Disposed

Gobardfhan Pujari v. Orissa State Bar

Orissa HC19 Aug 2016WP(C)/5296/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the 2002 Bar Council election, the single-judge bench held that no relief was due as the elected members' term expired in 2007 and subsequent elections occurred. The petition was disposed of without examining voter list issues.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to raise issues regarding voter list preparation before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

W.P.(C). No. 5296 of 2002 23. 19.08.2016 Heard Dr. Sujata Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.P. Pr adhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-opposite party No.29, Mr. S. Nanda, le arned counsel for opposite party No.1 and Mr. S.P. Sarangi, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and perused the record.

The petitioner therefore prays that this Honble Court may graciously b e pleased to admit this writ application and issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parti es to show cause as to why this writ application shall not be allowed/and if the opp.party fai led to show cause or satisfactorily cause your Lordships may be pleased to make the rule absol ute and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other order declaring the Ori ssa Bar Council Election, 2002 held on 28.09.2002 to be void or may pass such other order/orde rs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper and for this act of kindness the petitioner sh all be duty bound ever pray.

3. Admittedly, the election held in the year 2002 was for a period of five years which expired in the year 2007. As such, the prayer made in this petition does not deserved to be granted as thereafter two elections, one in the year 2007 and another in the year 2012 hav e already been held. The private opposite parties in this writ petition may or may not have be en elected in the subsequent elections. The present members of the Bar Council elected in the last election are not parties before us. 4. In such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no relief deser ves to be granted in this petition at this stage. 5. Dr. Dash has raised certain issue with regard to the preparation of th e voter list which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had not been done prop erly.

6. Be that as it may, since the issues in the present writ petition relat es to the election of 2002 and the period of elected members has already expired a decade back , we would not like to delve into such issue and grant any relief at this stage as there is no prayer in such regard.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner shal l have liberty to raise the other issues with regard to preparation of voter list before the a ppropriate authority in accordance with law.

Gobardfhan Pujari v. Orissa State Bar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobardfhan Pujari v. Orissa State Bar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryakanta Haboda Vs State of Odisha

Madan M.Sahoo Vs State of Orissa

Bkd Infrastructure Vs State

Ashesa Ku Nayak Vs Controller of Examination,Scte and Vt,Bbsr

Paramananda Behera Vs State of Orissa

Purna Vs State