“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 byelaws 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
