1 2025:CGHC:41852 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 842 of 2025 1 - District Bar Association Ambikapur, Surguja Through- Present Acting Secretary, Vijay Tiwari S/o Late Vishwanath Tiwari, Aged About 50 Years, Profession/ Occupation- Practicing Advocate, Residence Of Kedarpur Ambikapur, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislature Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chhattisgarh State Bar Council Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Bar Council, High Court Campus Bodri Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - The Chairman Chhattisgarh State Bar Council, High Court Campus Bodri Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Special Committee Chhattisgarh State Bar Council, High Court Campus Bodri Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Election Officer Sarguja District Bar Association Ambikapur, Surguja District- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Appellate Committee Sarguja District Bar Association Ambikapur, Surguja District- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Udayraj Tiwari S/o Late Shri Jwala Prasad Tiwari Aged About 58 Years Practicing Advocate At District And Session Court Ambikapur District- Surguja R/o Godhanpur Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondent No. 2 to 4 : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Gopal Swaroop Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.23 12:40:08 +0530 2 19/08/2025 1. By way of the present MCC, the petitioner herein approached this Court for clarification/interpretation of order dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by this Hon'ble court whereby this hon'ble court has disposed of the petition by dismissing the same as not pressed with the direction to conduct with fresh election in accordance law/rules/regulations of the Manyata Niyam 2009. 2. Learned Sr. Counsel submit that through the Writ Petition (C) 4332 of 2023 the petitioner herein had challenged the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 via which the respondents travelling beyond the petitioner after successfully conducting the elections, issued the certificate to the elected candidates, but on a complaint raised by a person regarding the results, the respondent no. 2 without arraying the petitioner as a party and without giving any opportunity of hearing, Stayed the said election results by its order dated 14.09.2023. Thus, the petitioners had challenged the impugned order dated 14.09.2023 whereby after hearing the arguments and perusing the records the Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant status quo which remained in effect till the final disposal of the petition till 21.07.2025. At this stage, it would be the need of the hour to specifically plead here that, though the prescribed period/tenure of an elected body is stated to be 2 years, during the pendency of the petition, the said period had already been elapsed, but by virtue of the order dated 14.09.2023, the petitioners continued to hold their offices and thereby their term till 21.07.2025. 3 3. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that acting in consonance of this Hon'ble Courts order dated 21.07.2025 the petitioners herein proceeded to call a General Meeting at the Bar and declared fresh elections to be conducted. An election officer was duly appointed, the Dates and Schedule of the Elections i.e. the election programme was duly notified. However, despite the petitioners and the General body at the Bar calling and notifying the fresh elections, the respondent no. 2 again attempting to create a new controversy has proceeded to issue another order dated 25.07.2025 while again misinterpreting the order of this Hon'ble Court and taking the shelter of Clause 24 (6) of the Manyata Niyam 2009 has proceeded to again impose a body over the petitioner and despite having called an election is asking for the elections to be re-notified under the said body. 4. Therefore, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this application seeking clarification of the order dated 21.07.2025, craving a clarification over the fact that, as observed by the Hon'ble Court in the said order, the Term (karyakaal) of the petitioner's body stood extended till 21.07.2025 Para 3 of the order And by virtue of the same the petitioner body is entitled to call for the Fresh elections till one month from the vacating of the offices as per Clause 24 (6) of the Manyatya Niyam 2009. The Respondent no. 2 has no right whatsoever to interfere with the election process adopted by the Bar, and the same is being done by misinterpreting the order passed by this Hon'ble Court, undermining the Undertaking taken before this Court, and in the name and garb of the observation made by this Hon'ble Court with respect to the notification of Fresh Elections. 4 5. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The order of this Court dated 21.07.2025 passed in 4332/2023, it has been mentioned in para 10 that “the petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. However fresh elections shall be conducted in accordance with law/rules/regulation of the Maanyata Niyam 2009. 8. On perusal of the aforesaid order, this Court is of the opinion that there no need of clarification/interpretation of order dated 21.07.2025, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this MCC. Accordingly, the present MCC stands dismissed. 9. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise his grievances before an appropriate forum. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti