Allahabad High Court
Ram Pyare Pal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. on 2 April, 2015
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Reserved On: 26th March, 2015
Delivered On 2nd April, 2015
Writ-C No. 15797 of 2015
Ram Pyare Lal
Vs.
State of U.P. And Ors.
===========
Court No. 38
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.
The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 4th March, 2015 in terms of which the electoral college of the Society Sri Tilak Kisan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kamhariya, Post Padari Bazar, Tehsil Salempur, District Deoria has come to be finalized and an election schedule announced by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria. As was noticed by this Court in its order dated 26th March, 2015, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 had raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and it was on the said objection alone that the learned counsel for parties were heard and orders reserved.
The basic grievance of the petitioner, who is a member of the General Body of the Society, is the non-inclusion of the names of 54 members in the list finalized by the respondent No. 5. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition has submitted that the said respondent is patently illegal for that the non-inclusion of the 54 members will materially affect the results of the election. He has further submitted that insofar as the State of U.P. is concerned, the legislature by enacting U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013, has consciously added Section 4B to the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1860") as a consequence of which, it was incumbent upon the respondent to undertake an inquiry into the membership of the General Body.
However, firstly this Court necessarily needs to consider the preliminary objection raised by Sri Pandey. Sri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has submitted that the petitioner is a member of the General Body of the Society whose name stands included in the list finalized by the Assistant Registrar. He submits that the petitioner would have no locus standi to challenge or assail the non-inclusion of 54 members. He submits that if there be any cause which may exist against the impugned order, the same would inhere only in those 54 members and not in the petitioner.
Learned counsel has further submitted that this Court has on more than one occasion held that the finalization of an electoral college and a challenge thereto, should not be entertained by this Court inasmuch as it would clearly derail the election process and in any view of the mater it is always open to an aggrieved person to challenge the elections as a whole after completion of the process.
In support of his above submission, Sri Pandey has relied upon the following judgments of this Court: (i) Ratan Kumar Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Others 2010 (1) ADJ 262; (ii) Comm. Of Management Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. 2013 (10) ADJ 532; (iii) Uttam Nishad Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (6) AWC 6354.
Responding to the above submissions, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner being an active member of the Society was clearly entitled to assail the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar finalizing the Electoral College and the consequential order passed by the District Basic Education Officer announcing the election programme. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bar Council of Delhi Vs. Surjeet Singh and others AIR 1980 SC 1612, he submits that an individual member does have a right to challenge an order finalizing a voter list as is sought to be done in the facts of the present case. Responding to the submission of Sri Pandey that this Court should lay its hands off deciding upon the validity of the orders impugned herein at this stage. Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others 2000 (8) SCC 216. Referring particularly to Para 20 of the report, Sri Singh submits that as was held by the Apex Court, the present challenge was not designed to interfere with the progress of elections but to accelerate the completion of a valid election.
Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court finds that the fact that the name of the petitioner finds mention in the Electoral College finalized by the Assistant Registrar is not disputed. What has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court is the non-inclusion of 54 members in the said list.
The issue of the locus of a member of the Association drawing up proceedings of this nature was earlier considered by this Court on various occasions and in fact as early as in 1951 in Indian Sugar Mills Association through its President Shri Hansraj Swaroop Vs. Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh Labour Department and others; AIR 1951 All 1. Again this issue cropped up and fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. P.P. Rastogi Vs. Meerut University 1997 (1) UPLBEC 415 and Vimla Devi Vs. Deputy Director of Education 1997 (3) ESC 1807.
In the judgments referred to above this Court has taken the consistent view that an individual member does not have a right to assail the decision or action taken in respect of a society or association of which he was a member unless his rights personally get effected by the impugned action.
Noticing the above referred judgments, a Division Bench of this Court in 2010 (1) ADJ 262 summed up the legal position in Paragraph 24 as under:
"24. What is discernible from the above discussion is where the right of an individual is affected or infringed, and, he has no other effective remedy, if such rights of the individual concerned are borne out from the statute or the provision of bye-laws etc. having the flavour of statute, a writ petition at his instance may be maintainable subject to attracting the condition where the Court may decline to interfere namely availability of alternative remedy, delay, laches etc. but where a legal right of an individual is not directly affected, a writ petition expousing the cause of the collective body or other members of the collective body would not be maintainable at the instance of an individual who himself is not directly affected. We may add here that in a given case, if it is found that an election was held by an imposter and he is supported by DIOS or other educational authorities, such an action of DIOS as also the election can be challenged by the individual member since it cannot be said that he is not a person aggrieved but whether a writ petition at his instance would be maintainble or he can challenge the election by filing a civil suit etc., would be a different aspect of the matter and has to be considered in each and every case considering the facts, relevant provision and other relevant aspects of the matter."
In light of the above position, this Court finds that in the facts of the present case, the instant writ petition does not espouse the rights of the petitioner individually. This petition admittedly seeks to espouse and canvass the interest of 54 members whose names have not been included in the Electoral List. The non-inclusion of these 54 members does not directly affect any legal right inhering in the petitioner. The Court must bear in mind the law succinctly summarised in Ratan Kumar Solanki (supra) where this Court held that where a writ petition has been preferred merely for espousing the cause of the collective body or other members of the collective body, by an individual member, the same would not be maintainable.
As noticed above, the name of the Petitioner already stands included in the electoral college. He is therefore not directly affected by the order impugned. In the opinion of the Court, therefore, the Petitioner clearly lacks the locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
Insofar as the reliance placed by Sri Singh on Bar Council of Delhi (supra) is concerned, suffice it to state that the Apex Court in the facts of the said case found that the electoral list itself was null and void having been prepared on the basis of a proviso to rule 3 (j) which was found to be invalid. The judgment in Election Commission (supra) has no application to the facts of this case inasmuch as this petition is clearly not aimed at accelerating the process of election.
Coming then to the second aspect of the matter and that is whether this Court should, in fact, interfere with the order impugned at this stage. This Court is of the clear opinion that any interference in the matter at this stage would clearly stall and affect the process of elections which has already been set in motion. This Court must necessarily bear in mind the fact that the finalization of a list by the Assistant Registrar by virtue of exercise of powers under the Act, 1860 is based upon a prima facie view taken by him. Even if there be competing claims at this stage and the Assistant Registrar proceed to finalise the Electoral College, the authority is not really adjudicating a dispute conclusively. He is at this stage only accepting a list of members which he finds to be prima facie constituting the valid general body. In fact, it would be apposite to notice what the Apex Court held in this regard in A.P. Aboobaker Vs. Distt. Registrar 2004 (11) SCC 247. In para 3 of the report the Apex Court held as under:-
" ..........The Division Bench of the High Court was right in taking the view that the list accepted by the District Registrar did not become final; if the appellant was aggrieved, it was open to him to establish his claim in a competent court/forum. To us, it appears even the District Registrar did not adjudicate any dispute as such. It was only a question of accepting, prima facie, the list of members of the governing body. If the appellant's claim was right and justified, merely becauses the District Registrar accepted the list of the governing body of members by E.R. Aboobaker, it did not prevent him from estbalishing his claim in a competent court."
Following the above a learned Single Judge of our Court in Gyan Bharti Shiksha Sadan and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2014 (5) ADJ 263 held as follows in paragraph 34:
" ....Thus the dispute of the office bearers are decided under S. 4 of the Societies Registration Act by the Registrar on the basis of prima facie satisfaction, as he has to deal with them for performing his administrative functions under the various provisions of the Act as detailed above. The aggrieved parties are left open to adopt the remedies available such as civil suit."
It is perhaps in the above backdrop that this Court in Committee of Management, Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya (supra) held as follows:
"9. In order to avoid a large number of writ petitions filed for quashing the orders passed by the educational authorities during the process of elections and in seeking directions to them, we hereby declare that the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64; Harcharan Singh v. Mohinder Singh and others, AIR 1968 SC 1500; Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851; Jyoti Basu and others v. Debi Ghosal and others, AIR 1982 sc 983; Harikrishna Lal v. Bau Lal Marandi, (2003) 8 SCC 613 and Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Naval Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46, restraining the Courts from interfering in the process of election after the elections are notified is equally applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the committee of management of the societies as well as the Committee of Management to be elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration of the educational institutions. The principles of law that the Courts should keep their hands off in electoral matters and that all election disputes must be tried by the Election Tribunal, is also incorporated in the Constitution of India under Article 329 (b) for the elections of the Parliament or to the house or either house of the legislature, under Article 243 O for the elections of Panchayats and Article 243 ZG in the matter of elections of the municipalities.
10. There is no reason as to why these time tested and settled principles should not be made applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the societies and for the Committee of Management under the scheme of administration of the educational institutions.
11. We have every reason to believe that in future the Court will refuse to interfere in the process of elections until the elections are concluded and will refuse to entertain election disputes and relegate the parties to approach the Election Tribunals or to file civil suit to challenge the results of the elections."
Accordingly and in view of the above, this Court declines to entertain this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date:-02.04.2015 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)