- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44319 WP No. 33187 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33187 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H RATHNAKAR SHETTY, S/O LATE TEJAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT BASEMENT FLOOR, CANARA TOWER, MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD, UDUPI - 576 103. ADVOCATE AND PAST PRESIDENT OF UDUPI ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION ® UDUPI. 2. MR. SANJAY K NILAVARA ADVOCATE, S/O K B NILAWARA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 1ST FLOOR, DIANA `N', JANCY LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, UDUPI - 576 213. 3. MRS. VANI V RAO, ADVOCATE, W/O. VITTAL RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT RUKMINI KRISHNA, COURT BACK ROAD, UDUPI-576 104. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44319 WP No. 33187 of 2025 AND: 1. UDUPI BAR ASSOCIATION OFFICE AT COURT COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, UDUPI - 576 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 2. SRI. RONALD PRAVEEN KUMAR PRESIDENT, UDUPI ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, OFFICE AT COURT COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, UDUPI -576101 REPRESENTED BY MR. RONALD PRAVEEN KUMAR, 3. THE RETURNING OFFICER, UDUPI ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, OFFICE AT COURT COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, UDUPI - 576 101, BY MR. SHASHINDRA KUMAR. 4. THE ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER-1, UDUPI ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, OFFICE AT COURT COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, UDUPI - 576 101 BY MR.BHUVANENDRA SUVARNA. 5. THE ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER-2, UDUPI ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, OFFICE AT COURT COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, UDUPI-576 101 BY MR. VIJAYA. 6. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL UDUPI - 576 101. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R6) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44319 WP No. 33187 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: I) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO QUASH THE FORM NO.1 BEARING NO. UBA/UP/168/2025 DATED 23.10.2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ELECTION NOTICE DATED 24.10.2025 BEARING NO.UBA/UDP/168/2025 BOTH ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.6. 2. Notice to respondents 1 to 5 is dispensed with in view of the following order to be passed. 3. I.A.No.1/2025 for dispensation is allowed. 4. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "i) Issue Writ of Certiorari, or any other Appropriate Writ to quash the Form No.1 bearing No. UBA/UP/168/2025 dated 23.10.2025 and Consequently Election Notice Dated 24.10.2025 Bearing No. UBA/UDP/168/2025 both issued by the respondent No.1 in accordance with law as per Annexure-A and B and etc. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44319 WP No. 33187 of 2025 (ii) Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to Denovo conduct the elections in strictly in consonance with the by-laws of Udupi Bar Association as per Annexure-C". 5. Though initially the question of maintainability was raised, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30.11.2020 in W.A.No.100141/2020 more particularly paragraph 36 at page 87 which is reproduced hereunder would be appropriate. "36. The observations of the Hon9ble Apex Court and the various High Courts in the long line of rulings narrated supra, obviates any detail discussion with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition against the Bar Association invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, as detailed supra, some of the obligation, the 3rd respondent has cast upon itself, bears a public character. The Advocates are not mere arbiters but officers of the court who assist the Court in the running of the justice delivery system and it is such officers of the court who constitute the 3rd respondent Society. That the constituents of the 3rd respondent Society are answerable to the Court and to the 1st respondent with regard to their conduct in the discharge of their professional duties. Both the 1st respondent and the Court can by no stretch of imagination be described as private entities. That apart, if the objects of the 3rd respondent Society are juxtaposed with the observations of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Dwaraka Nath9s Case and SCBA case, it is apparent that the 3rd respondent discharges obligations of a public character. Hence, the writ petition invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a relief as against the 3rd respondent is required to be held as maintainable. It is not the case of the 3rd respondent that it is not similarly situated as the Bar - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44319 WP No. 33187 of 2025 Associations as detailed in the long line of rulings. Further, admittedly the 3rd respondent is in receipt of grants and is housed in the court premises and under the all pervasive control of the 1st respondent." 6. By taking into consideration the above observation in paragraph 36 in the aforesaid Judgment, the writ petition is held to be maintainable. 7. Even though the writ petition is held to be maintainable, the question of locus of the petitioners would have to be considered. 8. On enquiry thereof, it is submitted that the first petitioner is a probable candidate for the election to one of the posts of the Office Bearers and insofar as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, they are members and are not proposing to contest the elections. 9. On further enquiry as to whether the names of petitioners 2 and 3 have been published in the list of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44319 WP No. 33187 of 2025 defaulters. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that their names have not been so published. 10. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the notification in Form No.1 which has been issued cannot cause any grievance to the petitioners inasmuch as the first petitioner has time till 12.11.2025 to file his nomination which is yet to come into being and insofar as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned their names not being in the defaulter list they cannot be aggrieved by any alleged short notice issued in respect of the defaulters. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER Writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27