Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dausa District Kabaddi Association vs Rajasthan State Kabaddi Association on 10 July, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6831/2020
Dausa District Kabaddi Association
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan State Kabaddi Association
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr.T.C. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ravi Bhojak Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat Mr. Jai Raj Tantia Mr. SS Raghav, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 10/07/2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit pointing out that the Election Officer is conducting elections in an arbitrary manner whereby he is not handed over the nomination form to the candidates. It is also stated that the venue for conducting the elections is at Hotel Shyam Paradise, Ajmer Road, Jaipur and all the nomination forms have been filled at the residence of the respondent No.5 in presence of his father.
Learned counsel has also pointed out that the Election Officer, who has been appointed by the President for conducting elections, namely, Mr. Surendra Bhartiya is a Secretary of the Rajasthan Kayaking & Conoeing Association, which is one of the Rajasthan Sports Associations under the Rajasthan State Olympic Association apart from the present Rajasthan State Kabaddi (Downloaded on 10/07/2020 at 09:51:59 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-6831/2020] Association and thus he is one of the interested persons and is not fair and impartial.
Learned counsel submits that as per the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Rules, 2004 (for short "the Rules of 2004"), the Election Officer has been defined to mean as under:
"Election Officer" means a person who has not accepted any fee, remuneration, engagement or assignment or is not associated with the person who has accepted such fee, remuneration, assignment or engagement from the Association seeking to appoint him and shall not be a voting or non-voting member of the Association or any of its affiliated units and must be transparently independent and possess experience of conducting elections of either a co-operative body, a Municipal or Panchayat Institution or any other Constitutional Body."
He has taken this Court to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004, which lays down the election procedure for elections as per Section 26(3) of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 to submit that the Election Officer has to be transparently independent having no personal interest in any manner and should also have experience of conducting elections of either a Cooperative Body, Municipal or Panchayat Institution or any other Constitutional Body and that the election officer does not possess these qualifications. Learned counsel submits that the procedure which has been laid down under Rule 11 has not been followed. The nomination form has not been provided by the Election Officer (Downloaded on 10/07/2020 at 09:51:59 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-6831/2020] in spite of several requests which show that he is not acting in any fair and transparent manner.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1- Rajasthan State Kabaddi Association submits that the Election Officer was appointed in terms of the bye-laws and the election is to be conducted in terms of bye-laws alone and the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 would only be applicable at the stage of initial election in terms of Section 26(3) of the Act, which provides for election of the Sports Association.
Leaned Senior counsel further submits that in terms of Section 22(b), the Sports Association has to conduct the elections in accordance with its bye-laws and therefore, the rigor of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 would not apply in relation to the elections conducted of the Association by the Election Officer.
I have considered the submissions as above and find that the matter requires to be examined whether Election Officer, who is appointed under the bye-laws can act dehors the provisions of Rules laid down by the Legislature for conducting the elections and procedures laid down therein and whether a departure from the said procedure can be made by the Election Officer, who may have been appointed under the bye-laws by conducting election as per his own norms and refuse to give nomination forms to any person.
Prima facie, this Court finds that the bye-laws framed for the Rajasthan State Kabaddi Association laid down certain conditions which are required to be followed for elections. However, the same would have to be read to be in addition to the procedure which is already laid down under the Rules of 2004 and cannot be said to be in exclusion thereof. Prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the (Downloaded on 10/07/2020 at 09:51:59 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-6831/2020] elections being conducted by the Election Officer, Mr. Surendra Bhartiya of Kabaddi Association, cannot be said to be fair, impartial or transparent. He has not provided nomination forms to prospective candidates, which includes the petitioner.
In view thereof, this Court restrains the respondent No.2 from conducting election of the respondent Kabaddi Association on 12th July, 2020. However, this Court feels that fair and transparent elections must be conducted for the Association. For the said purpose, let this case be again listed before the Court on 16 th July, 2020.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J FATEH RAJ BOHRA /6-37 (Downloaded on 10/07/2020 at 09:51:59 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)