2025:BHC-AS:19485-DB

503-WP-5368-2025 (C).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5368 OF 2025
1. Shri. Abhijeet Appasaheb Bacche-Patil
Age: 38 Years, Occupation: Advocate
R/o.: Bacche Savarde, Tal. Panhala, Dist. - Kolhapur
2. Shrl. Harishchandra Sarjerao Tadakhe
Age: 50 years, occupation: Advocate
r/o.: Majgaon, Tal. Panhala, Dist – Kolhapur
3. Shri. Amrut Suresh Ranoji
Age: 41 Years, Occupation: Advocate,
R/o.: Home No. 1185, 'E' ward, 3rd lane
Rajarampuri, Dist. - Kolhapur
4. Shri. Balasaheb Dattatray Kandekar
Age: 51 Years, Occupation: Advocate
R/o.: Kumbhoj, Tal. Hatkanangale, Dist. - Kolhapur
...Petitioners
Versus
1. The Bar Council Of Maharashtra And Goa
Through Its Chairman
Having its Registered Officer at:
2nd Floor, High Court Extension Building,
Fort, Mumbai – 40032.
2. The Kolhapur District Bar Association, Kolhapur
Through its President
Having its Registered Office at:
Nyaysankul, Sankul, Kasba Bawada, Main Road,
Kolhapur, Dist. Kolhapur-416 006. ...Respondents
__________
Adv. Abhishek Nandimath a/w Adv. Shardul Diwan and Adv. Advait Vajaratkar,
for the Petitioner.
__________

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &

ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATE : 21 APRIL 2025
Oral Judgment (Per : G. S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

challenging the notice dated 01 April 2025 issued by the respondent no. 2

Mayur Adane, PA Page 1 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 10:40:57 :::

 503-WP-5368-2025 (C).doc

- Kolhapur District Bar Association, Kolhapur, whereby the members are

informed that the dues payable by its members be cleared and only after

such dues are cleared, the members would be considered eligible, to

participate in the proposed elections. The notice also informs that those

members who would make such payments after 1 April 2025, would not

be eligible to participate and/or cast vote in the election.

2. The petitioner’s contention is that such notice as issued by the

respondent no. 2 – Kolhapur District Bar Association is arbitrary and

illegal affecting their legal right to participate in the elections. The second

prayer as made in the petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus to

direct the Kolhapur District Bar Association to allow its members whose

dues are paid after 1 April 2025 and other similarly situated electors

whose annual membership fees are due between 1 April 2025 and 31

December 2025, be allowed to cast their votes in the elections of the

Kolhapur Bar Association. The substantive prayers as made in the writ

petition need to be noted which read thus:-

“b) This Hon ble High Court by issuing writ of certiorari or any other writ,
order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari
be pleased to quash and set aside impugned Notice dated 01.04.2025
passed by Kolhapur District Bar Association, Kolhapur / Respondent
No. 2 [which is below 'Exhibit - D' of this Petition];
c) This Hon'ble High Court by issuing writ of mandamus or
any other writ, order and/ or direction in the nature of mandamus be
pleased to direct the Kolhapur District Bar Association, Kolhapur /
Respondent No. 2 to allow those members of Respondent No. 2, whose
dues are payable after 01.04.2025 and other similarly situated Electors to
cast their votes in upcoming annual elections, whose payments of annual
Mayur Adane, PA Page 2 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 10:40:57 :::

 503-WP-5368-2025 (C).doc

membership fees are due between 01.04.2025 and 31. 12. 2025;”

3. In considering such prayers for a writ to be issued under Article 226

of the Constitution of India against respondent no. 2, at the outset, we

examine whether respondent no. 2 is a “State or its Instrumentality”,

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In such

context, on a query being made in regard to the averments as made in the

memo of the writ petition, our attention is drawn by the learned counsel

for the petitioner to paragraph 5 of the petition which merely aver that

because respondent no. 1 - Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa exercises

control over respondent no. 2 and that there are functions, objects and

goals of respondent no. 2 which are aligned with the functions of Bar

Council of Maharashtra and Goa, hence, respondent no.2 would be an

instrumentality of a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India. Hence, it would be amenable to the writ

jurisdiction of this Court. In support of such contention, reliance is placed

on the decision of the Division bench of the Karnataka High Court

(Dharwad Bench) in the case of Shri Chandrakant S/o. Tammanna Majagi

vs. Karnataka State Bar Council 1 as also the decision of the Delhi High

Court in the case of PK Dash, Advocate vs. Bar Council of Delhi and Ors2

4. We may, at the outset, observe that it is certainly not possible to

draw any parity in regard to the statutory duties and obligations as

1. 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5403
2. AIR 2016 DELHI 135
Mayur Adane, PA Page 3 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 10:40:57 :::

 503-WP-5368-2025 (C).doc

conferred by law on the Bar Council which is constituted under a statute

with that of a bar association which is an association of persons. We have

perused the said decisions, as relied on behalf of the petitioners, however,

we are not persuaded to accept the petitioners’ contention and to subscribe

to the view as taken in the said decisions relied on behalf of the

petitioners.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajghor Ranjhan

Jayantilal vs. Election scrutiny committee of B.B.A & Anr. 3 was

considering a similar challenge in regard to the elections of the Bombay

Bar Association, when the Court held that a writ petition on such cause

was not maintainable as the Bombay Bar Association was not a State

within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was

observed that a bar association being an association of persons having its

by-laws and rules, does not receive any aid/financial assistance from the

government exchequer, nor would the government have any control or

stake either in the establishment or in the management of the Bar

Association. It was held that in the absence of there being any deep or

pervasive State control in the management of the affairs, the Bar

Association cannot be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12

of the Constitution of India. In such context, the relevant observations as

made by the Court are as follows:-

3. 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1118

Mayur Adane, PA Page 4 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 10:40:57 :::

 503-WP-5368-2025 (C).doc

“5. At the outset, an objection is raised by Mr. Tally, the learned Counsel for
Respondent No.1, to the maintainability of this Petition. He would submit
that the prayers made by the petitioner are in relation to the elections, which
have already been held, the results of which stand declared. It is submitted
hence at such stage no relief can be granted to the Petitioner on a concluded
election process. The next objection of Mr. Tally and which is more
fundamental is that the Petition is also not maintainable, for the reason that
the Bombay Bar Association is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India, as none of the essential requirements to hold this
body to be a ‘State’ under Article 12 are present. It is hence Mr. Tally’s
submission that the Petition needs to be dismissed.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are not persuaded to
accept the contentions, as urged on behalf of the Petitioner, that any relief can
be granted to the Petitioner, by entertaining this Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution. This, firstly, for the reason that we cannot accept the
Petitioner’s contention that the Bombay Bar Association is a ‘State’ under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. We are informed by Mr. Tally that the
Bombay Bar Association is an Association of Persons (AOP), having its bye-
laws and Rules. It does not receive any aid / financial assistance from the
government to meet its expenditures, nor does the government have any
other form of controlling stake either in the establishment or in the
management or administration of the bar association. There is no deep or
pervasive “State control” in the management of its affairs. Furthermore, the
functions of the Bombay Bar Association do not relate/or are governmental
functions. For all these reasons the Bombay Bar Association cannot be held to
be a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, on this
ground alone, we cannot entertain this Petition. We may observe that the
alternate remedy for the Petitioner, if at all, would be to file a Civil Suit for
redressal of any election grievance which the Petitioner has.
8. Be that as it may, the issues which are raised in the Petition concern the
elections of the Standing Committee of the bar association. Election itself is a
creature of the statute. Such elections are held according to the Rules and
Regulations. If the Petitioner has any grievance regarding the same, certainly
the remedy for the Petitioner cannot be to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this
Court.”
(Emphasis Added)

6. The view taken by this court in the case of Rajbhor Ranjhan

Jayantilal (supra) was also followed in the case of Dilip Shridhar Modgi vs.

Thane District Courts Bar Association through its Secretary4.

7. It is not the case that the petitioners are remediless, to assail any

actions inter se between the members and the Bar Association which is by
4. WP No. 4206 of 2024.
Mayur Adane, PA Page 5 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 10:40:57 :::

 503-WP-5368-2025 (C).doc

approaching the appropriate Civil Court by filing a civil suit for redressal

of its grievances. In fact the remedy lies in the precincts of the bar

association, that is to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate reliefs.

We are thus quite certain that a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for any relief on a dispute between the member and

the bar association is not maintainable.

8. We may observe that the bar associations are either societies

registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or trusts, they are

governed by their own bye-laws or rules. Certainly, there is no deep or

pervasive control of the Government or even of the Bar Council on the

bar associations. They are governed by a managing committee which is

elected by its members. There is hence, neither any control nor any

interference of the Government in the functions of the bar association,

much less on their elections or day to day functioning. The managing

committee looks after the welfare of its members. The Bar Associations, in

the interest of its members, day-in and day-out issue circulars, notices,

notifications, etc. If all such activities, actions and decisions of the bar

association are to be held to be subject, to the judicial review of the High

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by reaching to a

conclusion that the bar association is a “State” within the meaning of

Article 12 of the Constitution, in our opinion, this would certainly lead to

a chaotic situation. The State of Maharashtra has 36 districts, each district

Mayur Adane, PA Page 6 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 10:40:57 :::

 503-WP-5368-2025 (C).doc

has number of talukas and each taluka is likely to have a bar association,

which would be governed by their own rules and regulations. If we accept

petitioner’s contention that the petition be entertained, in such event “any

dispute whatsoever” between the members and the bar associations, the

High Court would be required to exercise its power of judicial review by

entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and

adjudicate such disputes.

9. In our opinion, if we entertain writ petitions on such causes, things

would not stop only at the bar associations formed by advocates, as the

same logic would be required to be applied to associations of other

professional bodies like the associations of Doctors, Chartered Accountant,

Engineers to name a few, which also discharge duties towards its members

and citizens. Thus, it is a proposition too wide that a writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution, be held to be maintainable, in regard to

any inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 2- Bar

Association. We may also observe that invariably such dispute would also

involve disputed questions of facts, which in any event cannot be gone

into in any adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.

10. Further, there is another aspect which would dissuade us from not

entertaining a writ petition between a member and the bar association, the

reason being any decision of the bar association, with which some of its

members may feel aggrieved, if is to be brought within the purview of

Mayur Adane, PA Page 7 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 10:40:57 :::

 503-WP-5368-2025 (C).doc

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inviting interference of the High

Court, it would not be a situation, conducive to the harmonious working

of the bar associations and/or the intention with which any bar association

is established and supposed to function, causing impediments, and a peril

in the smooth functioning of the bar associations, or its managing

committees. This would not only lead to a chaos but also a possible misuse

of the discretionary and summary jurisdiction of this Court. The

magnitude is just to be imagined.

11. Even otherwise, the relationship between the bar association and its

members on anything to do with the functioning of the bar association is

circumscribed/governed and controlled by the rules of the bar association,

to which the members subscribe, when they accept the membership of the

bar association. If this be so, merely for the reason that the advocates are

governed by the Advocates Act, a relief in a writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution cannot be granted against the bar association. In

our opinion this would be a position too far fetched.

12. We are thus not inclined to entertain this writ petition. We however,

keep open the remedy of the petitioners to approach the appropriate Civil

Court for redressal of their grievance, if any.

13. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

Mayur Adane, PA Page 8 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 10:40:57 :::