THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20064 of 2014 Dated : 30.07.2014 Between:
Talluri Ravi Kumar, S/o Saidaiah, 44 yrs., R/o 1-62-35/29, Sector-2, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam-17 .. Petitioner And The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20064 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioner is a practicing Advocate and member of Visakhapatnam Bar Association. He has also enrolled as a member of A.P. Advocates Welfare Fund. The Visakhapatnam Bar Association is recognised by A.P. Bar Council. The A.P. Bar Council issued Circular ROC No.84 of 2014, dated 19.02.2014 directing the Bar Associations in the State to adopt model bye-laws and if the model bye-laws are not adopted the benefits of Advocates Welfare Fund would be denied to the members of such Association. As the Visakhapatnam Bar Association has not adopted the model bye-laws there is an imminent threat to the membership of the petitioner in the A.P. Advocate Welfare Fund. Hence this writ petition.
2. Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the circular dated 19.02.2014 mandates adoption of model bye-laws by the respective associations and unless such model bye-laws are adopted, the continuation of the benefits of A.P. Advocate’s Welfare Fund would not be extended to the members of the 2nd respondent association and since these bye-laws are not adopted by the 2nd respondent association, there is a serious threat of continuation of membership of the petitioner with the welfare fund affecting his rights. Learned counsel further submits that under the provisions of Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1987, adoption of such model bye-laws is mandatory.
3. Learned counsel representing the first respondent - Andhra Pradesh Bar Council submits that the petitioner misunderstood the above said circular. The circular requests Bar Association to adopt the model bye-laws and that mandatory nature of adoption of model bye-laws would be incorporated in the amendments proposed for Welfare Fund Act and contends that as of today, no such clause is incorporated. He further submits that the 2nd respondent association has adopted the model bye-laws as early as in the Year 2009. He further contends that the petitioner placed reliance on Section 11 of the Act, but it was amended in the Year 2011. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that no cause survives to the petitioner to institute this writ petition and it is a vexatious litigation.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent association, it is stated that that the petitioner, who is a member of the said association, only apprehends threat of affecting the benefits flowing out of Advocate Welfare fund.
5. In view of the categorical assertion of the Bar Council that model bye-laws were adopted by the 2nd respondent association as early as in the year, 2009, there is no cause for such apprehension and nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication.
6. This writ petition is accordingly closed. No costs.
7. In view of closing of this writ petition, WPMP No.26758 of 2014 seeking to implead the petitioners as respondents is unnecessary and accordingly closed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date : 30.07.2014 ssp