Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Young Lawyers' Association v. Bihar State Bar Council And Others

Patna High Court

Apr 21, 1988

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents (the State Bar Council) to enter in the electoral roll the name of every advocate whose name appears on the State Roll maintained by the Bihar State Bar Council. The petitioner contended that a majority of advocates enrolled on the State Roll were not included in the electoral roll because they did not furnish details in the prescribed forms under Rule 4 of the Bar Council of India Rules (the Rules). The writ challenged the effect of Rule 4 and the procedure followed in preparing the electoral roll.

The State Bar Council's counter-affidavit set out its chronology: the Council resolved to conclude election formalities after the expiry of the Council's tenure (election due 20 April 1985), issued notices and a pro forma declaration form under Rule 4(1) and (2), and repeatedly extended deadlines because only a limited number of declaration forms were returned. The Council later stayed final steps pending proposed amendments to the Election Rules by the Bar Council of India, and subsequently resolved to hold the election on 10 August 1987 and to publish notices inviting outstanding declarations. The petitioner challenged whether the final publication of the electoral roll was made in compliance with Rule 6 of the Rules.

The writ was filed on 17 July 1987 and admitted on 31 July 1987, and election proceedings fixed for 10 August 1987 were stayed. Supplementary materials filed later show that the State Bar Council, by a resolution dated 17 April 1988, resolved to publish fresh notices and invite declarations from (a) advocates enrolled after the last electoral roll, and (b) advocates who failed earlier to submit the prescribed declaration, allowing them to explain the reason for non-submission.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the respondents must enter the name of every advocate appearing on the State Roll in the electoral roll for the State Bar Council election (i.e., whether Rule 3 requires inclusion of every advocate on the State Roll unless disqualified under Rule 2).
Whether Rule 4's requirement that advocates furnish information in a prescribed form (and the consequence of non-furnishing—exclusion from the electoral roll) introduces an additional disqualification not contemplated by Rule 2, and hence whether Rule 4 is valid to that extent.
Whether the State Bar Council complied with Rule 6's requirement for final publication of the electoral roll (publication on the notice board not more than 75 and not less than 60 clear days before the date of election), and the consequences of any non-compliance for advocates who did not earlier furnish information under Rule 4(1).
Whether, in the circumstances of any non-compliance with Rule 6, advocates who failed to furnish information earlier can be considered for inclusion in the electoral roll under Rule 4(3) and Rule 7 (revision if election postponed).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner argued that Rule 3 mandates that the name of every advocate on the State Roll be entered in the electoral roll subject only to the disqualifications listed in Rule 2; therefore, Rule 4's condition (that advocates must furnish prescribed information within specified time or be excluded) effectively creates an additional disqualification not found in Rule 2 and is impermissible.
The petitioner further relied on the procedural requirement of Rule 6 for final publication and contended there was no proper final publication in compliance with Rule 6, so the electoral roll prepared could not validly exclude advocates who had not earlier supplied information.
During hearings the petitioner indicated a willingness not to press a direct challenge to the validity of Rule 4 if the State Bar Council would make a proper final publication and permit inclusion under Rule 4(3), i.e., the petitioner sought corrective administrative action rather than a declaratory invalidation of Rule 4.

Respondent State Bar Council's Position (as per counter-affidavit)

The State Bar Council stated that it issued notices and sent declaration forms under Rule 4(1) and (2), extended submission deadlines several times because only a limited number of forms were returned, and later stayed further action pending possible amendment of election rules by the Bar Council of India.
It resolved at various meetings to proceed with elections (including a resolution to hold an election on 10 August 1987) and to publish notices requesting remaining advocates to submit declarations.
The counter-affidavit did not specify when (if at all) the final electoral roll was published and put on the notice board in the 60–75 day period prior to the scheduled election date as required by Rule 6.

Arguments on behalf of Bar Council of India / Advocate General

The Advocate General, appearing for the Bar Council of India, relied on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Jagdish Chandra Dixit v. Union Govt. of India (Civil Misc. Writ No. 9715 of 1987 disposed of on 11-9-1987) which held that preparation of the electoral roll in accordance with Rule 4(1)(a) was valid and that advocates who did not send information in the prescribed form were rightly excluded from the electoral roll.
Reliance was also placed on a Supreme Court order dated 1-10-1982 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8718 of 1982, Bar Council of India v. Paramjit Singh Goraya, which had directed the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council to prepare a fresh electoral roll in compliance with Rules 4(1) and 4(2) during the pendency of the appeal; it was submitted that the Supreme Court's interim direction indicated satisfaction about the validity of Rules 4(1) and 4(2).
In sum, the Advocate General supported the proposition that non-compliance by an advocate with the requirements of Rule 4 could justify exclusion from the electoral roll, on authority cited.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Jagdish Chandra Dixit v. Union Govt. of India (Allahabad High Court, Civil Misc. Writ No. 9715 of 1987, disposed 11-9-1987)	Held that preparation of the electoral roll in accordance with Rule 4(1)(a) was valid and that advocates who had not sent information in the prescribed form were rightly excluded from the electoral roll.	The Advocate General relied on this decision to support the validity of Rule 4(1). The court recorded this reliance but did not pronounce on the validity of Rule 4 because the petitioner indicated it would not press the validity challenge if the State Bar Council complied with procedural requirements for final publication and reconsideration under Rule 4(3).
Bar Council of India v. Paramjit Singh Goraya (S.L.P. (Civil) No. 8718 of 1982; Supreme Court order dated 1-10-1982)	Interim order directing the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council to prepare a fresh electoral roll in compliance with Rules 4(1) and 4(2) during pendency of appeal; relied upon as indicating the Supreme Court's acceptance of the validity of those rules for interim purposes.	The Advocate General argued that the Supreme Court's interim direction showed satisfaction with Rules 4(1) and 4(2). The court noted the reliance but did not base its decision on this precedent; instead it proceeded to order compliance with Rules 4(3), 6 and 7 because of procedural non-compliance in final publication of the roll.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying the statutory and rule-based framework: Sections 3, 3(2)(b) and 3(4) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council's duty to maintain the State Roll (S.6(1)(b)), and rule-making powers under Sections 15(2)(a) and 49(1)(a)/(ab). It then focused on the Election Rules (Part III Chapter I of the Rules), especially Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 which govern entitlement to vote, disqualifications, preliminary inclusion, notices and publication procedures, and revision of the electoral roll.

The court summarized the petitioner's legal contention: Rule 3 provides that subject to Rule 2 every advocate on the State Roll shall be entered in the electoral roll; Rule 4's requirement to furnish prescribed information before inclusion (and the consequence of non-furnishing) effectively operates as an additional disqualification not contained in Rule 2. The Advocate General countered by relying on two decisions to support the validity of Rule 4 and its operation.

Although the petitioner had initially challenged the validity of Rule 4, during hearing the petitioner agreed not to press that challenge if the State Bar Council would undertake or be directed to make a proper final publication of the electoral roll after following the procedure prescribed under Rule 4(3) read with Rule 6. The court therefore limited its inquiry to whether the State Bar Council had complied with Rule 6's requirements for final publication.

On the evidence before it the court found that the counter-affidavit did not state when the final electoral roll was published and put on the notice board for the mandatory period (not more than 75 and not less than 60 clear days before the date of election) as required by Rule 6. A communication produced by the State Bar Council dated 10 June 1987 stated only that "the Final Electoral Roll has been published and it is under print" but did not state when the roll had been posted in the prescribed notice-board period. Given that the election date of 10 August 1987 required compliance with Rule 6 at least 60 days earlier, the court concluded it could not be satisfied that a valid final publication had occurred in compliance with Rule 6 on the materials on record.

The court observed the practical consequences: there were over 26,000 advocates on the State Roll in 1987, but fewer than 13,000 had returned declarations under Rule 4(1). During pendency of the writ, more than 1,000 advocates had been newly enrolled and would fall for inclusion under Rule 7 if the election were postponed. In light of the absence of proper final publication, the court held that advocates who had not earlier furnished information under Rule 4(1) could still seek inclusion under Rule 4(3), and the State Bar Council was required to consider such applications before finalizing the electoral roll.

The court took into account the State Bar Council's later resolution (17-4-1988) proposing publication of notices inviting declarations from newly enrolled advocates and from those who had not earlier submitted declarations, with opportunity to explain reasons for non-submission. On that basis, and given the petitioner's willingness not to press a validity challenge if procedural compliance were secured, the court directed the State Bar Council to implement the course of action set out in its own resolution and to act liberally in considering applications under Rule 4(3), in view of this being the first election under amended rules and the likely lack of awareness among advocates practising in district and sub-divisional courts.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition was allowed. The court directed the State Bar Council to publish notices (in two daily newspapers and to Bar/Advocates Associations) calling upon (a) advocates enrolled after the publication of the last electoral roll to submit declarations in the prescribed form for inclusion pursuant to Rule 7, and (b) advocates who failed earlier to submit the prescribed declaration to submit those declarations with explanations showing sufficient cause so that their applications can be considered under Rule 4(3). The court ordered that the State Bar Council should take a liberal view in considering applications under Rule 4(3) and endeavoured that the election be held before 31 December 1988. There was no order as to costs.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: the State Bar Council was directed to take concrete procedural steps (publication of notices and reconsideration of inclusions) to ensure advocates who were omitted through lack of opportunity are given a fair opportunity to be included in the electoral roll and to participate in the election.
The court did not decide the broader constitutional or rule-validity question regarding Rule 4's compatibility with Rule 2; instead, because the petitioner agreed to forego pressing that challenge if procedural compliance were provided, the court addressed and remedied the procedural non-compliance (Rule 6) and ordered reconsideration under Rule 4(3) and revision under Rule 7 where applicable.
No new precedent or declaratory pronouncement on the validity of Rule 4 was made; the decision remedies procedural defects and mandates implementation of the Rules' procedural safeguards so that excluded advocates may be considered for inclusion.

Order contained in the opinion: "This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. But in circumstances of the case there shall be no order for costs. Petition allowed."

Show all summary ...

1. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enter the name of every advocate, whose name appears in the State roll, maintained by the Bihar State Bar Council (hereinafter referred to as the State Bar Council’), in the electoral roll which is being prepared by the State Bar Council for the election of the members of the State Bar Council.

2. According to the petitioner majority of the advocates who have been enrolled by the State Bar Council and whose names appear on the State Roll have not been included in the electoral roll prepared for the election to be held. This happened because the advocates, who have been practising in the different district courts and Sub-Divisional Courts, had no information that before their names are entered in the electoral roll they have to furnish the details in the prescribed forms in terms of Rule 4 of the Bar Council of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).

3. In view of S. 3(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for each State there has to be a Bar Council. Sub-section (2) of S. 3 prescribes the details of the members of that Bar Council. Section 3(2)(b) which is relevant in the present case is as follows:—

“3(2) A State Bar Council shall consist of the following members, namely;

(a) xxxxxxxxxx

(b) In the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate not exceeding five thousand, fifteen members, in the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding five thousand but not exceeding ten thousand, twenty members, and in the case of State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding ten thousand, twenty five members, elected in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote from amongst advocates on the electoral roll of the State Bar Council.

Provided that as nearly as possible one half of such elected members shall, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf by the Bar Council of India, be persons who have for at least ten years been advocates on a State roll, and in computing the said period of ten years in relation to any such person, there shall be included any period during which the person has been an advocate enrolled under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926.”

Section 3(4) is also relevant:

“3(4) An Advocate shall be disqualified from voting at an election under sub-sec. (2) or for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a State Bar Council, unless he possesses such qualifications or satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf by the Bar Council of India, and subject to any such rules that may be made, an electoral roll shall be prepared and revised from time to time by each State Bar Council”

In view of S. 6(1)(b) of the Act the Bar Council has to prepare and maintain the State Roll. The relevant part of S. 15(2)(a) is as follows:—

“15(2). In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for:—

(a) the election of members of the Bar Council by secret ballot including the conditions subject to which persons can exercise the right to vote by postal ballot, the preparation and revision of electoral rolls and the manner in which the results of election shall be published.”

Section 49(1)(a) and (ab) prescribe:—

“49. (1). The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe—

(a) the conditions subject to which an advocate may be entitled to vote at an election to the State Bar Council including the qualifications or disqualifications of voters, and the manner in which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared and revised by State Bar Council;

(ab) qualifications for membership of a Bar Council and the disqualifications for such membership;”

4. In exercise of the powers under Ss. 3(4); 15(2)(a) and 49(1)(a) and (ab) of the Act, in Part III Chapter I of the Rules, specific rules have been framed in respect of preparation of electoral roll, prescribing qualification and disqualification of advocates whose names have to be entered in such electoral roll. In view of R. 1 every advocate, whose name is on the Electoral Roll of the State Bar Council shall be entitled to vote at an election. Rule 2 prescribes that the name of an advocate appearing in the State Roll shall not be on the Electoral Roll, “if on information furnished by the advocate concerned in terms of R. 4, or obtained by the State Bar Council concerned,” he is subject to disqualification mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of R. 2. It may be mentioned that clauses (a) to (g) mention several disqualifications including that the advocate concerned has suspended his practice, is an undischarged insolvent, is in full-time service etc. Rules 3 and 4, which have a direct bearing on the controversy which has been raised in this writ application are as follows:—

“3. Subject to the provisions of R. 2, the name of every advocate entered in the State Roll shall be entered in the electoral roll of the State Council.

4(1) In preparing the Electoral Roll, unless the State Bar Council concerned is already maintaining a list of advocates who are entitled to be voters in terms of R. 2 of these Rules, at least 150 days before the date of election, shall publish notice issued by the Secretary of the State Bar Council concerned in prescribed form in the Official Gazette and in two or more local newspapers one English and the other a local language, as may be decided by the State Bar Council, asking each of the advocates on the Roll of the concerned State Bar Council to intimate the State Bar Council within the time to be specified in the said notice or within such extended times may be given/allowed by the State Bar Council for reason to be recorded, as to whether he has incurred any disqualification mentioned in R. 2 of these Rules (Rule 2 has to be quoted in the notice). By the said notice the Secretary shall also inform the advocates concerned that unless informations required by the said notice in question is received by the State Bar Council in the prescribed form or forms exactly similar thereto within the specified time or within the extended time as stated herein above, his name shall not be included in the Electoral Roll and he shall not be entitled to take part in the election in question.

(2) The Secretary of the State Bar Council shall also send a similar notice along with a prescribed form to all advocates on the Roll of the State Bar Council concerned at their respective addresses as maintained by the State Bar Council in ordinary post with certificate of posting, asking the advocate concerned to furnish all the information mentioned in the said notice and in the form attached therewith or in a form exactly similar thereto either typed, printed or cyclostyled, within the time specified in the notice. Unless such informations are furnished within the time specified the name of the advocate concerned shall not be included in the electoral roll and he shall not be entitled to take part in the election in question.

(3) Before final publication of Electoral Roll a State Bar Council may, if satisfied, on an application made by any particular advocate giving sufficient reasons for not being able to furnish the informations sought in terms of this Rule, allow the name of the advocate who has made such application to be included in the Electoral Roll in question, and on such inclusion advocate concerned shall be entitled to take part in the election in question. Any accidental omission to send this personal notice to any advocate or advocates shall not invalidate the election.”

5. According to the petitioner name of every advocate should be entered in the Electoral Roll, if his name appears on the State Roll and he does not suffer from any disqualification mentioned in R. 2. The additional condition, prescribed by R. 4 that the name of an advocate is not to be included in the Electoral Roll if he has failed to furnish the information required by the Bar Council, within the specified time, in the prescribed form, amounts to introducing an additional disqualification, which has not been mentioned in R. 2. It was pointed out that in view of R. 3 the name of every advocate entered in the State Roll has to be entered in the Electoral Roll of the State Bar Council subject to the provisions of R. 2 only. But if the name of an advocate who has not furnished the information required pursuant to the notice issued by the Bar Council in the prescribed form is not to be included in the Electoral Roll, it will amount to reading R. 3 subject to R. 4 as well, although R. 3 does not say so in so many words.

6. The learned Advocate General appearing for the Bar Council of India, placed reliance on a judgment of Allahabad High Court in Jagdish Chandra Dixit v. Union Govt. of India, Civil Misc. Writ No. 9715 of 1987 disposed of on 11-9-1987* where it was held that the preparation of the Electoral Roll in accordance with Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules was perfectly valid and the advocates who had not sent information in prescribed form had been rightly excluded from the Electrol Roll. Reliance was also placed on an order passed by the Supreme Court on 1-10-1982 in S.L.P (Civil) No. 8718 of 1982 Bar Council of India v. Paramjit Singh Goraya directing the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council to prepare fresh Electoral Roll in compliance with R. 4(1)(2) of the Rules during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court. It was submitted on behalf of the Bar Council of India that although the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court was an interim direction, but it should be presumed that the Supreme Court before issuing that direction was satisfied about the validity of R. 4(1) and (2) of the Rules.

7. In view of the challenge regarding the validity of the R. 4 we would have examined that question in detail, but during hearing of this writ application, on behalf of the petitioner it was stated that if the State Bar Council undertakes or is directed to make a proper final publication of the Electoral Roll after following the procedure prescribed under R. 4(3) read with R. 6, then the petitioner shall not insist on examining the validity of the R. 4 because if the procedure for final publication of the Electoral Roll is followed from the stage of Rule 4(3) read with R. 6, the advocates, who could not avail the opportunity provided to them at the stage of R. 4(1) of the Rules, their names can still be included in the Electoral Roll.

8. From a bare reference to R. 4(3) it appears that before final publication of the Electoral Roll the State Bar Council, if satisfied, on an application made by any particular advocate giving sufficient reason for not being able to furnish the information sought in terms of that Rule, has to allow the name of such advocate to be included in the Electoral Roll in question and on such inclusion such advocate or advocates, as the case may be, shall be entitled to take part in the election in question. Rule 6 of the Rules is as follows:—

“6. The final electoral roll shall be prepared after incorporating such changes as may be necessary including the addition of the names of advocates enrolled after the preparation of the preliminary roll and put up on the notice board of the State Council not more than 75 clear days and not less than 60 clear days, before the date of election. (Intimation of such publication shall be given within a week after the publication to the Bar Association aforesaid).”

In view of Rule 6 of the Rules the final Electoral Roll has to be prepared after incorporating such changes as may be necessary, including the addition of the names of the advocates enrolled after the preparation of the preliminary roll which shall be put up on the notice board of the State Bar Council for not more than 75 clear days and not less than 60 clear days, before the date of election.

9. On behalf of the petitioner it was pointed out that there has been no final publication of the Electoral Roll in accordance with the requirement of R. 6. From the statements made on behalf of the petitioner in the writ application and the State Bar Council in the counter-affidavit it appears that the election of the members of the State Bar Council became due on 20th April, 1985 after the expiry of the tenure of the members of the State Bar Council. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that by a resolution dated 8-9-1985 it was decided by the State Bar Council to conclude the election by the 15th April, 1986. Accordingly, individual notice to each advocate whose name stood on the State Roll of the State Bar Council was issued annexing the pro forma of the declaration form to be submitted by advocates in accordance with R. 4(1) and (2) of the Rules. The notice was also published in two daily newspapers of Bihar requesting the advocate to furnish the details in prescribed form in accordance with rules. It has been stated that only a few declaration forms were received and hence the date for submission of form was further extended to 31-1-1986, by resolution dated 24-11-1985, which was again extended to 31-5-1986. In the meeting of the State Bar Council held on 18-5-1986 it was discovered that only 13,000 declaration forms had been received till that date, hence the period for receiving such declaration forms was extended to 15-7-1986. In the meantime, a letter dated 18-6-1986 was received from the Bar Council of India intimating to the State Bar Council that steps were being taken to amend the Election Rules. In view of the aforesaid communication in the meeting of the State Bar Council held on 20-7-1986 it was resolved to stay all steps in the matter of preparation of Electoral Roll till the Election Rules are finalised by the Bar Council of India. According to the counter-affidavit aforesaid, in the meeting of the State Bar Council held on 15-2-1987 it was resolved that the election be held on 10-8-1987 in accordance with the existing Election Rules. It was also decided to publish notice in two daily newspapers published from Patna about the date of the election. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that on 15-2-1987 it was further resolved to publish notice in two newspapers requesting fall Advocates to submit the prescribed declaration forms, if they had not done so far.”

10. In the counter-affidavit no statement has been made as to when the final publication of Electoral Roll in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules was made. The petitioner has stated in the supplementary affidavit that it was made on 10th July, 1987. During the hearing of this writ application the counsel for the State Bar Council produced a copy of the communication dated 10th June, 1987, addressed to the President of all the Bar/Advocates/Lawyers' Association informing that “the Final Electoral Roll has been published and it is under print.” Neither there is any statement in the counter-affidavit nor in the aforesaid communication as to when the aforesaid final Electoral Roll was published and “put upon the notice board of the State Bar Council for not more than 75 clear days and not less than 60 clear days before the date of election” as required by R. 6 of the Rules. If 10-8-1987 had been fixed as the date for election the procedure prescribed by R. 6 of the Rules should have been followed at least 60 days before 10th Aug. 1987. In such a situation, it is difficult to hold on the materials on record that there has been a final publication of the Electoral Roll in accordance with R. 6 of the Rules aforesaid on the basis of which an election could have been held on 10th Aug. 1987. However, the present writ application was filed on 17th July, 1987 and admitted on 31st July, 1987, when the election which was to be held on 10th Aug. 1987 was stayed.

11. Once it is held that there has been non-compliance of R. 6 of the Rules in respect of the final publication of the Electoral Roll, then certainly the advocates, who could not furnish information sought in terms of R. 4(1) can furnish those informations in accordance with R. 4(3), which has to be considered by the State Bar Council for the purpose of inclusion of their names in the Electoral Roll. During the hearing of this writ application it transpired that there were over 26,000 advocates on the State Roll in the year 1987 out of which less than 13000 only furnished the information in accordance with R. 4(1) of the Rules. We are informed that during the pendency of this writ application mora than 1,000 Advocates have since been enrolled, who are entitled to get their names included in the Electoral Roll in view of Rule 7 of the Rules, which is as follows:—

“7. REVISION OF ELECTORAL ROLL: If for any reason the election to the State Council is postponed beyond the date of expiry of the term of its members the preliminary or the final electoral roll shall be revised so as to include therein the names of advocates enrolled up to 75 clear days before the date of the election.”

In such a situation it has to be held that the names of majority of the advocates have not been included in the Electoral Roll either due to fault of advocates concerned or due to lack or (sic) sufficient notice to them because of which they could not furnish the requisite information for the purpose of their names being included in the Electoral Roll.

12. It may be mentioned that during hearing of this writ application a supplementary counter affidavit, has been filed on behalf of State Bar Council, saying that a meeting of the State Bar Council was held on 17-4-1988 in which questions raised in this writ application were considered and it was resolved that in the general interest of the Bar as well to facilitate an early election, to again “publish notice in two daily newspapers published from Patna and to send notices to each Bar/Advocates Association in the State calling upon advocates who have been and may be enrolled after the publication of the last Electoral Roll to submit declaration in the prescribed form for inclusion of their names in the Electoral Roll.” It was further resolved by State Bar Council that, “by the same notice other advocates who did not submit the declaration in prescribed form within the specified time may also submit such declaration form in the prescribed form with explanation showing sufficient cause for not submitting such form earlier.”

13. In view of our finding that there has been no proper publication of the final Electoral Roll in accordance with R. 6 of the Rules, and the stand taken by the State Bar Council itself, we direct that in terms of the aforesaid resolution dated 17-4-1988 of the State Bar Council notices be published in two daily newspapers and notices be also issued to each Bar/Advocates Associations in the State, calling upon the advocates, who have been enrolled after the publication of the last Electoral Roll, to submit declaration in the prescribed form for inclusion of their names in the final Electoral Roll in accordance with R. 7 of the Rules. We further direct that in that very notice the State Bar Council shall also request such advocates, who could not submit the declarations in the prescribed forms within the specified time to submit such declaration forms within the period fixed in the such notices. In view of the fact that this is the first election, which is being held, in accordance with amended rules, it can be presumed that the advocates practising in different district courts and sub-divisional courts did not have knowledge of the procedure regarding furnishing their particulars for being enrolled as voters, as such, while considering their applications under R. 4(3) of the Rules, it is expected that the State Bar Council shall take a liberal view on the question of their not furnishing the particulars so required pursuant to the earlier notices already issued. It is expected that all steps shall be taken so that the election of the members of the State Bar Council is held before 31st Dec. 1988.

14. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. But in circumstances of the case there shall be no order for costs.

Petition allowed.