Rajasthan High Court stays tenure extension of High Court Advocates' Association office bearers

The Rajasthan High Court on Thursday stayed amendments to the by-laws of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association by which the tenure of office bearers of the association was extended from one year to two years [Sunil Vyas and ors. v. The Bar Council of Rajasthan and ors.]..The division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman also appointed an Administrative Committee consisting of Senior Advocates Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Dr. Sachin Acharya and GR Poonia, to manage the affairs of the association until the final decision on the petition.The bench noted that the amendment to the by-laws violated Section 12 of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. “ We are prima facie of the view that the amendment in the by-laws which is in blatant violation of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act. The term of the office bearers of the Bar Association if taken to be one year, has already come to an end on 13.12.2024. 12…..In that view of the matter, we are inclined to pass an interim order, staying the effect and operation of the impugned resolution extending the term of office bearers of Bar Association from one year to two year. We are also inclined to appoint Administrative Committee which shall manage the affairs of the Bar till final decision of this petition,” the Court said..The Court passed the order on a petition filed by Jodhpur lawyer Sunil Vyas who moved the Court challenging a March 2024 resolution amending the by-laws to extend office bearers' tenure from one to two years..The petitioner contended that procedural requirements under Section 12 of the Act were not followed while amending the by-laws. He argued that no written or printed report of the proposed amendment was submitted to all members, and the mandatory 10-day prior notice of the meeting was not issued. Moreover, a second special meeting, required to confirm the amendment, was not held.The meeting on Apirl 16, 2024, where the amendment was passed, had only 70-75 members in attendance, despite the Association having around 2,500 members. This rendered the amendment invalid due to lack of quorum, it was contended..The bar association argued that the amendment was made in compliance with the procedure outlined in its Memorandum of Association and by-laws. It was contended that the proposal was displayed on the notice board at the bar association's office and the amendment was approved by two-thirds of the members present and voting in the meeting on March 16, 2024..However, the Court rejected the contention of respondent and observed that the respondents failed to meet Section 12 requirements, as no written report was submitted, no notice was sent to all members, and no second meeting was held."On prima facie consideration, as against clear stand taken by the petitioner that the requirement of Section 12 of the Act have not been complied with, the reply of the respondents, considered as it is, does not satisfy the requirement of submission of proposition in a written or printed report. Further, the requirement of report to be delivered or sent by post to every member of the society is also not reflected from the reply. Thirdly, in the present case there is material placed on record by respondents to show that the second meeting as mandated under sub-Section 2 of Section 12 of the Act was held. The entire case of the respondents that amendment in the by-laws have taken place is founded only on the basis of resolution passed on 16.04.2024," the Court said while staying the amendment..The Court listed the matter for further consideration on March 17..Senior advocate Anand Purohit, assisted by Mayank Roy along with advocates Ranjeet Joshi, Vishwajeet Joshi, Kapil Bissa, B P Mathur, Manoj Kumar, Vikram, M S Purohit, K S Rajpurohit, Himanshu Maheshwari, R R Chhaparwal, Rajat Chhaparwal and Vinod Choudhary appeared for the petitioner.Senior Advocates Ravi Bhansali and Manoj Bhandari and advocates Vipul Dharnia, Aniket Tater along with Additional Advocate General NS Rathore, Assistant Additional Advocate General Arpit Samaria and advocates Muktesh Maheshwari, Gaurav Raka, Himanshu Shrimali, SS Choudhary, and KS Rajpurohit appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]