Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44746-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7280 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abhay Agarwal And Another Respondent :- High Court Judicature U.P. Thru. Registrar General Allahabad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sridhar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra,Shailesh Kumar Pathak,Subhash Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sridhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the High Court, Sri Sailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for Opposite Party no.2 and Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3. Similar writ petition bearing Writ-C No.23521 of 2025 (Sri Narayan Gupta vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) has been decided on 22.07.2025 in the following terms: "1. Heard Sri Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. The petitioner is an Advocate registered with Bar Council of U.P. with Enrollment No.UP08756/01. The case of the petitioner is that the term of the State Bar Council has expired on 06th April, 2024. However, no step has been taken by respondent No.3 i.e. Secretary, Bar Council of U.P. to initiate the process for election and formation of a new Bar Council as contemplated under the Advocates Act and the Rules, framed thereunder. 3. The petitioner has earlier approached by filing Writ-C No.21750 of 2025, and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 10.07.2025, which is as follows:- " 1. The following prayer has been made in the present writ petition: "i. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to notify fresh elections of members of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh giving strict adherence to election rules formulated by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh itself as well as section 8A of The Advocates Act, 1961." 1. Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 states that the term of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was extended by Bar Council of India, as per Rule 32 of Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 and the decision was communicated to the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj vide letter dated 03.04.2024. A copy of the said letter has been placed before us for perusal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to take recourse to further action in the matter. 3. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the extended term in terms of letter of the Bar Council of India dated 03.04.2024 was six months, and the said period has also expired, therefore, the election has to be held. 5. Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 submits that the term has been extended under Rule 32 and the extension was for two years, as provided under the said Rule. He further submits that there is only a recital in the said order that there was request by Member Secretary, U.P. Bar Council for extension of the term by six months, but it would not mean that the term was extended for six months only. 6. Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 is as follows:- " The amended Rule-32 of Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (verification) Rules, 2015 has already prescribed for the extension of the tenure of the Members of all the State Bar Council/s for the purpose of verification and the elections are to be held only after completion of the process of verification." 7. It is clear from the said Rule that the extension of the tenure of the State Bar Council if granted under the Rule would be for two years to enable the Bar Council to complete the process of verification and election. The said period has admittedly not expired. The vires of the rule is not in question. As such we find no merit in the instant petition. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly. " Relying upon the above quoted judgement, Sri Sailesh Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for Bar Council of India - Opposite Party No.2 and Sri Subhash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for U.P. Bar Council- Opposite Party No.3, say that the controversy has already been settled, therefore, nothing is required to be adjudicated. On being confronted, the petitioners' counsel submits that he has no objection if this order has already been passed. It is also informed that there is no fresh notification of the election of U.P. Bar Council. In view of the above quoted judgement dated 22.07.2025, no adjudication is required. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgement dated 22.07.2025. . [Manish Kumar,J.] [Rajan Roy,J.] Order Date :- 1.8.2025 S. Kumar Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench