Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re : Md. Shahid Ali & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 July, 2018
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
31.07.2018
.
Item No 06 Court No.15 Avijit Mitra W.P. No. 12837 (W) of 2018 In re : Md. Shahid Ali & Ors.
- Versus -
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Goutam Banerjee, Mr. Kamal Kanta Kar For the Petitioners Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Tarak Karan For the State Respondents Mr. Alok Ghosh Mr. Arijit Dey For the K.M.C. Mr. Amar Nath Das, Mr. Sankar Narayan Saha For the Respondent nos. 5 to 7 The present writ petition has been preferred inter alia praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the police authorities to monitor the election of Simpark Mall Shop Owners' Welfare Association (in short, the said Association).
Mr. Goutam Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the said Association is registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 (in short, the said Act of 1961) but it is not being properly administered by the members of the Executive Committee in consonance with the provisions of the said Act of 1961. The Executive Committee of the said Association is also not disclosing the accounts towards income and expenditure to the general members. Such fact was brought to the notice of the respondent no.3 by a representation dated 25th February, 2017 but no steps were taken. As the petitioners raised such objections, they were threatened of dire consequences by the members of the Executive Committee and accordingly a complaint was lodged by the petitioner no.1 before the respondent no.4. In view of such repeated complaints and as the 2 tenure of the Executive Committee was coming to an end, the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 took steps to hold the election clandestinely and in hot haste without proper notice to all the members of the said Association.
He further submits that during pendency of the writ petition, on 21st July, 2015 an election programme has been published. A perusal of the same would reveal that the said Association is attempting to hold the said election in hot haste within a period of only about 7 days and such action on the part of the respondents warrants immediate interference of this Court. The said election programme has been brought on record by a supplementary affidavit. Let the said affidavit be kept on record.
Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the State Respondents submits that involving the police authorities a dispute among the members of the said Association cannot be made the subject matter of a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 7 denies the contention of the petitioner and submits that the petitioners participated in the Annual General Meeting of the said Association held on 22nd July, 2018 to approve the election programme. In terms of the election programme, three petitioners have also collected nomination papers for participating in the election and as such the petitioners cannot turn back and challenge the election process. To ensure that the election is conducted peacefully, the police authorities have also been requested by the respondent no.6 to post constables in the premises of the said Association. Let the copies of the resolutions and the representation submitted to the police authorities, as produced, be kept on record.
Indisputably, the petitioners as members of the said Association have participated in the Annual General Meeting conducted for approving the election programme. In terms of 3 the approved election programme, three of the petitioners have also collected nomination papers to contest the election and in view thereof, the petitioners cannot turn back and challenge the election process. The petitioners have also failed to establish that the election process is being conducted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. The averments made in the writ petition also do not justify the perception of threat as argued on behalf of the petitioners.
In the said conspectus, this Court is reluctant to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioners and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall however be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)