PRATAP MEHTA versus SUNIL GUPTA & ORS. on 2 November 2018

[2018] 11 S.C.R. 1068

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 11 S.C.R.

A

PRATAP MEHTA

v.

SUNIL GUPTA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 8172-8173 of 2018)

BNOVEMBER 02, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Bar Council of India Rules: r.7 – Election held by State BarCouncil of M.P. – Notice issued for holding first meeting of newlyelected members to conduct elections for various offices and theCCommittees of the State Bar Council including office ofrepresentative member of the State Bar Council in the Bar Councilof India (BCI) – On 29.6.2014, in the meeting, a Chairman waselected – After election of Chairman, the meeting was adjournedand some of the members left the place of meeting and thereafterDremaining members without any further notice to the members whohad left reconvened the meeting and elected ‘SG’ as representativemember of the State Bar Council for the BCI – On the same day, i.e.on 29.6.2014, nine members of State Bar Council objected to thesaid election – On 13.7.2014, thirteen members requested to considera no-confidence motion against the Chairman so elected – SpecialEmeeting was held on 2.8.2014 – The proposed no-confidence motionagainst the Chairman was withdrawn and the Chairman declaredall the elections except his own as void – All other office bearersand members who were elected submitted their resignation except‘SG’ who refused to resign – Fresh election were held in which ‘PM’Fwas declared elected as representative member of the Bar Councilfor the BCI – Election petition filed by ‘SG’ was dismissed by theBCI – Writ petition by State Bar Council and by ‘SG’ – High Courtheld that election of ‘SG’ and ‘PM’ both were invalid – Appeal by‘PM’ and BCI – Held: The issue of agenda alongwith the notice isrequirement of a valid meeting and it is only in context of adjournedGmeeting that no fresh agenda was to be issued – Therefore, issuanceof an agenda for conducting election on 2.8.2014 was necessary –Further, r.7 of BCI Rules required notice by the Secretary of theState Council fixing a date for the election of the member to theCouncil – High Court was, thus, right in its view that election ofH‘PM’ on 2.8.2014 as member of the BCI was not a valid election –

Both the elections dated 29.6.2014 and 2.8.2014 to elect a memberin the BCI having been held to be invalid, High Court was right inissuing directions for conducting a fresh election to elect a memberin the BCI – In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the electionalready conducted on 12.8.2018 be given effect to by allconcerned – Advocates Act, 1961 – s.49.

Writ jurisdiction: Scope of – Held: The findings of the factreached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of theappreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writproceedings – Bar Council of India Rules.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 A conjoint reading of Rule 2, 3 and 7 of ChapterI of Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules indicated that forholding election of a member of Bar Council of India to be electedby State Bar Council, notice and agenda has to be issued by theSecretary of the State Bar Council, which is a statutoryrequirement. There is no issue between the parties regardingthe fact that agenda dated 09.06.2014 was issued for the meetingof the members of the State Bar Council on 29.06.2014 includingthe agenda for electing a member from the State Bar Council tothe Bar Council of India. A perusal of the proceeding indicatedthat all 25 elected members and Advocate General, who was Ex-officio member was present and meeting started at 11.00 am andby 12.00 noon, the election of the Chairman was completed. TheMinutes record that for greeting the newly elected Chairmanand to see-off Advocate General, the proceeding of the meetingwere stayed/adjourned and thereafter again the meeting startedin presence of members for election of rest of the office bearersand members of the Committees. [Paras 17, 18] [1080-B-D]

1.2 The proceeding dated 29.06.2014 also contained aresolution by which name of ‘SG’ was proposed and unanimouslyapproved as representative of the State Bar Council to the BarCouncil of India. On 29.06.2014 itself, 9 members submitted aletter addressed to Chairman of the State Bar Council that noinformation of holding of adjourned meeting after 2.00 pm wasreceived by them, hence adjourned meeting be called forcompleting the rest of the elections. To the same effect wasanother letter dated 13.07.2014 by 13 members of the Bar Council A

B

C

DE

F

GH

Aof State. Another letter dated 13.07.2014, signed by 13 membersof the State Bar Council was submitted to the State Bar Councilrequesting for convening a meeting under Rule 122A forconsidering no-confidence motion against the Chairman of theState Bar Council. The State Bar Council issued notice dated16.07.2014 to all the members of the State Bar Council referringBto the letters received from members where election proceedingof Vice-Chairman, Treasurer and representative to the BarCouncil of India are being disputed and no-confidence motionwas presented against the Chairman. The officiating Secretaryconvened special meeting dated 02.08.2014 for disposal of theseCletters received from the members of the State Bar Council. [Para19] [1080-G-H; 1081-A-C]

2.1 Notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as dated 19.07.2014clearly indicated that special meeting was convened for taking adecision on the letters received from members of the Council.DNotice dated 19.07.2014 categorically mentions “in the specialmeeting both the letters are to be decided”. Letters dated29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 were referred in the notice wherefollowing two subjects were mentioned:- Request for conveninga meeting for conducting elections of the rest of the office bearersand members; Under Rule 122-A, considering the motion of noEconfidence given by 13 members of the Bar Council against theChairman. Notice dated 16.07.2014 clearly indicated that it didnot contain any agenda for the meeting. The notice conveningthe meeting only referred to consideration of letters receivedfrom the members. [Paras 21, 22] [1080-G-H; 1081-A-C]FLaw and Practices of Meetings, Fourteenth Edition byShackleton – referred to 2.2 Notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 were issuednot for convening any adjourned meeting rather special meetingwas convened to consider two set of letters given by members ofGthe Council requesting for convening a meeting for holdingelections of office bearers and the members of differentCommittees including representative to Bar Council of India andfor considering no confidence motion against the Chairman ofthe State Bar Council. In notice dated 16.07.2014 as well asHnotice dated 19.07.2014, the subject of special meeting was thus

for disposal of letters received by the members of the Council.The minutes of proceeding dated 29.06.2014 has recorded andsigned by Chairman containing the election of not only theChairman rather election of other office bearers and differentrepresentatives, which is clear from the proceedings brought onthe record by Bar Council of India itself. It is a well establishedprinciple that minutes of the proceeding signed by the Chairmanare prima facie evidence of proceeding and decisions recordedtherein are deemed to be valid until contrary is proved. Thus,the letters issued by the members on 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014raised a dispute containing allegations disputing minutes of theproceeding of the meeting dated 29.06.2014. Thus, it was adisputed matter as to what actually happened on 29.06.2014, i.e.as to whether the election of other office bearers andrepresentatives were validly completed on 29.06.2014 or afterthe election of the Chairman, the meeting was adjourned. Thisdispute was to be resolved in the special meeting dated02.08.2014, which was clearly indicated by notice dated16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014. The issue of agenda alongwith thenotice is requirement of a valid meeting and it is only in contextof adjourned meeting that no fresh agenda need to be issued.The notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 having notcontained any agenda and the meeting also not being describedas adjourned meeting, issuance of agenda for the meeting wasnecessary. [Paras 24, 25] [1084-D-G; 1085-E-G]

3. No election could have been conducted on 02.08.2014for electing member to the Bar Council of India from the StateBar Council. Further, the election of the member to the BarCouncil of India is statutorily regulated by Bar Council of IndiaRules and Rule 7 require notice by the Secretary of the StateCouncil fixing a date for the election of the member to the Council.Notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 cannot be read as noticeas required under Rule 7 for holding election of a member to theBar Council of India from the State Bar Council, hence, theconduct of election of a member as a representative from StateBar Council to Bar Council of India in the meeting dated02.08.2014 cannot be said to be in conformity with Rule 7 of BarCouncil of India Rules. The High Court was, thus, clearly rightin its view that election of ‘PM’ on 02.08.2014 as member of the AB

CDE

F

G

H

ABar Council of India was not a valid election. Both the electionsdated 29.06.2014 and 02.08.2014 to elect a member in the BarCouncil of India having been held to be invalid, the High Courtwas right in issuing directions for conducting a fresh election toelect a member in the Bar Council of India, which was necessaryand just. [Para 26] [1086-A-E]B

Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and anotherAIR 1954 SC 215; Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnanand others AIR 1964 SC 477; K. Narasimhiah v. H.C.Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 SCC 330; P.Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981CSC 789; V.S. Krishnan and others v. Westfort Hi-techHospital Ltd. and Others (2008) 3 SCC 363 – heldinapplicable Case Law Reference ECIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8172-8173 of 2018

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2018 of the HighCourt of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA Nos.365 and 366 of 2018

WITHF

C.A. Nos.8174-8177 of 2018

Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Shailendra Sharma, Ms. Deepika Kaliya,Ms. Divya Roy, S. N. Bhat, Priyank Jain, Ravi P., D. P. Chaturvedi,Advs. for the appellant.

G

Vikas Upadhyay, Ashwin Kumar Nair, Bharadwaj S., Nitin GaurAdvs. for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. These appeals have been filedHagainst the common judgment dated 17.07.2018 of the High Court of

Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal NO.365/2018 and other connected LPAs.Letters Patent Appeals were filed by the appellant aggrieved by commonjudgment dated 06.07.2018 of learned Single Judge in WritPetition(C)No.2142 of 2016 (State Bar Council of M.P. vs. Bar Councilof India & Ors.) and Writ Petition (C) No.2215 of 2016 (Sunil Gupta vs.Bar Council of India & Ors.). Learned Single Judge vide its judgmentdated 06.07.2018 disposed of the writ petitions with certain directions.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for decidingthese appeals are:

State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh held the elections for itsconstituent members in the month of May-June, 2014. After declarationof the result notice dated 09.06.2014 was issued for holding the firstmeeting of newly elected members on 29.06.2014. Agenda for themeeting to be held on 29.06.2014 was to conduct the elections for thevarious offices and the Committees of the State Bar Council of MadhyaPradesh including the office of its representative member in the BarCouncil of India. In these appeals we are concerned only with oneAgenda item which is to the following effect:

“Part-B

Serial No.1: Discussion, consideration and decisionregarding the election of the representative member of theBar Council for the Bar Council of India.”

3. Pursuant to notice dated 09.06.2014, a meeting was held on29.06.2014, which was presided over by the Advocate General of theState of Madhya Pradesh and was attended by all the 25 members ofthe State Bar Council of M.P. In the meeting, one Shri RameshwarNeekhra was elected as Chairman.

4. The case of the respondents, who were writ petitioners beforethe High Court was that in the said meeting, election for other officebearers including election for representative member of the State BarCouncil to Bar Council of India was held in which Shri Sunil Gupta wasunanimously elected. Shri Sunil Gupta, also started working as memberrepresentative in the Bar Council of India. On 29.06.2014, 9 membersof the State Bar Council wrote a letter to its Secretary requesting him toorganise a meeting for conducting elections to the various offices andCommittees of the State Bar Council. It was further alleged in the letterthat after the election of Chairman on 29.06.2014, the meeting has been AB

C

D

EF

GH

Aadjourned and the members without any further notice to the memberswho had thereafter left the place of meeting, reconvened the meetingand elected Shri Sunil Gupta as representative of the Bar Council ofIndia. A letter dated 13.07.2014 was also sent to the above effect by 13members.

B5.On 13.07.2014 another letter was sent to the Secretary by 13members requesting to consider a no- confidence motion under Rule122A of the State Bar Council of M.P. Rules against Shri RameshwarNeekhra, the Chairman. Taking cognizance of the letters dated29.06.2014 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 StateCBar Council informing them of a special meeting scheduled to be held on02.08.2014 for deciding the issues brought forth in the said letters. Thespecial meeting was convened on 02.08.2014. The proposed no-confidence motion against Chairman was withdrawn, Chairman relyingon the various letters sent by the members declared all the elections heldDon 29.06.2014 except his own, as void. All the office bearers and memberswho were elected on 29.06.2014 submitted their resignations from theirrespective posts except Shri Sunil Gupta who refused to resign asrepresentative to the Bar Council of India. On 02.08.2014, election ofseveral officer bearers including representative to the Bar Council ofIndia was conducted in which Shri Pratap Mehta was declared electedEas representative of the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India.

6. Aggrieved by the Resolution dated 02.08.2014 electing ShriPratap Mehta, Election Petition No.01/2014 was filed by Shri SunilGupta before the Bar Council of India. During pendency of the aforesaidElection Petition, State Bar Council passed Resolution on 07.02.2015,Fwith a majority of 17 votes, withdrawing its earlier Resolution dated02.08.2014, thereby re-affirming that Shri Sunil Gupta is its representativemember in the Bar Council of India. Shri Sunil Gupta filed an applicationon 11.02.2015 before the Bar Council of India for seeking leave towithdraw his Election Petition No.01/2014. However, instead ofGpermitting for withdrawal, Chairman of the Bar Council of India passedan order dated 16.11.2015 observing that Pratap Mehta has prima faciecase, hence, he permitted Pratap Mehta to join as representative of theState Bar Council in the Bar Council of India pending the final report ofthe sub-committee which was constituted for enquiring into the electionsof Shri Sunil Gupta and Shri Pratap Mehta. The sub-committee submitted H

its report in which report sub-committee found that election of Shri SunilGupta cannot be held to be valid as representative of State Bar Councilin the Bar Council of India rather it is Shri Pratap Mehta who waselected on 02.08.2014 in continuation of the meeting held on 29.06.2014which meeting was held to dispose of and transact the un-transactedbusiness which was fixed for 29.06.2014. The Bar Council of India passedan order dated 05.12.2015, dismissing the Election Petition filed by ShriSunil Gupta. Bar Council of India held that there is no infirmity in theelection of Shri Pratap Mehta as representative to the Bar Council ofIndia.

7. The State Bar Council of M.P. withdrew Writ Petition (C)No.No.973 of 2016 challenging order dated 16.11.2015 and WritPetition(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. AnotherWrit Petition (C)No.2215 of 2016 was filed by Shri Sunil Guptachallenging order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Bar Council of India.Both the writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge and havebeen decided by a common judgment dated 06.07.2018. Learned SingleJudge held that election of Shri Sunil Gupta as representative in the BarCouncil of India dated 29.06.2014 is not valid. Learned Single Judgealso held that election dated 02.08.2014 electing Shri Pratap Mehta asrepresentative in the Bar Council of India is also not valid it having beenheld contrary to the Bar Council of India Rules.

8. The learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 06.07.2018allowed few of the prayers made by writ petitioners, however, certainother prayers were refused. Allowing the petition, learned Single Judgeheld that election of representative in Bar Council of India from theState Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh held on 29.06.2014 as well as02.08.2014 were both invalid. In the circumstances, learned Single Judgetook the view that the State Bar Council cannot be without anyrepresentative in the Bar Council of India, hence he directed for holdingof fresh elections by the State Bar Council to elect its representative inthe Bar Council of India. Paragraph 45 of the judgment contains theoperative portion of the judgment, which is to the following effect:- “45. The prayers in the writ petitions, so far as they seekimplementation of the Petitioner s Resolutions dated 29.06.2014and 07.02.2015 electing the Respondent No. 3 as a memberrepresentative of Petitioner/SBCMP in the Respondent No.1/

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

1076SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ABCI, are rejected. However, the prayer quashing the RespondentNo. 1 s Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015 is allowed andaccordingly the Impugned Order dated 05.12.2015 is quashedand set aside. The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2142/2016, i.e., theState Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh is directed to hold withina period of 4 weeks, fresh elections for electing its representativeBmember in the Respondent No.1/BCI by following the procedureas prescribed in the BCI Rules. Upon the Petitionercommunicating the result of the election to be held in terms ofthe aforesaid directions to the Respondent No. 1/BCI, the saidRespondent No. 1 would take consequential steps to include theCname of the person elected by the Petitioner/SBCMP as itsrepresentative member in the Respondent No. 1/BCI.”

9. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.07.2018, Shri PratapMehta and Bar Council of India filed letters patent appeals before theDivision Bench of the High Court. All the appeals were dismissed byDthe Division Bench vide its judgment dated 17.07.2018. Shri PratapMehta 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.

10. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel has appeared forEShri Pratap Mehta whereas Shri S.N. Bhat has appeared for Bar Councilof India. Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel has appeared for StateBar Council of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Nitin Gaur, learned counsel hasappeared on behalf of Shri Sunil Gupta.

11. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for theFappellants submits that High Court committed an error in exceeding itsjurisdiction under Article 226 by entering into the issues of the facts byre-appreciating evidence. It is submitted that High Court under Article226 could not have re-appreciated evidence and come to a differentconclusion to one which was arrived at by Bar Council of India, theadjudicating authority, regarding election of State Bar Council for electingGa representative to the Bar Council of India. It is submitted that bothlearned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Delhi HighCourt committed an error in holding that there was no agenda for holdingelection of the State Bar Council representative for Bar Council of Indiafor the meeting dated 02.08.2014. It is submitted that for the meetingHdated 02.08.2014, letters of the members of the State Bar Council dated 29.06.2014 as well as 13.07.2014 itself contain items, which were to beconsidered in the meeting to be scheduled, hence agenda of the meetingwas very much clear and High Court erred in setting aside the electiondated 02.08.2014 on an erroneous ground. The meeting dated 02.08.2014being an adjourned meeting of 29.06.2014, no separate agenda wasrequired to be issued for the meeting dated 02.08.2014.

12. Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for StateBar Council submits that the meeting dated 02.08.2014 was not anadjourned meeting of meeting dated 29.06.2014. He submits that specialmeeting was convened by the Secretary of the State Bar Council totake a decision on the letter dated 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 given bymembers of the State Bar Council. The question as to whether theelection of representative to the Bar Council of India was validly held on29.06.2014, was a disputed question, which was required to be decidedbefore holding any fresh election, hence no fresh election could havebeen held on 02.08.2014. He further submits that the Bar Council ofIndia Rules framed under the Advocates Act, 1961 are statutory rules,which govern election of the member of the State Bar Council to theBar Council of India, which election is to be held in accordance with theStatutory Rules. The election dated 02.08.2014 for electing a memberof the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India having not been heldin accordance with Part II of Bar Council of India Rules has rightlybeen invalidated by the High Court. It is submitted that election dated02.08.2014 is in breach of Rules 2, 3 and 7. He further submits thatState Bar Council having already elected Shri Sunil Gupta as its memberin the Bar Council of India on 29.06.2014, the said election could nothave been set aside except in accordance with the procedure asprescribed in Rule 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules. There was nochallenge to the election dated 29.06.2014 of Shri Sunil Gupta as perRule 9, hence it was not within the jurisdiction of State Bar Council toelect another representative in place of Shri Sunil Gupta. He submitsthat in the Election Petition No.1 of 2014 filed by Shri Sunil Gupta inspite of there being application by Shri Sunil Gupta to withdraw the electionpetition in view of the resolution of the State Bar Council dated 07.02.2015,the Bar Council of India erroneously proceeded to decide the electionpetition on 05.12.2015. He further submits that in pursuance of judgmentof learned Single Judge as confirmed by Division Bench on 17.07.2018,the State Bar Council has fixed 12.08.2018 for holding election of theState Bar Council’s representative in the Bar Council of India, which A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aelection has been held on 12.08.2018 and the result of the election inpursuance of order of this Court dated 03.10.2018 has been submittedbefore this Court in the sealed envelope on the date fixed for hearing.

13. Learned counsel for the Bar Council of India supported thedecision of the Bar Council of India dated 05.12.2015. It is submittedBthat in the meeting dated 29.06.2014, no election was held except theelection of Chairman. After election of Chairman, the meeting wasadjourned, which is recorded in the meeting itself. The letter dated29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 submitted by members of the State Bar Councilwere for fixing a meeting to hold rest of the elections and that meetinghaving been fixed for 02.08.2014, no fresh agenda was required to beCissued and there was no illegality in the meeting dated 02.08.2014. It isfurther submitted that on 02.08.2014, apart from electing therepresentative to the Bar Council of India, rest of the elections wereconducted and no one has any objections regarding elections held on02.08.2014 except Shri Sunil Gupta, who did not submit his resignationDon that day whereas all other office bearers and members elected on29.06.2014 has submitted their resignations. He submits that High Courtcommitted an error in holding that election dated 02.08.2014 in so far asit relates to representative of State Bar Council in the Bar Council ofIndia is not correct.

E14. We have considered the respective submissions of the partiesand have perused the records.

15. The entire dispute in the present appeals centres round theelection dated 02.08.2014 in so far as it relates to election of Shri PratapMehta as State Bar Council representative in the Bar Council of India.FThe learned Single Judge having held that election of Shri Sunil Gupta on29.06.2014 as State Bar Council representative in the Bar Council ofIndia was not valid and the said decision having not been challengedeither by the State Bar Council or by Shri Sunil Gupta, the said issue hasbecome final between the parties. The High Court having held thatelection dated 02.08.2014 is not valid in so far as it relates to election ofGrepresentative of State Bar Council in the Bar Council of India isconcerned, the only issue to be answered is as to whether the said electionis valid or not?

16. The Advocates Act, 1961, Section 4 provides for the BarCouncil of India. According to Section 4(1)(c) in the Bar Council of H

India, one member has to be elected by each State Bar Council fromamongst its members. Section 4(1)(c) is as follows:- A

“4. Bar Council of India.-(1) There shall be a Bar Council forthe territories to which this Act extends to be known as the BarCouncil of India which shall consist of the following members,namely:- B

(a) .........(b) .........

(c) one member elected by each State Bar Council fromamongst its members.”

C

17. Under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, Bar Councilof India is empowered to make rules for discharging its functions. Inexercise of power under Section 49 and all other enabling powers underthe Advocates Act, 1961, the Bar Council of India has framed the BarCouncil of India Rules. Chapter I of Part II of the Rules refers to Section15, Sections 4 and 10B of the Advocates Act, 1961. Chapter I Part II ofthe Rules, thus, are to give effect to provisions of Section 4 of the Act,which provides for constitution of Bar Council of India in which one ofits members to be elected by each State Bar Council from amongst itsmembers. Rule 2, Rule 3 and rule 7 of Chapter I of Part II of the Rulesare as follows:- D

E

“2. (1) The notice and agenda for the first meeting of theState Council held after the election of its members on the expiryof the term of its members elected at the previous election underSection 8 of the Act may include the election of a member of theState Council to the Council under Section (1) (c) of the Act.

F

(2) Every such election shall be held not later than 30 daysafter the first meeting of the State Council after election underSection 8 of the Act.

3. The election of a member of the Council shall beGconducted by the Secretary of the State Council who shall actas the Returning Officer.

7. Every notice by the Secretary of the State Council fixinga date for the election of a member to the Council under theserules shall be sent not less than 15 clear days before the date H

1080SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Afixed for the election. A copy of the said notice shall be sentsimultaneously to the Secretary of the Council.”18. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules indicate that forholding election of a member of Bar Council of India to be elected byState Bar Council, notice and agenda has to be issued by the SecretaryBof the State Bar Council, which is a statutory requirement. There is noissue between the parties regarding the fact that agenda dated 09.06.2014was issued for the meeting of the members of the State Bar Council on29.06.2014 including the agenda for electing a member from the StateBar Council to the Bar Council of India as noticed above. Minutes of themeeting dated 29.06.2014 has been brought on the record in Civil AppealCNos. 8174-8177 of 2018 as Annexure A4. A perusal of the proceedingindicates that all 25 elected members and learned Advocate General,who is Ex-officio member was present and meeting started at 11.00 amand by 12.00 noon, the election of the Chairman was completed. TheMinutes record that for greeting the newly elected Chairman and toDsee-off learned Advocate General, the proceeding of the meeting werestayed/adjourned and thereafter again the meeting started in presenceof members for election of rest of the office bearers and members ofthe Committees. It is useful to refer to the above portion of the proceeding(English translation of the proceeding brought on record), which is to thefollowing effect:-E“The meeting of the Council started at 11:00 am at morning andtill 12:00 noon the election for the post Chairman was completedand in wishing the newly elected Chairman and for givingrespectful departure to the Hon’ble Advocate, the working ofthe meeting was stayed. Thereafter, again the meeting of generalFassembly was started before the present members and theremaining office bearers and member of the Council wereelected.”

19. The proceeding dated 29.06.2014 also contain a resolution asResolution No. 7 Part B, by which Shri Sunil Gupta’s name was proposedGand unanimously approved as representative of the State Bar Council tothe Bar Council of India. On 29.06.2014 itself, 9 members submitted aletter addressed to Chairman of the State Bar Council that no informationof holding of adjourned meeting after 2.00 pm was received by them,hence adjourned meeting be called for completing the rest of the elections.HTo the same effect is another letter dated 13.07.2014 by 13 members of

the Bar Council of State, which was received on 15.07.2014 by theState Bar Council. Another letter dated 13.07.2014 signed by 13 membersof the State Bar Council was submitted to the State Bar Council of M.P.requesting for convening a meeting under Rule 122A for considering noconfidence motion against the Chairman of the State Bar Council – ShriRameshwar Nikhra. The Officiating Secretary of the State Bar Councilissued a notice dated 16.07.2014 to all the members of the State BarCouncil referring to the letters received from members where electionproceeding of Vice-Chairman, Treasurer and representative to the BarCouncil of India are being disputed and no confidence motion has beenpresented against the Chairman. The officiating Secretary has conveneda special meeting dated 02.08.2014 for disposal of aforesaid lettersreceived from the members of the State Bar Council. It is useful toextract the entire notice dated 16.07.2014 issued by officiating Secretary,which is to the following effect:- A

B

C

“No. – SBC/MP/Important Meeting/General Body/4277/2014, DDate 16/07/2014

To,All Hon’ble MembersState Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh,Sir/Ma’m„

E

The Special Meeting of the General Body of the State BarCouncil of Madhya Pradesh is scheduled for 2nd August, 2014,Day-Saturday, in the Meeting Room of the Council’s Office at11: O’clock in the Morning, in which the letter dated 29/06/2014signed by 9 Hon’bie Members of the Council, two letters dated13/07/2017 received on 14/07/2014 signed by 11 Hon’ble Memberand Two letters signed by 2 Hon’ble Members received by e-mail dated 15/07/2014 and one letter signed by 1 Hon’ble Memberreceived on 16/07/2014, vide which because of the electionprocess of the Vice Chairman of the Council, Treasurer, variouscommittees including the representative to the Bar Council ofIndia being disputed, a proposal for no confidence against theChairman of the Council has been submitted under Ru1e 122-Aof the Council. In the special meeting both the aforesaid letters areto be decided. You all are requested to be present in the Meeting.

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

For the convenience of the Hon’ble Members Rule 122-A of theCouncil is as under:- “122-A The Chairman, Vice Chairman or the Treasurer of theCouncil could be removed by a vote of no confidence passed bymajority of the members present and voting in a meeting of thecouncil especially called for the purpose provided that at least 7members of the Council have signed the requisition for holdingsuch a special meeting, and such meeting shall be called within aperiod of 21 days from the date of receipt of the requisition bythe Secretary”.

Sd/-

(MUKESH M1SHRA)Officiating Secretary

ENCLOSED- The letters dated 29/06/2014, 14/07/2014, 15/07/2014 and 16/07/2017 received from the Hon’ble members.”

20. Another notice referred to as Amended notice of letter dated16.07.2014 convening a special meeting was issued on 19.07.2014, whichis to the following effect:- No. - SBC/MP/Important Meeting/General Body/4311/2014, Date 19/07/2014

Amended letter for date 16/07/2014 of Special Meeting To, All Hon’bie MembersState Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, FSir/Ma’ m, The Special Meeting of the General Body of the State BarCouncil of Madhya Pradesh is scheduled for 2[nd] August, 2014,Day-Saturday, in the Meeting Room of the Council’s Office at11: O’clock in the Morning, in which the letter dated 29/06/2014signed by 9 Hon’ble Members of the Council, two letters dated13/07/2017 received on 14/07/2014 signed by 11 Hon’bieMembers and Two letters signed by 2 Hon’ble Members receivedby e-mail dated 15/07/2014 and two letters signed by 1 Hon’bleMember received on 16/07/2014, in which vide one letter theprayer has been made to call for the meeting for election of the G

H

G

H

Vice-Chairman of Council, Treasurer, election of variouscommittees along with the representative to the Bar Council ofIndia and vide the second letter the no-confidence motion hasbeen presented against the Chairman of the Council under Rule122-A of the Rules of the Council. In the special meeting bothaforesaid letters are to be decided. You all are requested to bepresent in the meeting. [Enclosure-Page 1 to 7]

For the convenience of the Hon’ble Members Rule 122-A of theCouncil is as under:- “122-A The Chairman, Vice Chairman or the Treasurer of theCouncil could be removed by a vote of no confidence passed bymajority of the members present and voting in a meeting of thecouncil especially called for the purpose provided that at least 7members of the Council have signed the requisition for holdingsuch a special meeting, and such meeting shall be called within aperiod of 21 days from the date of receipt of the requisition bythe Secretary”.

Sd/-

(MUKESH M1SHRA)Officiating Secretary

NOTE- The letters received from the Hon’bie Members inrelation to the Special Meeting has already been sent alongwiththe letter dated 16/07/2014.”

21. The notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as dated 19.07.2014clearly indicate that special meeting was convened for taking a decisionon the letters received from members of the Council. The notice dated19.07.2014 categorically mentions “in the special meeting bothaforesaid letters are to be decided”. The letters dated 29.06.2014and 13.07.2014 has been referred in the notice where following twosubjects were mentioned:- (a)Request for convening a meeting for conducting elections of therest of the office bearers and members; (b)Under Rule 122-A, considering the motion of no confidence givenby 13 members of the Bar Council against the Chairman,Rameshwar Nikhra.

A

B

CD

E

F

G

A

22. The notice dated 16.07.2014 clearly indicate that it did notcontain any agenda for the meeting. The notice convening the meetingonly referred to consideration of letters received from the members,which was specifically mentioned as noticed above. The subjectmentioned in both the notices was to the following effect:- B(i) Notice dated 16.07.2014 “in the special meeting boththe aforesaid letters are to be decided”;

(ii) Amended notice dated 19.07.2014 “in the specialmeeting both aforesaid letters are to be decided”.

23. Shackleton on the Law and Practices of Meetings, FourteenthCEdition, while dealing with the subject “notice” states following:- “The purpose to be stated A notice, to be valid, must clearly state the business to betransacted at the meeting and give all material information toenable it to be fully understood.”

D

24. It is clear from the aforesaid that notices dated 16.07.2014and 19.07.2014 were issued not for convening any adjourned meetingrather special meeting was convened to consider two set of letters givenby members of the Councilrequesting for convening a meeting for holdingelections of office bearers and the members of different CommitteesEincluding representative to Bar Council of India and for considering noconfidence motion against the Chairman of the State Bar Council. Inthe notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as notice dated 19.07.2014, the subjectof special meeting was thus for disposal of letters received by themembers of the Council. It is to be noted that the minutes of theproceeding dated 29.06.2014 has recorded and signed by ChairmanFcontaining the election of not only the Chairman rather election of otheroffice bearers and different representatives, which is clear from theproceedings brought on the record by Bar Council of India itself asAnnexure A4. It is a well established principle that minutes of theproceeding signed by the Chairman are prima facie evidence ofGproceeding and decisions recorded therein are deemed to be valid untilcontrary is proved. Shackleton, while dealing with minutes as evidencein Chapter 8 states following:- “8. MINUTES AS EVIDENCE

“8. MINUTES AS EVIDENCE

8-07 In general, minutes form evidence of the matters to whichthey refer, which can be relied on in civil proceedings:

H

‘In an action against one or several members of the Gosportand Forton Water Works Company for the value of lead pipessupplied by the plaintiffs to the company, after the defendanthad been proved to be a partner in the company the entries ina book contain-ing a record of the proceedings of the societyproduced at its meetings, and open, to the inspection of ailmembers, were admissible in evidence against the defendant;the minutes showed that the order had been authorised by thesociety:”

When minutes are signed by the chairman of the meeting, or thenext succeeding meeting, they are prima facie evidence of theproceedings, and decisions recorded therein are deemed to bevalid until the contrary is proved. In practice, certified copies ofminutes are frequently provided to third parties as evidence ofthe matters decided upon at the Meeting.

The chairman of a meeting has authority to determine allincidental questions which arise at the meeting, and an entry byhim in the minute book of the result of a poll, or of his decision onsuch questions, is prima facie evidence of that result, and theonus of displacing that evidence is thrown on those who impeachthe entry:”

25. Thus, the letters issued by the members on 29.06.2014 and13.07.2014 raised a dispute containing allegations disputing minutes ofthe proceeding of the meeting dated 29.06.2014. Thus, it was a disputedmatter as to what actually happened on 29.06.2014, i.e. as to whetherthe election of other office bearers and representatives were validlycompleted on 29.06.2014 or after the election of the Chairman, themeeting was adjourned. This dispute was to be resolved in the specialmeeting dated 02.08.2014, which was clearly indicated by notice dated16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 as indicated above. The issue of agendaalongwith the notice is requirement of a valid meeting and it is only incontext of adjourned meeting that no fresh agenda need to be issued.The notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 having not contained anyagenda and the meeting also not being described as adjourned meeting,issuance of agenda for the meeting was necessary. Issuance of anagenda, if any election was to be conducted on 02.08.2014 was necessary.

26. We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the view of the HighCourt - both of learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench that A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ano election could have been conducted on 02.08.2014 for electingmember to the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council. Further,the election of the member to the Bar Council of India is statutorilyregulated by Bar Council of India Rules and Rule 7 require notice by theSecretary of the State Council fixing a date for the election of the memberto the Council. The notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 cannot beBread as notice as required under Rule 7 for holding election of a memberto the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council, hence, the conductof election of a member as a representative from State Bar Council toBar Council of India in the meeting dated 02.08.2014 cannot be said tobe in conformity with Rule 7 of Bar Council of India Rules. The HighCCourt was, thus, clearly right in its view that election of Shri PratapMehta on 02.08.2014 as member of the Bar Council of India was not avalid election. The learned Single Judge having already taken a viewthat election dated 29.06.2014 electing Shri Sunil Gupta as therepresentative to the Bar Council of India was not a valid election, whichissue was not, however, agitated either by the State Council or by ShriDSunil Gupta, there is no need to ponder over the above election. Boththe elections dated 29.06.2014 and 02.08.2014 to elect a member in theBar Council of India having been held to be invalid, the High Court wasright in issuing directions for conducting a fresh election to elect a memberin the Bar Council of India, which was necessary and just.E

27. Now, we come to the submission of Shri Vikas Singh thatHigh Court committed error in re-appreciating the evidence on recordand coming to a different conclusion to one which was recorded by theBar Council of India. Shri Vikas Singh has relied on the judgment of thisCourt in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another, FAIR 1954 SC 215; Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan andothers, AIR 1964 SC 477.

28. In Waryam Singh (supra), the landlord has filed a petitionfor eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent by the tenant. TheRent Controller rejected the application of the landlord against whichGlandlord has moved to the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh.Exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, which allowed theapplication for ejectment of tenant, which has been noted in Para 10 ofthe judgment, which is to the following effect:- “10. The respondents moved the Judicial Commissioner,HHimachal Pradesh, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order of the District Judge. Thelearned Judicial Commissioner held that in view of the admittedfailure to pay the rent as provided by the rent deed or at the firsthearing of the court under the proviso to Section 13 (2) (i) thecourts below had acted arbitrarily in refusing to make an orderfor ejectment against the tenants who had not done what wasincumbent on them to do under the law and that such a situationcalled for interference by the Court of the Judicial Commissionerin order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of theirauthority. He, accordingly, set aside the orders of the courts belowand allowed the application for ejectment but gave the appellantsthree months’ time for vacating the premises. The appellantshave now come up before this court on appeal by special leaveobtained from this court.”

29. The tenant challenged the orders under Articles 226 and 227in this Court and one of the submissions raised was that JudicialCommissioner acted wholly without jurisdiction in as much as the orderof the Rent Controller exercising powers under the Act was not amenableto the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, the said submissionis noted in Para 11, which is to the following effect:- “11. Learned advocate appearing in support of this appealurges that the learned Judicial Commissioner acted wholly withoutjurisdiction inasmuch as (1) the Rent Controller or the DistrictJudge exercising powers under the Act was not amenable to thejurisdiction of the High Court and, therefore, Article 227 confersno power on the Court of the Judicial Commissioner over theRent Controller or the District Judge, and (2) that Article 227read with Article 241 confers no power of judicialsuperintendence on the Court of the Judicial Commissioner.”

30. This Court repelled the submission of the tenant and held thatthe High Court has judicial superintendence over tribunals and authorities.In Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14, following has been laid down:- “13. Re. 2.—The material part of Article 227 substantiallyreproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government ofIndia Act,1915, except that the power of superintendece hasbeen extended by the Article also to Tribunals. That the RentController and the District Judge exercising jurisdiction underthe Act are Tribunals cannot and has not been controverted.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

The only question raised is as to the nature of the power ofsuperintendence conferred by the Article. Reference is made toclause (2) of the article in support of the contention that thisarticle only confers on the High Court administrativesuperintendence over the subordinate courts and tribunals. Weare unable to accept this contention because clause (2) isexpressed to be without prejudice to the generality of theprovisions in clause (1). Further, the preponderance of judicialopinion in India was that Section 107 which was similar in termsto Section 15 of the High Courts Act, 1861, gave a power ofjudicial superintendence to the High Court apart from andindependently of the provisions of other laws conferring revisionaljurisdiction on the High Court.

In this connection it has to be remembered that Section 107 ofthe Government of India Act, 1915, was reproduced in theGovernment of India Act, 1935, as Section 224. Section 224 ofthe 1935 Act, however, introduced sub-section (2), which wasnew, providing that nothing in the section should be construed asgiving the High Court any jurisdiction to question any judgmentof any inferior court which was not otherwise subject to appealor revision. The idea presumably was to nullify the effect of thedecisions of the different High Courts referred to above. Section224 of the 1935 Act has been reproduced with certainmodifications in Article 227 of the Constitution. It is significantto note that sub-section (2) to Section 224 of the 1935 Act hasbeen omitted from Article 227.

This significant omission has been regarded by all HighCourts in India before whom this question has arisen as havingrestored to the High Court the power of judicial superintendenceit had under Section 15 of the High Courts Act, 1861, and Section107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. See the cases referredto in Moti Lal v. The State through Shrimati Sagrawati1. Ourattention has not been drawn to any case which has taken adifferent view and, as at present advised, we see no reason totake a different view.

14. This power of superintendence conferred by Article227 is, as pointed out by Harries C.J., in Dalmia Jain AirwaysLtd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee2, to be exercised most sparinglyand only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correctingmere errors. As rightly pointed out by the Judicial Commissionerin the case before us the lower courts in refusing to make anorder for ejectment acted arbitrarily. The lower courts realisedthe legal position but in effect declined to do what was by Section13(2)(i) incumbent on them to do and thereby refused to exercisejurisdiction vested in them by law. It was, therefore, a case whichcalled for an interference by the Court of the JudicialCommissioner and it acted quite properly in doing so. In ouropinion there is no ground on which in an appeal by special leaveunder Article 136 we should interfere. The appeal, therefore,must stand dismissed with costs.”

31. The above decision in no manner support the case of theappellant rather it reiterates that the High Court under Articles 226 and227 can interfere with an arbitrary order passed by an authority. Thenext judgment relied by the appellant is Constitution Bench judgment ofthis Court in Syed Yakoob (supra). This Court had elaboratelyconsidered the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution in the aforesaidcase. This Court held that a writ of certiorari can be issued for correctingerrors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. It wasfurther held that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 to issue awrit of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the High Court exercisingit is not entitled to act as an appellate court.

32. The findings of the fact reached by the inferior Court orTribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened orquestioned in writ proceedings. There cannot be any dispute to the abovepropositions laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court. However,in the same judgment, in paragraph 8, following was laid down by thisCourt:- “8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describewhat an error of law apparent on the face of the record means.What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; hut itmust be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which isapparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clearthat the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunalis based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant statutoryprovision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even indisregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Awrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ ofcertiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should beso plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision thatno difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that thesaid error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It mayalso be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may notBbe obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and theCourt may need an argument to discover the said error; but therecan be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorariis an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be ofsuch a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error ofClaw apparent on the face of the record……………………..”

33. Applying the above proposition in the present case, it wasclear that High Court had referred to statutory provisions of Bar Councilof India Rules and came to the conclusion that there was no notice ofagenda for holding election of the State Bar Council member in the BarDCouncil of India for meeting dated 02.08.2014. An obvious error of lawwas committed by Bar Council of India in dismissing the election petitionof Shri Sunil Gupta. The High Court was right in exercise of its certiorarijurisdiction to set aside the erroneous order of the Bar Council of India.The High Court was, thus, well within its jurisdiction in deciding the writpetition and submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannotEbe accepted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding thewrit petition.

34. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on K.Narasimhiah Vs. H.C. Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 SCC330. In the above case, this Court held that three days clear notice to FCouncillors for holding a special general meeting is not mandatory. Whatwas 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 nonotice for meeting to be held on 02.08.2014. In the above case also, thenotice was received by members, some of them have received three

days notice, some of them had received notice of less than three days.GIn the above circumstances, this Court held that provision of three daysnotice was only directory and not mandatory. The said judgment has noapplication in the present case.35. Another judgment relied by the appellant is P. KasilingamVs. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789. In the saidHcase, this Court was dealing with a question regarding effectiveness of resignation and consequence of withdrawal of resignation before theeffective date. The said case has no application in the present case.Last case relied by the appellant is V.S. Krishnan and others Vs.Westfort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd. and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 363.In the above case, the Court held that when there are materials to showthat notices were sent, the burden is on the addressee to rebut thestatutory presumption. In paragraph 29, following has been held:- “29. Section 172 as well as Section 53 emphasised “givingnotice”. We have already adverted to how notice should be givenfor AGM as per Section 172(2) and Sections 53(1) and (2) ofthe Act. In view of the fact that the Company has placed materialsto substantiate that notices, in terms of the above provisions,were given, as rightly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel forthe contesting respondents, statutory presumption under Section53 will apply though the said act is rebuttable. In view of the factthat there are materials to show that notices were sent, the burdenis on the addressee to rebut the statutory presumption. The HighCourt, on verification of those materials, has concluded that“postal receipt with post office seal was produced to show thatnotice was sent to all shareholders by certificate of posting inthe correct address as per the report”.”

36. In the present case, challenge to the proceeding dated02.08.2014 was not on the ground of want of notice for the specialmeeting, hence this case also does not help the appellant in the presentcase.

37. Learned counsel appearing for the State Bar Council hasproduced the result of fresh election dated 12.08.2018 as conducted inpursuance of the directions of the High Court, which election was alsopermitted by this Court vide its order dated 09.08.2018 but with a conditionthat the result thereof shall not be declared without the permission of theCourt.

38. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view thatthere are no merits in these appeals, which are hereby dismissed. Inview of the dismissal of the appeals, the election already conducted on12.08.2018 be given effect to by all concerned. The appeals are dismissedsubject to above. Parties shall bear their own costs.

Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H