APHC010424792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 28332/2025 Between: 1. GINJALA CHAKRAVARTHY, S/O GINJALA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT 70-2- 32, RAMALAYAM STREET, RAMANAYYAPETA, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533005 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE KAKINADA BAR ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, REGD. NO. 25/1963, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER, ELECTION COMMITTEE 2025- 2026,BAR ASSOCIATION, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. JOKA VENKATA SRINIVASA VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE, AP 1114/1999,KAKINADA BAR ASSOCIATION,KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE BAR COUNCIL OF A P, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GROUND FLOOR, BUILDING A.P. HIHG COURT, NELAPADU, AMARAVATI, A.P- 522239. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, is filed to quash the order of the 2nd Respondent dated llthApril 2025, which upheld the nomination of the 3rd Respondent for the post of Sports and Cultural Secretary in the Kakinada Bar Association Elections 2025-2026, to direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to disqualify the 3rd Respondent's candidature, and to declare the 3rd Respondent's election to the said post as null and void. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(c), and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the principles of natural justice. The 2nd Respondent failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the Petitioner's objections and did not verify the 3rd Respondent's alleged dual voting in the Kakinada and Prathipadu Bar Associations, in contravention of Clauses 3(v) and 3(vi) of the Model Bye Laws. Instead, the 2nd Respondent relied solely on a certificate issued by the Prathipadu Bar Association, an interested party, without independent scrutiny, thereby violating the requirement of fairness and rendering the 3rd Respondent's election invalid under Clauses 7 and 24(xii) of the Model Bye Laws and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend order of the 2nd Respondent dated llthApril 2025, which upheld the nomination of the 3rd Respondent for the post of Sports and Cultural Secretary in the Kakinada Bar Association Elections 2025-2026and to maintain status quo with respect to the post of Sports and Cultural Secretary pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. Kota Krishna Deepthi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri N.Manikanta, learned Counsel representing Sri P.Hema Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the Proceedings dated 11.04.2025, which has been passed by the Respondent No.2. The issue relates to the conduct of Elections in the Kakinada Bar Association for the years 2025-2026, in respect of the post of Sports and Cultural Secretary. It transpires from the record that the Election to the Bar Association was conducted on 11.04.2025 and the result was declared on the same date i.e., on 11.04.2025, wherein the Respondent No.3 herein was declared as the elected candidate for the post of Sports and Cultural Secretary in Kakinada Bar Association Elections. 3. While the impugned Order was passed way back on 11.04.2025, the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court in the month of August, 2025 and took few more months to cure the defects. As such, the tenure of the post (Sports & Cultural Secretary) is only for a period of one year, and more than six months have already passed by. This apart, challenge to the Election to a particular post with respect to Bar Association cannot be made in a Writ Petition. 4. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is not maintainable besides being hopelessly barred by delay and laches. The Writ Petition is dismissed both on the grounds of merits as well as delay. No order as to costs. 5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:16.10.2025 SRT 147 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD W.P.No.28332 of 2025 Date: 16.10.2025 SRT