Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Unknown vs Sudhir Batham on 20 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.14690 of 2026
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
01. 20.05.2026 GTK,J
Heard,
Mr.O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel
representing Mr.M.K.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1, who appeared on virtual mode.
This Writ Petition now being taken up as a House
Motion in pursuance of the permission accorded by the
Hon’ble The Chief Justice.
The principal grievance of the petitioner is that he
was duly elected as Senior Executive Member (20 years
category) to the Visakahaptnam Bar Association in
pursuance to the declaration of the results on 25.04.2026
and thereafter assumed the charge on 27.04.2026. After
following the prescribed procedure, the elections were
conducted. In the present Writ Petition, the limited prayer
sought for by the petitioner is that the Bar Council for the
State of Andhra Pradesh, vide Roc.No.123 of 2026, dated
13.05.2026, acted upon the complaint received from the
7th respondent, dated 02.05.2026, wherein he was
unsuccessful in the election.
The said complaint is made for recounting the ballot
papers for the post of Senior Executive Member (20 years
category) and also in respect of Junior Executive Member
2
and, in the present petition, lis is confined to Senior
Executive Member (20 years category).
Mr.O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel, would point
out that there is a glaring infirmity committed by the 1st
respondent in hastily acting upon the complaint of the 7th
respondent, which is not in consonance with Rule 25 of
the Bye-Laws of the Visakhapatnam Bar Association,
which reads as follows:
“25. DISPUTES:
(i) Any dispute arsises in connection with or in the
course of election, the Election Officer shall refer the same
to the Bar Council of A.P the Bar Council will constitute a
Committee consisting of three senior members of the
concerned Association to resolve the dispute and the
decision of the said Committee shall be final.
(ii) The Committee shall dispose of the Election Petition
within 45 days.
(iii) The Committee shall decide the Election Petition
duly calling for remakrs from the Election Officer and
consider the material available on record.
(iv) However, the Elected Body shall be entitled to
continue in office and no act, order or resolution of the
Elected Body or any of its Committee shall be called in
question on the ground that the Election is invalid.”
As per the said Bye-Law, sub-clause (1) says that
any dispute arises in connection with or in the course of
election, the Election Officer shall refer the same to the
Bar Council of A.P. The Bar Council will constitute a
Committee consisting of three senior members of the
concerned Association to resolve the dispute and the
decision of the said Committee shall be final.
On the other hand, Mr.P.Narahari Babu, learned
counsel, vehemently opposed the petition, stating that the
Writ Petition is not maintainable since the petitioner is
having an efficacious remedy of apporaching the Civil
Court under appropriate law, and the said law is no more
res integra.
3
This Court is conscious of the fact in law that Writs
should not ordinarily be interfered with the matters
pertaining to the issue as in the present nature, but as
could be seen from the very order dated 13.05.2026
issued by the Bar Council for the State of Andhra
Pradesh, it is stated in the last paragraph that “The
Counting process shall be executed in the presence of the
contested candidates or their Agents, on or before 20-05-
2026. The decision of the Committee in recounting of
Ballot Papers, shall be final”.
The petitioner now is before this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, Judicial Review that the
decision making itself is wrong and when the 1st
respondent categorically stated the counting should be in
the presence of the contesting candidates, which also
includes the petitioner, but he did not received any
information from the Election Officer.
This Court prima facie agrees with the arguments
advanced by Mr.P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel that
Writ is not maintainable, but in view of the aforesaid
reasons that the very decision taken by the 1st respondent
is manifested with grave infractions and irregularities
coupled with arbitrariness, and as per the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dayaram vs. Sudhir Batham
and others1, wherein it has categorically held that the
right to approach the Court by way of Article 226 under
judicial review cannot be taken away by an executive fiat
by adding that the order of the Committee is final. This
Court is inclined to interfere, in view of the judgment of the
1
(2012) 1 SCC 333
4
Constitutional Bench (nine judges) of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai and others vs. Union of
India and others2, wherein at paragraph 215, it is
observed as follows:
“215. Judicial review is a basic feature of the
Constitution. This Court/High Courts have constitutional
duty and responsibility to exercise judicial review as centinal
quevive. Judicial review is not concerned with the merits of
the decision, but with the manner in which the decision was
taken.”
Hence, this Court under firm opinion that, in order
to meet the ends of justice, the results in pursuance of the
counting by the three-member Committee as appointed
by the 1st respondent, shall be put on hold till the disposal
of the Writ Petition. The maintainability of the Writ Petition
is left open.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
take out personal notice on the unofficial respondents by
Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and file proof
of service in the Registry by the next date of hearing.
List the matter on 15.06.2026.
______
GTK,J
BMS
2
(1994) 3 SCC 1
