Delhi District Court
Shiv Singh Rawat vs Garhwal Hiteshni Sabha (Regd.) on 17 September, 2012
:1:
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGEI, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, DELHI
Presided By : Sh. Apoorv Sarvaria, DJS
Civil Suit No: 44/10
Unique Case ID No.02403C0309872010
1.Shiv Singh Rawat S/o Late Sh. K.S. Rawat R/o 803/16A, Vijay Park, Mauzpur, Delhi 110092
2. Joth Singh Bhandari S/o Sh. Gulab Singh Bhandari R/o 574, DDA Flats, Pocket3, Sector19, Dwarka 110075 ... Plaintiffs Versus
1. Garhwal Hiteshni Sabha (Regd.), Garhwal Bhawan, Panchkuian Road, Delhi110001 ... Defendant no.1
2. Sh. Man Mohan Budakoti, President, Garhwal Hiteshni Sabha (Regd.), Garhwal Bhawan, Panchkuian Road, Delhi110001 Also At: H.No. 116, Vivekanand Puri, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi110007 ... Defendant no.2
3. Dr. Kedar Singh, General Secretary Garhwal Hiteshni Sabha (Regd.), Garhwal Bhawan, Panchkuian Road, Delhi110001 ... Defendant no.3 Civil Suit No.44/10 :2:
4. Sh. G.S. Ramola, Treasurer Garhwal Hiteshni Sabha (Regd.), Garhwal Bhawan, Panchkuian Road, Delhi110001 Also At: Old House, Near 170/1, Railway Colony, Kishanganj, Delhi 110007 ... Defendant no.4
5. Sh. Surat Singh Rawat S/o Late Sh. Roop Chand Rawat, R/o A41/1, Rama Vihar, Delhi - 110081. .... Defendant no.5 (Performa)
6. Sh. Narayan Dutt Lakhera S/o Late Sh. Chintamani Lakhera R/o A18, Avantika Sector - 2, Rohini, Delhi - 110085. .... Defendant no.6 (Performa)
7. Sh. Prahlad Dhasmana S/o Sh. Sadanand Dhasmana R/o B - 788, Avantika Rohini, Sector - 1, Delhi - 110085. .... Defendant no.7 (Performa)
8. Sh. Arjun Singh Negi S/o Sh. R.B.S. Negi R/o D - 369, Gali No. 13, Laxmi Nagar - 110092. .... Defendant no.8 (Performa)
9. Sh. Rakesh Chandra Semwal S/o Sh. Krishna Mani Semwal R/o A - 85, FFI, Keshav KunjVII, Jindal Palace Marg, Civil Suit No.44/10 :3: SLF Ved Vihar, Loni Ghaziabad - 201102, U.P. .... Defendant no.9 (Performa) ORDER ON THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2 OF CPC AND UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC
1. By this Order, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and the application filed by the defendants no.8 and 9 (proforma defendants) u/s 151 of CPC shall be disposed of.
2. The relief sought in the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC are as follows : "a) To allow the plaintiff no.2 to contest/participate in the upcoming election of Garhwal Hiteshini Sabha (Regd.), in the interest of justice.
b) to direct the Administrator to consider the natural and fundamental right of the members to represent in the Executive Committee of the Sabha;
c) An order to stay the notification of the election till the eligibility criteria for contesting election is decided.
d) An order to restrain the Ld. Administrator from initiating the election proceeding following the invalid Constitution of 1999 allegedly adopted by Sabha,
e) An order to Ld. Administrator to adopt the proceeding as per the practice followed by the Sabha for last many years.
f) Any further order may deem and proper be in favour of the plaintiff:"
3. The relief sought by the defendants no.8 and 9 in their application filed under Section 151 of CPC are as follows :
i) Declare the proceedings of the meeting held on 27th November 2011 - including the selection of Shri Devendra Singh Aswal as Election Officer and the adoption of the 1999 Civil Suit No.44/10 :4: Constitution - as illegal, unlawful and void ab initio;
ii) Direct the conduct of a fresh meeting by giving notice to all members of the Sabha for selecting an Election Officer, the expenses of which may be borne by the Garhwal Hiteshni Sabha;
In the alternative,
iii) Grant liberty and adequate time to defendants No. 8 and 9 to pursue their legal remedies prior to notification of the election and initiation of the election process.
iv) Any other and further orders it may deem fit in the interests of equity, justice and good conscience."
4. The background facts leading to filing of the present applications are that on 16th December 2010, this Court had appointed Sh. K.S. Negi, Retired Registrar of High Court of Delhi as the Administrator of the defendant no.1 Garhwal Hiteshni Sabha (hereinafter referred to as "GHS") for performing the following functions : (1) Taking over of charge of administrative affairs of GHS. (2) Examination of membership application.
(3) Supervising the conduct of elections, which includes calling of the meeting of the Mahasamiti for presenting the income expenditure report and appointment of the election officer of the GHS as per the Constitution of the Society. It also includes preparation of the Election Notification by the Election Officer and thereafter advertisement of the said Election Notification in the newspapers and conduct of elections by way of secret ballot. (4) The fourth function is of submission of result of elections to be filed in a sealed cover before this Court alongwith brief report of the conduct of election.
It was stated in para 4 of the Order dated 16.12.2010 that in case any contingency not covered under the aforesaid directions arises, the Administrator would have final authority to take appropriate decisions in Civil Suit No.44/10 :5: accordance with the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Constitution of GHS.
5. It is stated in the application of the plaintiffs that as per the Order of this Court, the electoral role was prepared. The plaintiff no.2 was given the membership of the GHS and besides the plaintiff no.2 more than 2200 persons were given membership. Thereafter, the Ld. Administrator called a meeting of Mahasmiti on 27.11.2011 at 2 PM at Garhwal Bhawan with the following agenda :
"i. Welcome of members of Mahasamiti by Administrator. ii. Details of Income and expenditure of Sabha. iii. Nomination of Election Officer for election of Executive Committee.
iv. Any other subject with permission of the Administrator."
Thereafter, the Administrator published a notice in the Times of India newspaper and added an additional issue in the agenda :
"v. Whether 2011 election be held on the basis of 1990 or 1999 Constitution will also be taken up for discussion."
6. It is further stated in the application of the plaintiffs that defendant no.2 who was the President of the outgoing Executive Committee of the GHS disrupted the meeting of Mahasamiti held on 27.11.2011 and the meeting got finished within 10 minutes and it accepted the 1999 Constitution of the Sabha. It is alleged in the application of the plaintiffs that the members of the Sabha were allowed to enter the hall at 2 PM. It is further alleged that after 10 minutes, one person started distributing the Report on Income and Expenditure of Sabha and even when this distribution was on the midway, the Administrator started reading last item of the agenda. At 2.15 PM, the Administrator suddenly asked which Constitution 1990 or 1999 is to be adopted and the members started putting their views. But at the next moment at 2.17 PM, the Administrator closed the proceedings saying that the Constitution of 1999 has been adopted for conducting the election and then he left the meeting. It is further stated in the plaintiffs' application that a group of 405 members Civil Suit No.44/10 :6: immediately submitted the memorandum to protest against the way the meeting took place and the decision taken due to arbitrariness of the Administrator.
7. The grievance of the plaintiff is two fold. The first is that it is stated from the beginning by the plaintiff that the said Constitution of 1999 was never adopted by the GHS nor communicated to the Registrar of Societies. It is alleged that at no point of time, the Society followed the Constitution of 1999. It is further submitted that nine of the 11 members of the committee which drafted/amended the alleged Constitution of 1999 gave a letter dated 04.11.2011 clearly stating that this Constitution was never accepted. The second grievance of the plaintiffs is that the Constitution of 1999 aimed to create a permanent home of a few persons making it discriminatory to the other members. It is further alleged that the Constitution of 1999 prevents other members to contest the elections by putting a clause that only those members can contest elections who have already contested in previous elections. It is further alleged that the Constitution of 1999 is in violation of the right of the plaintiff no.2 and other new members and it is against the interest of the GHS.
8. The grievance of defendants no.8 and 9, who have filed the application u/s 151 of CPC, is also against the meeting conducted by the Administrator on 27.11.2011. It is stated in their application that after the agenda of the meeting to be held on 27.11.2011 was notified by the Administrator on 31.10.2011, various members of the GHS submitted representations to the Administrator informing him about the applicability of the Constitution of 1990 to the affairs of the GHS. It is stated that the Administrator was brought to the notice of the fact that the Constitution of 1999 was not even passed by the Executive Committee of the GHS and the question of it being passed by the General Body of the GHS did not arise. It is further stated that the Administrator was informed that the Constitution of 1990 had been duly adopted and passed by the Executive Committee and had been followed in the elections to the Executive Committee in the years 1993, 1996, 2002, 2005 and 2007. Affirming the plaintiffs' contention, the defendants no.8 and 9 have Civil Suit No.44/10 :7: also stated in their application that 9 members of the executive committee which had considered the Constitution of 1999 had, vide representation dated 03.11.2012 given to the Administrator, stated that the said Constitution of 1999 was not passed by either the Executive Committee nor was it placed before the General Body of the GHS. The defendants no.8 and 9 have challenged the conduct of the meeting held by the Administrator on 27.11.2011 on the following grounds : "i) The meeting, although scheduled for 2 p.m. as notified in the notice dated 31st October 2011, was opened for entry of members at 2 p.m. itself, wherein only members supportive of Defendant no.2 were present.
ii) There was no verification of membership/identity of people after 2 p.m. Iii) The meeting started at 2.05 p.m. without all members having arrived.
iv) The learned Administrator did not follow any organised procedure for voting and ascertaining the wishes of the majority.
v) The decisions in the meeting i.e. selection of Shri Devendra Singh Aswal as the Election Officer and the adopting of the 1999 Constitution, were taken posthaste by show of hands amid complete confusion over the actual item/agenda being discussed.
vi) The meeting ended, without all members having even arrived, at 2.18 p.m."
9. It is further stated by defendants no.8 and 9 in their application that most of the members arrived in the meeting by 2.30 PM and a list of approximately 400 members who voted against the illegal adoption of the Constitution of 1999 was submitted to the Administrator at 3.45 p.m. Another grievance of the defendants no.8 and 9 is that the Administrator did not consider the names proposed by them in their written representation dated 23.11.2011 for appointment of Election Officer of the GHS. Hence, defendants no.8 and 9 Civil Suit No.44/10 :8: have challenged the conduct of the meeting dated 27.11.2011 on the ground that the manner of conduct of meeting deprived the members to vote for the selection of the election officer as well as the applicability of the Constitution of 1990. Secondly, the meeting did not follow any democratic process.
10. In reply to the present applications, the defendant no.1 has submitted that in so far as the application filed by defendants no.8 and 9 u/s 151 CPC is concerned, the same is not maintainable since the liberty granted to the said defendants by this Court on 05.01.2012 was to file a substantive affidavit regarding the grievance of the said defendants which otherwise has not been filed. However, it is noted by this Court that the said application is supported by the affidavits of both the defendants. Hence, the said application should not be dismissed on this ground.
11. During the course of the arguments, Sh. Mohit Gupta, Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1 GHS had submitted that the reply filed by the GHS against the application u/s 151 of CPC may also be treated as reply to the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
12. It is further stated in the reply to the applications that the defendants no.8 and 9 cannot challenge the Constitution of 1999 of the GHS since they themselves became member of the defendant no.1 Society adhering to the Constitution of 1999 and making payment of Rs.251/. It is further stated in the application that the defendants no.8 and 9 never raised any objection to making payment of Rs.251, which is alleged to be made as per the Constitution of 1999. However, Rs.151/ was the payment as per the Constitution of 1990. Hence, defendants no.8 and 9 have acquiesced in the adoption of the Constitution of 1999. It is further stated in the reply that the Constitution of 1999 has been relied upon by this Court for passing various Orders which was neither disputed nor objected to by any of the parties. It is further stated that meeting held on 27.11.2011 of the general body of the GHS adopting the 1999 Constitution was validly convened. Hence, the decision taken in the said meeting should be held supreme and cannot be challenged.
Civil Suit No.44/10 :9:13. It is further stated in the reply that since 1941, there have been amendments in the Constitution on 6 occasions i.e. in the years 1959, 1972, 1979, 1981, 1990 and 1999 and none of such amendments have ever been held in any general body meeting or qualify the criteria or requirement as laid down in the Constitution, but only by practice and acquiescence, such amendments have duly been adopted, put in pratice/operation for the purpose of working of the GHS. It is further stated in the reply that like other amendments, the Constitution of 1999 has also been put in practice in the working of GHS. On the contrary, the Constitution of 1990 had neither ever been passed by the Executive Committee nor the General Body Meeting (Mahasamiti) of the GHS.
14. It is further stated in the reply that the amended Constitution of 1999 was passed in the Executive Committee as it could be verified from the minute books of the years 1995 to 2002 which is possessed by Sh. Satender Singh Lingwal and he is not handing over the said register to the GHS or the Administrator. It is further stated in the reply that in its Executive Committee meeting dated 29.10.1995, a Committee for Amendment in the Constitution of the Society was formed. In the Executive Committee meeting dated 11.07.1999, it was decided that the amendments made shall be published. On 25.07.1999 the Executive Committee in its meeting had ratified the minutes of its previous meeting. On the basis of such assertions, the defendant no.1 has submitted that the amendments to the Constitution of GHS in 1999 was passed in the Executive Committee and thereafter it was put into operation. It is further stated in the reply that in a Samarika (magazine) published in the year 1999 by the name of Garhwal Gaurav, there has been reference to the amendments made in the year 1999. Thereafter, from 200001, the members of the defendant no.1 Society have been enrolled by accepting Rs.251/ as membership fee as per the Constitution of 1999.
15. It is further stated in the reply that the term of the Management Committee in the year 200204 was extended for one year i.e. up to 2005 by a unanimous resolution passed by the general body meeting held on 25th March 2004 and this was passed as per the provisions of the Constitution of 1999. It is further Civil Suit No.44/10 :10: stated that in the Constitution of 1999 there was no provision for a simple membership which was present in the Constitution of 1990 and after the year 1999 no person has been made a simple member. It is also stated in the reply that in all the Court cases filed by the defendant no.1 Society from the year 2002 onwards, the copy of the Constitution of 1999 has been submitted in the Courts. On the basis of the said instances, the defendant no.1 GHS has alleged that Constitution of 1999 has been validly accepted and put into practice for the working of GHS. It is further stated in the reply that whether the Constitution of 1990 was validly adopted in the Executive Committee and followed in the years 1993, 1996, 2002, 2005 and 2007 is a matter of fact and if any illegality has been committed in the past, the same cannot be made a basis for doing it in the future also. The defendant no.1 has further denied the allegation of the plaintiff as well as defendants no.8 and 9 that the meeting dated 27.11.2011 was not validly conducted by the Administrator. It is further stated that the list of 400 members filed by the defendants no.8 and 9 is fabricated.
Arguments of Advocates
16. This Court has heard Sh. Dilip Singh, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs, Sh. Mohit Gupta, Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1, Sh. S.D. Ansari, Ld. Advocate for the defendants no.5, 6 and 7 and Sh. Anand Verma, Ld. Advocate for the defendants no.8 and 9. Sh. Dilip Singh submitted that the meeting of the Mahasamiti as held by the Administrator on 27.11.2011 was not done properly. He further submitted that it is in the interest of the Society that every member of the Society should participate in the elections and elections should be conducted in a democratic manner. He further submitted that the adoption of Constitution of 1999 was illegal as it was against the Societies Registration Act, 1860 since it was not properly adopted. Sh. Anand Verma, Ld. Advocate for the defendants no.8 and 9 submitted that the Constitution of 1999 was never adopted by the Executive Committee of the GHS. He further submitted that the defendant no.1 GHS has itself relied upon the Constitution of 1941 in a Civil Suit filed somewhere in the year 2004. Hence, the statement of the defendant no.1 that the defendant no.1 has relied upon the Constitution of 1999 in Courts is wrong. He further drew reference to many documents of the Civil Suit No.44/10 :11: defendant no.1 GHS to support his contention that the Constitution of 1999 was never adopted or followed and the Constitution of 1990 was always followed by the GHS. He also submitted that the membership fee was increased to Rs.251/ not because of the adoption of the Constitution of 1999 but it was done in the year 2003. For this, he referred to the circular of the Secretary of the GHS dated 05.09.2003 which showed that the proposed amendments included the raising of lifetime membership fee from Rs.151 to Rs.251/. He also reiterated the contention, as taken in the application filed by the defendants no.8 and 9. Sh. S.D. Ansari, Ld. Advocate for the defendants no. 5, 6 and 7 submitted that neither the Constitution of 1999 nor 1990 has been validly adopted by the GHS and both these Constitutions were never ever submitted to the Registrar of the Society. He further submitted that the coming elections should be held according to the Constitution of 1941.
17. Sh. Mohit Gupta, Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1 GHS submitted that there was no legality in the meeting that was held by the Administrator on 27.11.2011 and the Constitution of 1999 was validly adopted by the Society. Hence, the application of plaintiffs as well as the defendants no.8 and 9 are groundless and should be dismissed.
Findings
18. This Court has heard submissions of Ld. Advocates for the plaintiffs, defendants no.5, 6 and 7, defendants no.8 and 9 and Ld. Advocate for the defendant no.1 and perused the record very carefully.
19. At the outset, this Court is not satisfied with the steps taken by the Learned Administrator to take up the agenda of adoption of either the Constitution of 1990 or the Constitution of 1999 while calling the meeting of the Maha Samiti of the GHS on 27th November 2011. The order dated 16th December 2010, whereby the learned Predecessor of this Court had laid down the functions to be performed by the Administrator, clearly stated that the Administrator had to take appropriate decisions in accordance with the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Constitution of the GHS. Hence, by publishing the notice dated 22nd November 2011 in the newspapers, the Administrator acted beyond his Civil Suit No.44/10 :12: powers since he had no authority to decide whether he should act in accordance with the Constitution of 1990 or the Constitution of 1999. Once the Administrator had received the representations from various members of the GHS opposing the elections to be conducted under the Constitution of 1999, he should have approached this Court to seek clarification on this aspect. It was not within the authority of the Administrator to call a meeting to validate any of the two Constitutions. His duty was to act as per the existing validly adopted Constitution of the GHS. Thus, without going into the question about the fairness or the conduct of the meeting conducted by the learned Administrator, since the Administrator acted beyond his powers to seek votes of the members of the GHS in the Maha Samiti, the decision taken in the meeting dated 27th November 2011 regarding the adoption of the Constitution of 1999 to the affairs of the GHS is declared invalid.
20. Having declared the decision taken on the adoption of the Constitution of 1999 as invalid, this Court is now to decide that which Constitution has to be followed for the elections to the Executive Committee of the GHS. For that, this Court has been presented with three different Constitutions of the GHS:
one of the year 1941, the second of the year 1990 and third of the year 1999.
21. As far as the Constitutions of the years 1990 as well as 1999 are concerned, it is an admitted case that both these constitutions have not been submitted to the Registrar of Societies till date. Dealing with the Constitution of 1999 first, the defendant no. 1 GHS has not shown any document to illustrate that the amendments carried in the year 1999 were approved by the Executive Committee of the GHS. In fact, inconsistent versions have come up in the reply filed by the defendant no. 1 in this respect to the present applications. It has been stated therein that the amendments carried in the years 1959, 1972, 1979, 1981, 1990 and 1999 have never been held in any general body meeting or qualify the criteria or requirement as laid down in the Constitution. However, later it has been stated that the Constitution of 1999 was passed in the Executive Committee which could be verified from the minutes books of the years 1995 to 2002. First of all, the defendant no. 1 GHS has not been able to produce any record showing that the Constitution of 1999 was Civil Suit No.44/10 :13: adopted by the Executive Committee. The said Constitution should be held to be invalid on this ground alone. However, even if the contention of the plaintiff is admitted that the Constitution of 1999 was adopted by the Executive Committee, the defendant no. 1 has admitted that such amendment was not approved by the General Body Meeting of the GHS. Hence, the Constitution of 1999 cannot be said to be a validly adopted Constitution by the GHS.
22. Coming to the Constitution of 1990, again the said Constitution has not been submitted to the Registrar of Societies. In support of the adoption of this Constitution, it has been submitted on behalf of defendants no. 8 and 9 that this Constitution has been followed in the previous elections to the Executive Committee of the GHS in the years 1993, 1996, 2002, 2005 and 2007. Hence, the Constitution of 1990 should be followed in the elections to the Executive Committee of the GHS. However, it has been admitted by them that the Constitution of 1990 has not been properly adopted since it was never adopted by the General Body. In fact, learned Advocate for defendants no.8 and 9 himself filed the Constitution of 1941 alleging it to have been filed by the GHS in a civil suit.
23. Hence, the foundation of making of both the Constitutions of 1990 as well as 1999 is not there at all. Merely because the Constitution of 1990 was being followed in the previous elections to the Executive Committee of the GHS, it does not mean that this Court shall declare that Constitution as being validly adopted by the GHS. The principle of acquiescence does not apply in such cases. Hence, neither the Constitution of 1990 nor the Constitution of 1999 are validly adopted Constitutions of the GHS since both these Constitutions have never been adopted by the General Body Meeting of the GHS. In such circumstances, it is the duty of this Court to not give effect to these two Constitutions since they have not been validly adopted.
24. Now, the only Constitution that is left for consideration is the Constitution of 1941. There is no dispute by any party on the legality of the adoption of this Constitution. When this Court was hearing arguments on these applications, it was argued on behalf of defendant no. 1 that the Constitution of 1941 is not Civil Suit No.44/10 :14: traceable by the GHS. However, later, the learned Advocate for defendants no. 8 and 9 filed a copy of this Constitution asserting that it was filed in a Civil Suit filed by the defendant no. 1 GHS itself in the year 2004 before the learned Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi. The case was fixed on two occasions for the learned Advocate for the defendant no. 1 to take instructions and clarify on this aspect. However, he submitted that he was uncertain whether the said Constitution was filed by GHS in that civil suit. The conduct of the defendant no. 1 infers that the identity of the said Constitution has not been disputed. Hence, the Constitution of 1941 is the only validly adopted Constitution of the GHS, as of date and the elections should be conducted in accordance with the Constitution of 1941. Needless to say, therefore, the eligibility to contest the elections should be in accordance with the Constitution of 1941. It is further clarified that the requirement of adoption of amendments to be done by twothird of members present at the meeting of General Body also comes from the Constitution of 1941.
25. As far as the challenge to the appointment of the election officer in the meeting dated 27th November 2011, the defendants no. 8 and 9 have challenged it on the grounds that the name suggested by them were not considered by the learned Administrator. Moreover, it has also been alleged that only two names - one of Shri CS Rawat and the other of Shri Devendra Singh Aswal were considered, and both are close associates of defendant no.
2. This court has perused the report of the Administrator and has also seen the video recording of the meeting annexed with the report of the Administrator. The video recording does not show how the decision of the appointment of the election officer was taken. Moreover, the defendants no. 8 and 9 have also filed the copy of the letter dated 23rd November 2011 duly received by the Learned Administrator requesting him to consider two names of Sh. Gulab Singh Zayada and Sh. Vijay Singh Negi. However, these names have not been considered. Hence, this court cannot rule out the possibility of appointment of the election officer in an unorganised manner. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, the meeting of the GHS should be called again for appointment of the election officer for the conduct of elections of the GHS.
Civil Suit No.44/10 :15:26. Allegations have been made by the plaintiffs (who have filed this suit in representative character on behalf of all the members of the defendant no. 1 GHS) as well as the proforma defendants no. 8 and 9 against the learned Administrator with regard to the manner of holding meeting of Maha Samiti on 27th November 2011. Moreover, a letter dated 10.12.2011 is filed whereby certain allegations against the Administrator have been made by a group of members of GHS against the Administrator, stating that one of the members of the committee of the Sabha is his close relative. In view of such allegations, this Court is of the considered view that more than one independent persons should take charge and administer the defendant no. 1 Society. Hence, Shri KS Negi is replaced and in his place, Shri Gaurav Dudeja (Mob: 9818833778) and Sh. Udit Gupta (Mob: 9654449369), Advocates of High Court of Delhi are appointed as Administrators of the defendant no. 1 GHS till the election of the Executive Committee of the GHS. The fee of the Administrators is fixed at Rs. 15,000/ per month each.
27. The newly appointed Administrators shall take charge of the defendant no. 1 GHS from Shri KS Negi within a week and file a brief report after taking over charge by 30th September 2012. There have been no objections from any party against the examination of membership applications made by Shri KS Negi. Hence, the newly appointed Administrators shall proceed with the conduct of elections in the following manner:
a) First of all, the Administrators shall call the meeting of the Maha Samiti. All the members, including the new members, would be invited to attend the said meeting. The appointment of the election officer of the defendant no. 1 GHS shall be done in the said meeting. A brief report shall be filed in this court by the Administrators within a week of the meeting of Maha Samiti.
b) Thereafter, the election officer shall prepare the election notification which would state the date of filing of nomination papers, date of withdrawal of nominations, date of scrutiny of nominations and the date of election.
c) An advertisement of election notification in the newspapers Civil Suit No.44/10 :16: shall be issued by the election officer.
d) Elections will be conducted on the specified date as per the election notification by way of secret ballot.
e) The Administrators shall file the result of the elections in a sealed cover along with a brief report regarding the conduct of the elections.
28. The Administrators shall have the exclusive authority to make payments on behalf of the Garwhal Hiteshni Sabha (Regd.). All payments would be made by the Administrators by way of cheques drawn on the accounts of the Sabha. Only payments below the sum of Rs. 2000/ would be made by way of cash. Sh. K.S. Negi and the defendants no.2, 3 and 4 shall facilitate the handing over of the authority to operate the accounts of the Sabha in favour of the newly appointed Administrators. The reports of the Administrators shall state the amount of money spent at every stage of the aforesaid proceedings.
29. The newly appointed Administrators shall act in accordance with the Constitution of 1941 of the GHS. In case, any doubt is raised with regard to the procedure to be adopted in the conduct of elections, the Administrators will be at liberty to seek clarifications from this court. The Administrators shall make endeavour to complete the whole process as specified in para 27 of this Order within three months.
30. The applications are disposed of in the above terms. Copy of this Order be given dasti to Sh. K.S. Negi, the newly appointed Administrators, the plaintiffs as well as all the defendants.
Announced in the Open Court (Apoorv Sarvaria )
On 17 September, 2012
th
Civil JudgeI, New Delhi District
New Delhi
Civil Suit No.44/10