Vijender Singh Mann v. Gnct of Delhi and Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J dk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 26th April, 2011 % Judgment Pronounced on: 9th May, 2011 +1. W.P.(C) 5198/2010 DEVENDRA KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Nazmi Waziri, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva with Mr. Sanjeet Ranjan and Mr. P. Mehta, Advocates for Respondent No.2 Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Mr. Rupinder Pal Singh and Mr. M.A. Hashmi, Advocates for Respondent No.4 with Respondent No.4 in person. Mr. S.P. Kalra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahavir Singh, Advocate for applicant in CM No.4239/2011. 2. W.P.(C) 1985/2011 VIJENDER SINGH MANN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.P. Kalra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mahavir Singh, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Nazmi Waziri, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva with Mr. Sanjeet Ranjan and Mr. P. Mehta, Advocates for Respondent No.2 Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Gupta, Mr. Rupinder Pal Singh and Mr. M.A. Hashmi, Advocates for Respondent No.4 with Respondent No.4 in person. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ In these two writ petitions, the controversy involved being common although the nature of challenge is from different spectrums, namely, one involving the interpretation of Rule 31(A) of the Bar Council of Delhi Election Rules, 1968 (for short "the Rules), while the other challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 31(A)(ii) of the said Rules, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a singular order. For the sake of convenience, we shall first advert to the facts in W.P.(C) No.1985/2011 where the assail is to the constitutional validity of the Rules and state the facts as they are common to both the cases and thereafter proceed to dwell upon the challenge to the action on the foundation of the interpretation placed upon by the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Presently to the commonality of the factual score and the grounds of attack in the backdrop of the constitutional validity of the Rule in question. The petitioner is a practising Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi and had secured maximum number of first preference votes amongst the unsuccessful candidates in the election that was held on 1st and 2nd December, 2009 for electing the members of the Bar Council of Delhi. His name featured at serial no.27 of the final list just second to the 25th candidate who was declared elected to the Bar Council of Delhi by the Election Committee. 3. As a casual vacancy occurred, the petitioner submitted a representation on 11th August, 2010 to the Bar Council of Delhi for co- opting him as a member. As there was no response, the petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court. The writ court in W.P.(C) No.5198/2010 [Devender Kumar vs. State (NCT) of Delhi] only directed that the Bar Council of Delhi should also consider the representation submitted by the petitioner at the time of co-option. 4. As set forth, the Bar Council of Delhi in its meeting held on 21.1.2011 resolved to co-opt Mr. Aman Sareen, the respondent no.4 herein, as a member of the Delhi Bar Council and the representation of the petitioner was rejected. 5. It is apt to note here that the petitioner while praying for declaring the Rule in question to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India has also prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to co-opt him as a member of the Bar Council of Delhi as his name featured at serial no.20 in the l