Shri Pratap Mehta as representative in the Bar Council of India is also not valid it having been held contrary to the Bar Council of India Rules.The learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 06.07.2018 allowed few of the prayers made by writ petitioners, however, certain other prayers were refused. Allowing the petition, learned Single Judge held that election of representative in Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh held on 29.06.2014 as well as 02.08.2014 were both invalid.In the circumstances, learned Single Judge took the view that the State Bar Council cannot be without any representative in the Bar Council of India, hence he directed for holding of fresh elections by the State Bar Council to elect its representative in the Bar Council of India. Paragraph 45 of the judgment contains the operative portion of the judgment, which is to the followingThe prayers in the writ petitions, so far as they seek implementation of the Petitioners Resolutions dated 29.06.2014 and07.02.2015 electing the Respondent No. 3 as a member representative of Petitioner/SBCMP in the Respondent No.1/BCI, are rejected. However, the prayer quashing the Respondent No. 1s Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015 isallowed and accordingly the Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015 is quashed and set aside. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2142/2016, i.e., the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh is directed to hold within a period of 4 weeks, fresh elections for electing its representative member in the Respondent No.1/BCI by following the procedure as prescribed in the BCI Rules. Upon the Petitioner communicating the result of the election to be held in terms of the aforesaid directions to the Respondent No. 1/BCI, the said Respondent No. 1 would take consequential steps to include the name of the person elected by the Petitioner/SBCMP as its representative member in the Respondent No. 1/BCI.Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.07.2018, Shri Pratap Mehta and Bar Council of India filed letters patent appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. All the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 17.07.2018. Shri Pratap Mehta aggrieved by said judgment has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 8172-8173 of 2018 whereas Bar Council of India has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 8174-8177 of 2018. All the appeals have been heard together.

Court's reasoning:
18. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules indicate that for holding election of a member of Bar Council of India to be elected by State Bar Council, notice and agenda has to be issued by the Secretary of the State Bar Council, which is a statutory requirement. There is no issue between the parties regarding the fact that agenda dated 09.06.2014 was issued for the meeting of the members of the State Bar Council on 29.06.2014 including the agenda for electing a member from the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India as noticed above. Minutes of the meeting dated 29.06.2014 has been brought on the record in Civil Appeal Nos. 8174-8177 of 2018 as Annexure A4. A perusal of the proceeding indicates that all 25 elected members and learned Advocate General, who is Ex-officio member was present and meeting started at 11.00 am and by 12.00 noon, the election of the Chairman was completed. The Minutes record that for greeting the newly elected Chairman and to see-off learned Advocate General, the proceeding of the meeting were stayed/adjourned and thereafter again the meeting started in presence of members for election of rest of the office bearers and members of the Committees.It is clear from the aforesaid that notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 were issued not for convening any adjourned meeting rather special meeting was convened to consider two set of letters given by members of the Council requesting for convening a meeting for holding elections of office bearers and the members of different Committees including representative to Bar Council of India and for considering no confidence motion against the Chairman of the State Bar Council. In the notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as notice dated 19.07.2014, the subject of special meeting was thus for disposal of letters received by the members of the Council. It is to be noted that the minutes of the proceeding dated 29.06.2014 has recorded and signed by Chairman containing the election of not only the Chairman rather election of other office bearers and different representatives, which is clear from the proceedings brought on the record by Bar Council of India itself as Annexure A4. It is a well established principle that minutes of the proceeding signed by the Chairman are prima facie evidence of proceeding and decisions recorded therein are deemed to be valid until contrary is proved.Thus, the letters issued by the members on 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 raised a dispute containing allegations disputing minutes of the proceeding of the meeting dated 29.06.2014. Thus, it was a disputed matter as to what actually happened on 29.06.2014, i.e. as to whether the election of other office bearers and representatives were validly completed on 29.06.2014 or after the election of the Chairman, the meeting was adjourned. This dispute was to be resolved in the special meeting dated 02.08.2014, which was clearly indicated by notice dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 as indicated above. The issue of agenda alongwith the notice is requirement of a valid meeting and it is only in context of adjourned meeting that no fresh agenda need to be issued. The notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 having not contained any agenda and the meeting also not being described as adjourned meeting, issuance of agenda for the meeting was necessary. Issuance of an agenda, if any election was to be conducted on 02.08.2014 was necessary.We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the view of the High Court - both of learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench that no election could have been conducted on 02.08.2014 for electing member to the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council. Further, the election of the member to the Bar Council of India is statutorily regulated by Bar Council of India Rules and Rule 7 require notice by the Secretary of the State Council fixing a date for the election of the member to the Council. The notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 cannot be read as notice as required under Rule 7 for holding election of a member to the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council, hence, the conduct of election of a member as a representative from State Bar Council to Bar Council of India in the meeting dated 02.08.2014 cannot be said to be in conformity with Rule 7 of Bar Council of India Rules. The High Court was, thus, clearly right in its view that election of Shri Pratap Mehta on 02.08.2014 as member of the Bar Council of India was not a valid election. The learned Single Judge having already taken a view that election dated 29.06.2014 electing Shri Sunil Gupta as the representative to the Bar Council of India was not a valid election, which issue was not, however, agitated either by the State Council or by Shri Sunil Gupta, there is no need to ponder over the above election. Both the elections dated 29.06.2014 and 02.08.2014 to elect a member in the Bar Council of India having been held to be invalid, the High Court was right in issuing directions for conducting a fresh election to elect a member in the Bar Council of India, which was necessary and just.Applying the above proposition in the present case, it was clear that High Court had referred to statutory provisions of Bar Council of India Rules and came to the conclusion that there was no notice of agenda for holding election of the State Bar Council member in the Bar Council of India for meeting dated 02.08.2014. An obvious error of law was committed by Bar Council of India in dismissing the election petition of Shri Sunil Gupta. The High Court was right in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction to set aside the erroneous order of the Bar Council of India. The High Court was, thus, well within its jurisdiction in deciding the writ petition and submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the writ petition.Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on K. Narasimhiah Vs. H.C. Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 SCC 330. In the above case, this Court held that three days clear notice to Councillors for holding a special general meeting is not mandatory. What was held that period of notice in the facts of that case was not mandatory. Present is not a case where any one has complained that there was no notice for meeting to be held on 02.08.2014. In the above case also, the notice was received by members, some of them have received three days notice, some of them had received notice of less than three days. In the above circumstances, this Court held that provision of three days notice was only directory and not mandatory. The said judgment has no application in the present case.