Mohta Anoop V., J.:— I have had the privilege to read the judgment and the views expressed by learned Brother F.I Rebello, J., and with utmost respect, I disagree with the views and the conclusions expressed on the issue of declaring Rules 6(h), 32(g) of the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa Election Rules (for short, “Election Rules”) ultra vires to sections 3(2)(b), 3(4) and 49(1)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, “the Advocates Act”).

2. The events which led to filing of the present writ petition and as necessary, are as under: The petitioner is a practicing Advocate and an elected member of the State Bar Council of Maharashtra (State Bar Council). The last elections of the State Bar Council held on 4th March, 2004 and gazetted on 23rd April, 2004. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Election Rules 6(h)(i), 32(g) and the said election in which he himself got elected for a five year term.

3. The relevant sections under which Election Rules are framed vide sections 3(2)(b), 3(4), 3(5), 6(1)(g), 10-B, 15(1), 15(2)(a) and (d), 15(3) and 49(1)(a), (ab) and (ac) of the Advocates Act, are as under:

3. State Bar Councils.-(1)…..

(2). A State Bar Council shall consist of the following members, namely:—

(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 the State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding ten thousand, twenty-five members, elected in accordance with the system of proportional re-presentation by means of the single transferable vote from amongst advocates on the electoral roll of the State Bar Council.

(4). An Advocate shall be disqualified from voting at an election under sub-section (2) or for being chosen as, and for being, a member of 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.

(5). Nothing in the proviso to sub-section (2) shall affect the term of office of any member elected before the commencement of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1964 (21 of 1964), but every election after such commencement shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Rules made by the Bar Council of India to give effect to the said proviso.

6. Functions of State Bar Councils.-(1) The functions of a State Bar Council shall be-…………..

(g) to provide for the election of its members;

(h) to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under this Act.

15. Power to make roles.-(1) A Bar Council may make rules to carry out the purposes of this Chapter.

(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 result of election shall be published.

(3). No rules made under this section by a State Bar Council shall have effect unless they have been approved by the Bar Council of India.

49. General power of the Bar Connell of India to make Rules.- (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 a State Bar Council.

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

(ac) the time within which and the manner in which effect may be given to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section (3).

-----------

4. The concerned Election Rules are as under:

Rule 3. Interpretation.- In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires.-

-----------

(1) “First preference” means the figure ‘1’ or ‘1st’ or ‘one’ or ‘first’ or ‘I’ set opposite the name of a candidate; “Second Preference” means figure ‘2’ or “2nd’ or ‘two’ or ‘second’ or ‘II’ set opposite the name of a candidate and “Third preference” means the figure ‘3’ or ‘3rd’ or ‘three’ or ‘third’ or ‘III’ set opposite the name of a candidate and so on.

5. -----------

(t) “Transfer Vote” in relation to any candidate means a vote the value or part of the value of which is credited to such candidate and which is derived from a voting paper on which a second or a subsequent preference is recorded for such candidate;

-----------

(w) “Voter” means an Advocate of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and whose name is entered on the Final Electoral roll of the Council.

6. The name of an Advocate appearing in the Bar Council Roll shall not be on the Electoral Roll, if on information received or otherwise obtained by the Bar Council that:—

(a)………

(b)………

(c)………

(d)………

(e)………

(f)………

(g)………

(h) if he has not paid the subscription under Rule 40, Chapter II, Part VI of the rules and obtained receipt from the State Bar Council.

(i) he has incurred any disqualification mentioned in the Act or the Rules made thereunder.

Explanation: If an Advocate who has incurred any disqualification as referred to in Rule 6 and does not furnish details about it as required in the notice under Rule 8 of these Rules within the time specified shall be deemed to have committed an act of other misconduct as referred to in section 35(1) of the Act.”

15. Method of election.- (i) Election to the Bar Council shall be by the single transferable vote by and amongst the voters in the electoral roll in accordance with these rules.

(ii) The voting shall be by personal ballot at the seat of the High Court, District Court and Taluka Court as shall be decided by the Bar Council.

Explanation.— (1) If there is no Court at the Taluka, the voters from such taluka shall vote at the place of the Court which has jurisdiction over such taluka or at such place as may be, directed by the Secretary:

Provided that, where a voter ordinarily practises beyond the territories of the States of Maharashtra and Goa, he shall vote at such place within the States of Maharashtra and Goa as may be intimated by him and where a polling booth is provided, at least 120 days before the date of election:

Provided further that as far as City of Mumbai is concerned, election shall be held at such place as the Council/Secretary deems fit and proper.

(2). An Advocate shall be deemed ordinarily to practice at the place which is given in his address in the electoral roll.”

31. Method of Voting.- (1) voter shall be entitled to mark his preferences to all the candidates appearing in the voting paper in the form mentioned herein below and such preferences shall not be less than to 10 candidates.

(2). A voter giving his vote-

(a) shall place on his voting paper the figure ‘I’ or ‘1st’ or ‘First’ or ‘I’ in the space opposite the name of the candidate whom he chooses for his first preference and;

(b) May in addition place on his voting paper the figure or ‘2nd’ or ‘two’ or ‘second’ or ‘II’ or figures ‘2’ or “2nd’ or ‘two’ or ‘second’ or ‘II’ and ‘3’ or ‘3rd’ or ‘three’ or ‘third’ or ‘III’ and ‘4’ or ‘4th’ or ‘four’ or ‘fourth’ or TV and so on, in the space opposite the names of the other candidates in the order of his preference.

6. As per Rule 24, there are instructions circulated for the guidance of voters which gives the detail of the number of members to be elected i.e 25. The voting should be by the single transferable preference vote. A schedule is also provided with an illustration of the procedure as to the counting of votes with many more needed details.

7. Admittedly, on 14th August, 2003 a notification declaring the elections of the Bar Council of Maharashtra was published and gazetted on 21st August, 2003, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S.L.P No. 11841 of 2003 filed by one Advocate Mr. Parihar, on 5th September, 2003 passed an order dissolving the earlier State Bar Council. A Special Committee consisting of respondents 2,3 and 4 took over the administration of the State Bar Council accordingly. The preliminary electoral roll was prepared and published on 3rd November, 2003. The intimations were circulated to the District and Taluka Bar Associations.

8. The petitioner has filed the present petition on 31st December 2003, initially on the ground of distribution of the law books to the Bar Associations from the Bar Council's funds even after declaration of the elections and; to allow the Advocates on the roll to cast their votes and contest election without disqualifying them on account of the non-payment of the amount as per Rule 40 of the Bar Council of India Rules (BCI Rules). The challenge is also raised that BCI Rule 40, be struck down as contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act. The prayer has been made to provide polling booths at all Taluka and District Place. He had also prayed for ad-interim reliefs also but there was no stay of the election process.

9. The election took place on 4th March, 2004 and was gazetted on 24th April, 2004. The petitioner and respondents 6 to 29 have been elected as members of the State Bar Council for a five-year term.

10. By an order dated 2nd April 2004 the petitioner's amendment was allowed. The elected members as respondents 6 to 29 have been impleaded. By a second amendment order dated 10th May 2004, the petitioner has raised a challenge to sub-rules (h) and (i) of Rule 6 and prayed to set aside the election held by the State Bar Council held on 4th March 2004.

11. By an order dated 25th October, 2004 Rule has been issued in this petition. Respondent No. 1 has filed affidavits in reply to the challenged raised by the petitioner, from time to time, on 19th January, 2004, 19th April 2004, 1st July, 2004 and 6th September 2004. Respondent No. 5 has also filed an affidavit in reply on 31st August 2004.

12. The issue about the distribution of the law books by some of the ex-members of the State Bar Council as agitated by some of the Bar Members including the petitioner, during the period from 7th September 2003 to 8th January 2004, was resolved and settled by the order of this Court dated 20th April 2006.

13. The issue that it is within the competence of the State Bar Council to consider Rule 40 of BCI Rules to exclude defaulters from the Electoral Rolls as Rule 2(h) of Part III of Chapter I of the Rules of Bar Council of India has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of (Bar Council of India v. Om Prakash Faizi)1, (1998) 2 SCC 434 : A.I.R 1998 S.C 3054 : (1998) 2 SCC 434, decided on 2nd December, 1997. In view of above, I am dealing only with other main issues.

14. Some Advocates who are practicing mainly in the city of Bombay, have filed another Writ Petition No. 1781 of 2004, dated 7th June, 2004. They have challenged the validity and legality of Rule 6(h) and (i) of the State Bar Council and 2(h) and 2(i) incorporated by a Resolution in Part III Chapter I of the Bar Council of India Rules (Bar Council Rules) and part of Rule 3, regarding a mandate of marking minimum ten preferences. They have also challenged the election of same respondents 7 to 31, who have been elected in the elections. As the challenges are the same, both the petitions have been admitted on 25th October, 2004. The respondents stand in these two matters being same, both the petitions heard together by the consent of the parties.

15. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has strongly relied on (Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh)2, (1980) 4 SCC 211 : A.I.R 1980 S.C 1612 and mainly contended that the whole election was bad and, therefore, be set aside, as those Election Rules are ultra vires to sections 3(2), 3(4) read with section 49(1)(a) of the Advocates Act and; therefore, mere approval of such Rules by the BCI cannot make the said rules valid. The principle of estoppel does not apply, only because the petitioner had participated in the election and got elected. He has further relied on (Kum. Shrudha Devi v. Krishna Chandra Pant)3, (1982) 3 SCC 389 (2) : A.I.R 1982 S.C 1569 and contended that improper rejection of the valid votes based on the above Rules affected the whole election. Therefore, near about 3000 votes were declared invalid on the ground that the voters failed to mark minimum 10 preference votes, in pursuance to the said Rules. He has prayed for recounting and direction to reconsider those 3000 votes and to declare the result accordingly. He has further contended that these rules are against a principle of free and fair election and specially against a system of proportional re-presentation by means of the single transferable votes, as contemplated under sections 3(2)(b), 3(2)(4) and 49(1)(a) of the Advocates Act.

16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied on (Ananga Uday Singh Deo v. Ranga Nath Mishra)4, (2002) 1 S.C.C 499 to explain the system of proportional re-presentation by single transferable vote based on the Representation of People Act, 1951. He has also relied on (Ravi Kiran Jain v. Bar Council of U.P)5, A.I.R 1975 Allahabad 190 in reference to section 15 of the Advocates Act and the Rules for preparation of electoral roll and disqualification etc. He has also cited the cases; (Bar Council of Kerala v. Thankappan Pillai)6, A.I.R 1986 Kerala 144; (C.D Sekkizhar v. Secretary, Bar Council, Madras)7, A.I.R 1967 Madras 35; (Young Lawyers' Association v. Bihar State Bar Council)8, A.I.R 1988 Patna 290 and (Bar Council Of Delhi…Petitioner v. Bar Council Of India…)9, A.I.R 1975 Delhi 200 in reference to sections 15 and 3(3) of the Advocates Act concerning Rule making power of the Bar Council. The petitioner has also cited the case of (Jayrajbhai J. Patel v. Anilbhai N. Patel)10, (2006) 8 S.C.C 200 to support his case that a judicial review is possible, if there is abuse or misuse of power, even in the matter of election.

17. All of the learned Counsel for the respondents resisted the prayers of the petitioners on all counts, except providing more Election booths as prayed for by the petitioners. They have accepted the principle of law declared in those cases. They submitted that above cited authorities are distinct and distinguishable on facts & circumstances.

18. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case as referred above, I am constrained to express my dissent in sofar as the validity of Rule 6(h) and Rule 32(g) of the Election Rules, mainly on the following reasons:

19. Admittedly, the Election Rules been lastly amended some time in the 32000. The Election Rules have been published from time to time, since 1st January 1991 with amendments and subject to the approval of the Bar Council of India, by Resolution dated 8th and 9th February, 1997 and September 2000. The fact that State Bar Council's Election is an election of elite members of the legal profession cannot be overlooked. The advocate-members are fully aware of the Election procedure as enumerated in the Rules. The petitioners are also fully aware of these Rules which have been published prior to the declaration of date of the election. As noted, the election was declared on 14th August 2003 and it was gazetted in the Maharashtra Government Gazettee, on 1st August 2003. As per the Election Rules, after the notice of election the notification specifies the date for nomination, the date of scrutiny, the date of withdrawal of the candidature, date of polling, the date and place and time for counting votes, the minimum number of seats that should be filled from amongst the Advocates. The copies of election notice were put up on the Notice Boards of the headquarters of the Bar Council and sent to. The Bar Associations, the Advocate General and also to the Official Gazettee of the State of Maharashtra. The said Rules enumerated the method of preparation of final electoral rolls. The Advocates were aware of the method of Election. An Advocate whose name was entered on the fined electoral roll of the State Bar Council, was entitled to vote, as per the Election Rules which include, marking of the preferences. The rules of qualification and/or disqualification were also published. It was made very clear that voters should mark minimum ten preferences as provided in Rules 31(1), 32(g).

20. section 3(2)(b) deals with the necessity to elect 25 members in the case of the State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding ten thousand. The said 25 members are required to be elected in accordance with the system of proportional re-presentation by means of the single transferable vote from amongst Advocates on the electoral roll of the State Bar Council. The said Election Rules which are in existence since 1991-1997 or at least prior to the date of the declaration of the results of the election in question elaborate the scheme of election. These Election Rules itself enumerate the basic clauses which deals with the Electoral roll, first preference means, surplus value of votes, transfer of votes, method of election, form of voting papers, procedure for persons voting for other person, method of voting, voting papers when invalid, appointment of polling agents and more other related aspects. These Election Rules specifically deal with the ascertainment of quota and the candidates with quota to be elected as contemplated under section 3(2) of the Act. These Rules also deal with the transfer of surplus votes and exclusion of candidates and filling last vacancies. It also provides the determination of result and publication thereof. These Rules, therefore, are in aid to achieve the object of the sections.

21. Apart from this, the requirement of giving minimum first preference vote as laid down in Kum. Shradha Devi v. Krishna Chandra Pant, (1982) 3 SCC 389 (2) : A.I.R 1982 S.C 1569 in no way affected by these Rules. The minimum requirement of first preference vote in the system of proportional re-presentation by means of the single transferable vote is also in no way breached by Rules 31 and 32(g) of the Election Rules. The object of these Rules in this election is to provide the candidates/representatives, an effective minimum quota. This system of proportional re-presentation by single transferable vote is effective if more than one candidate are need to be elected. The requirement to indicate his multiple preferences by placing figures 1, and 3 in order of preference is an essential requirement. But if voters fail to exercise this option of giving their multiple preferences, it frustrates the purpose and object of section 3(2)(b) and of such election. Merely because the insistence by these Rules of marking minimum ten votes, that itself cannot be the reason to declare those Rules ultra vires to the sections 3(2)(b) and/or 3(2), (4) and/or 49(1)(ab) of the Advocates Act.

22. The sections under which these Election Rules have been framed provide ample power to the State Bar Council to provide elections and its methodology. It also provides to perform all other incidental and consequential functions conferred on it by or under this Act, as contemplated under section 6 of the Advocates Act, The Election Rules as framed, in my opinion, are within the purview and power of the State Bar Council to control and regulate the election. (Khargram Panchayat Samiti v. State of West Bengal)11, (1987) 3 SCC 82. These Rules are not ultra vires to any of the sections. The proposition put forth by the petitioner is not acceptable. It goes against the scheme and purpose of the sections and the election in question.

23. The petitioners have not challenged the whole Election Rules. The challenge is only to the insistence of marking of minimum ten preferences as a method of voting. The basic principle of casting first preference by the voters, if not breached, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to declare these Rules ultra vires to the sections.

24. Respondent No. 1 has given the justification in support of the rules in paragraphs (iv) and (v) of affidavit dated 6th September, 2004, which are as under:

“(iv) With further reference to grounds S, T and U, I say that the petitioner was the member when the said rule was gazetted and the petitioner had not given challenge at relevant time and now, therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to challenge the same. I say that by amending Rule 31, no substantial change has been made in the earlier rule and the amendment only provides that voters must give ten preferences. 1 say that all the ballot papers clearly indicate that every voter must give minimum ten preferences, otherwise, his vote cannot be considered as valid. I say that in spite of such clear notices, if the voters have not given ten preference, then it is their mistake for which Bar Council cannot be held responsible.

(v) I say that at the time of amending rules, the Members of the Bar Council discussed the issue at length and with a view to have effective implementation, preferential voting resolved that each voter should give at least ten preferences on ballot paper, I say that preferential voting is considered to be the best of the democratic methods of election and because of the amendment for the first time, all the twenty five Members were declared to be ‘ELECTED’, as each of them earned minimum required quota of votes. I say that in earlier elections, few members were declared to be ‘ELECTED’ and rest of them were declared as ‘DEEMED TO BE ELECTED’, because many of them were unable to complete minimum quota of votes, but were near about the required quota. The present system of preferential voting has given best of the results and it cannot be said to have caused prejudice the rights of voters.”

25. I am inclined to accept the submission of the respondents.

26. Respondent No. 1 being an expert body and after considering earlier experience of such elections decided to amend the Rules in question on the foundation of the democratic methods of election, in my view, such policy decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to the provisions of the Act and/or any democratic set up. Considering the provisions of section 3(2)(b) and further the need of electing 25 members amongst the voters which are more than ten thousand. This system gives at least required or minimum quota of votes cannot be said to be unfair, unreasonable and/or in a breach of the provisions of the Act. There is no prohibition and/or bar created under the Advocates Act and/or Bar Council of India Rules, which restricts the power of State Bar Council to adopt such method of elections of insistence of minimum ten preferences.

27. Assuming for a moment that there is some substance in the argument made by the petitioner that by these Rules, the State Bar Council is compelling the voters put more than one vote against the candidates or in favour of the candidate, though he may not be interested or may not be aware of the background of the said candidate, however, in view of the need of election of 25 members, this method, enable respondent No. 1 to have sufficient quota, which according to me is neither illegal nor prohibited in the circumstances of the case.

28. The voters right to cast vote is a freedom which is distinct from right to vote. A voter's right to vote without fear or favour is also an essential foundation of a free and fair election. However, one cannot overlook that a right to vote or contest the election is always regulated and governed by the Statute and the related Rules, Regulations. In the present case, if the Election Rules has provided a particular mode for voting and accordingly circulated and published the Rules in advance, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that these Rules are unjust or affects the free and fair election of the State Bar Council. In this process of election there is no breach of secrecy of any votes. The Election Rules and procedure declared and announced are transparent and clear. By these Election Rules, the State Bar Council, as there is no specific bar, in its wisdom decided and adopted the election procedure which is under challenge. The reasons as recorded in the affidavit given by the State Bar Council for taking such policy decision, in my opinion cannot be faulted with.

29. The election system in a democratic set up always need changes, based on the existing circumstances. It is difficult to fix and frame a straight jacket formula or yardstick for any election. The policy decision therefore as taken by the State Bar Council and amended the Rules, by giving full opportunity and notice to the voters like Advocates, is within the framework of section 3(2)(b) or 49 and other related sections.

30. The Supreme Court in (Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India)12, (2006) 7 S.C.C 1 has, while considering the various facets of existing system of secret ballots for the election of Upper House/Rajya Sabha, accepted even the “open ballot” to the “secret ballot”.

31. The adopted method of marking of minimum ten preferences, in my opinion, cannot be said to be unjust, arbitrary or ultra vires sections 3(2)(b) or 49(1)(a) or (ab). These Rules are in no way frustrate the object and purpose of above sections of the Advocates Act.

32. The Apex Court in Kum. Shradha Devi (supra) while dealing with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, Rule 73(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 held that a voter must cast his First preference vote. The choice of the voter to cast his second preference vote or further preference vote was optional. However, in the present case, the Election Rules has made it mandatory for the voters to mark minimum ten preferences votes. As noted, in this multifaceted elections, as it is difficult to have a straight jacket formula and as the policy decision taken by the State Bar Council, specific Rules have been framed under the Statute, such Rule therefore cannot be said to be bad in law. It is settled that the Elections are governed by the Statutes and Rules made thereunder. The Election Rules provide a method of voting which has been approved by the Bar Council of India. A voter at the time of voting need to comply with the mandatory requirements as announced.

33. The State Bar Council has rightly declared near about more than 3000 votes as invalid, as the voters failed to cast minimum ten votes. Considering the act and the election rules framed, those voters were not disqualified before casting their votes. As noted, an Advocate on the Electoral roll of the State Bar Council is entitled to vote in the State Bar Council election. All those voters whose votes were declared invalid were not disqualified till they cast ten votes as per the Rules. Such voters cannot be said to be disqualified as contemplated under the provisions of Advocates Act. The submission of the petitioner that these Rules made the rule of disqualification is not correct. The submission that the Bar Council of India can only make Rules for qualification or disqualification for membership of a Bar Council and, therefore, the State Bar Council has no jurisdiction to make such Rules is also not tenable. In my opinion, merely because some of the votes declared invalid that itself is no disqualification for membership of a Bar Council as those voters knowing fully the method of voting, failed to cast their vote according to the duly published Election Rules. The qualification and/or disqualification for membership or voters came into picture only after casting a vote by Advocate/member whose name appeared in the Electoral Roll of the voters as contemplated under section 49(1)(a) and (ab). Therefore, the Rules as framed in no way said to be the Rules of disqualification of voters framed by the State Bar Council against the provisions of section 49 and/or exceeded its jurisdiction as submitted. The State Bar Council has power and authority to make appropriate Election Rules and to adopt the appropriate method of voting and procedure of such election as contemplated under section 6(1)(g) and (h) and section 15(1), (2)(a). Rule 6(h) and (i) and 32(g), in my opinion, are not Rules pertaining to disqualification and, therefore, these rules are not in breach of sections 3(1)(b), 3(4), 15(3) or section 49(1)(a).

34. It is the function of the Bar Council of India to exercise general supervision and control over the State Bar Council. Section 49 provides for general power of the Bar Council of India to make Rules which includes “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 a State Bar Council”. The Election Rules as framed in no way is in breach of section 49(1)(a) or 6(g) read with section 15 of the Advocates Act. The ratio in the case of Bar Council of India v. Surjeet Singh (supra) is therefore in no way assist the petitioner to support his submission that the State Bar Council by these Rules disqualify the advocate/voters and, therefore, these Rules are in contravention of above sections. These Rules are in conformity with the sections and the Election Rules in no way prescribe disqualification to an Advocate being treated as valid voter. All Advocates whose names appear in the Electoral Roll were qualified to vote in this election. There was no such bar or disqualification created by these Rules by which such Advocates were declared disqualified to be voters in the present election. If voter fails to vote as per the declared method of voting, there is nothing wrong that the State Bar Council, at the relevant time, treated those votes invalid. In my view, therefore, the contentions and submissions even of the principle of estoppel and “acquiescence” as made by the petitioner are not accepted and reliefs as prayed cannot be granted. The other authorities cited are of no assistance to the petitioners in view of above circumstances, as facts are distinct and distinguishable. There is no misuse or abuse of power exercised by the State Bar Council. There is no reason to interfere with the Election Rules and the election results.

35. Section 15(3) provides that no rule made under this section by the State Bar Council shall have effect unless they have approved by the Bar Council of India. Admittedly, these Election Rules have been approved by the Bar Council of India. As noted, these Election Rules are within the framework and within the power of the State Bar Council and as the Bar Council of India has granted the approval to the said Rules, in my opinion, no fault can be found in adopting this method of approval, being in practice since many years. The approval itself means that a State Bar Council has a power to make various Rules which include the Election Rules. These Rules as falls within the ambit of section 6 read with section 15 and section 49(1)(a), (ab) read with section 3(2)(b) as referred above, the Election Rules having been approved, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that these Rules are bad and ultra vires to the sections.

36. However, I am in agreement with the view expressed by learned Brother F.I Rebello, J. in so far as the direction to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for the future election to provide polling Booths where there are minimum number of voters in terms of the procedure as followed by the Bar Council outside Mumbai.

37. With the above observation, all reliefs as prayed by the petitioner are rejected. Rule discharged. Writ Petition No. 903/2004 is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 1781 of 2004 is also dismissed, for the above reasons. Rule discharged.

38. Both the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. No costs.

39. Petitions dismissed.