Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. It has been urged by the Plaintiffs however that, the Constitution of the defendant did not however provided for proxy voting. It is stated that, since it is a settled principle that voting rights should vest only with the members who are present at the time of voting and therefore the elections resorting to proxy voting cannot be permitted as fair. The Returning Officer, defendant no.2 had also asked defendant no.3, the then outgoing Secretary to get the ballot paper printed. The same was also objected to by the candidates. However, the request was rejected by defendant no.2, on the ground that it is the Secretary who gets ballot papers printed. Thus, defendant no.3 has misused his power despite objections raised by the members. It is however averred that on 30.04.2017, when the polling for the elections were to be held, before starting of the poling, the Returning Officer I.e defendant no.2 announced that he has received only one request from one Mr. Rajesh Bhargav for proxy voting through email, which was consequently allowed to be done by his brother. The re-counting of the ballot for the posts of the President was partly done. The ballot paper with the cross voting was not allowed by defendant no.2. The re-counting of the cross voting was refused on the ground that it was prerogative of the Returning Officer. After 30.04.2017, counting of the ballot was done by defendant no.2, who did not allow any representation of the candidates, permitting only one representive from both the teams to be present. Results were subsequently declared and defendants no.3 to 10 were declared as elected for their respective posts. Margin of victory was 'too narrow'. After the results were announced electoral documents were handed over to defendant no.6, newly elected Secretary. On taking over the change by the newly elected Secretary I.e CS no.646/17 Vidyut Arora (Senior Citizen) & Anr Vs. S-Block Welfare Society Greater Kailash 4/21 defendant no.6, it got revealed that there were discrepancies committed by defendant no.2 at the time of the polling such as:-

9. By way of written statement filed by defendants no.3,5,7,8 &9, &9, the averments in the written statement of the other defendants stand reiterated. Averments in the Replication filed by the Plaintiff

10. By way of replication to the written statement filed by defendant no.1, plaintiffs have stated that the preliminary objection of the defendants are not tenable. It is a settled principle of law that once the process of election has begun, it cannot be challenged, till the final outcome of the same, before any court of law. The mere issuance of the notification dated 18.04.2017 does not amount to its acceptance. An additional notification was issued by the Returning Officer notifying that the residents out of station would be authorized to cast their votes by a proxy who would be authorized by way of an email, with the condition that the proxy voter would carry the copy of the email. The said procedure has not been followed by the Returning officer himself. He has allowed proxy voting on the basis of the letter which did not even carry the signatures of the resident voter. It has been denied that suit has been filed in collusion with defendant no.6. The electoral documents were given by defendant no.6 by defendant no.2 for safe custody. By email dated 01.05.2015 defendant no.3 is CS no.646/17 Vidyut Arora (Senior Citizen) & Anr Vs. S-Block Welfare Society Greater Kailash 7/21 stated to have threatened to defendant no.6. By email dated 04.05.2015 the Returning Officer himself had confirmed that the documents after the election were handed over to defendant no.6 by defendant no/3 in presence of the Returning Officer. It is wrong to state that consent of both the teams was secured before issuing notification dated 18.04.2017. The objection with respect to the proxy voting were duly raised and also with respect to counting of ballot papers. Objections were also raised with regard to the former Secretary who contested for the post of President and also got ballot papers printed. Objections were raised with regard to format of the printing of the ballot papers. It has been denied that proxy voting is permitted under the Society's Registration Act and Company Act just as an case of the company. The procedure adopted by the Returning Officer was not followed by he himself. The defendant no.6 and the plaintiffs in their legal right have the power to scrutinize the election/ballot papers to ascertain any illegality of mischievous in the holding of the election. The record cannot be treated as a private/confidential property of the officer bearers of the society. The members of the society have the right to access the record. Rule 11 (1) of the rules and regulation of defendant no.1 do not prescribe for any proxy voting. When the objection was raised with respect to the printing of the ballot papers by outgoing Secretary, defendant no.2 had brushed aside the same on the ground that it was prerogative of Returning Officer to get the ballot papers printed. The rest of the averments in the plaint stand reiterated.

9.Mr. Sanjiv Gupta is defendant no.9. in his favour, the authorization letter was filed. The witness was not able to show the same in his cross examination. When put a specific question with respect to the filing of the written statement on behalf of defendant no.1 without any authorization, he stated that the suggestion would be incorrect. He acknowledged that before resolution dated 05.05.2018 Ex.DW1/1, there was no authorization in his favour to represent to defendants no.1,3,5,7, 8 & 9. He could also not say if any affidavit was filed by Mr. Sanjiv Gupta in support of his written statement. He stated that at the time of the election, he was the Secretary and he got the ballot paper printed on 28 and 29 April, 2017, of which the Returning Officer had been informed.. He denied the suggestion that he got the ballot paper printed without any authorization. He agreed that the election papers were handed over to the Secretary for safe custody. He admitted the notification Ex.PW1/3 and supplementary notification Ex.PW1/4. He could not recollect as to how many proxy votes were cast. He stated that Ex.PW1/7 till Ex.PW1/15 were forged documents. When recalled for further cross examination, he was cross examined by counsel for defendants no.1,6 and 10, when he stated that the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 3,5,7, 8 & 9 bears his signatures. He acknowledged that though he had the authority to depose on behalf of defendant no.7to depose in the matter, the same was not in the file. He also acknowledged that no authorization in Ex.DW1/1 was given to him by defendant no.7. The authorization dated 05.05.2018, on which date the defendant no.7 was not the member of the society. He stated that Mr. Arvind Agrawal was his election agent. He also stated that the observers were appointed by the teams and not by the candidates. He could not point out the specific provision in his cross examination of the Society's Registration Act which provides for proxy voting. When recalled for cross examination on 30.07.2018, the witness stated in his cross examination by counsel for defendants no.4,6 & 10, that he had proposed the name of defendant no.2 as the Returning Officer. He denied the suggestion that he had illegally stripped the defendants no.4,6 and 10 off their powers without following the due process of law. When asked as to whether he could show or point out any specific rules under the Society's Registration Act, applicable to Greater Kailash Residential Association, CS no.646/17 Vidyut Arora (Senior Citizen) & Anr Vs. S-Block Welfare Society Greater Kailash 14/21 permitting proxy voting, he stated that he would show it at the time of final arguments. Even upon perusal of memorandum of association of GK residential association, he could not point the specific rules, which permitted proxy voting. In his remainder cross examination by counsel for plaintiffs, he stated that he admitted the receipt of copy of Ex.PW1/25. He also stated that he had circulated the copy thereof to the residents with his letter.

20. The evidence was closed on behalf of the defendants on 07.08.2018. The matter got listed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on 25.08.2018 when the orders were reserved.

21. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant's society and its office bearers for having declared the election held on 30.04.2017 as null and void. The same were conducted under the aegis of defendant no.2, who was appointed as Returning Officer to have the election conducted for the period of 2017-2019. The present suit has also been instituted for the consequential reliefs, in the nature of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants no.3 to 10 from acting/representing themselves the elected members of the managing committee of defendant no.1 and for mandatory injunction for directing the re-polling to be done for defendant no.1 for the year 2017-19. Plaintiffs have filed the suit in the capacity of members of Resident Welfare Society of Greater Kailash-I, alleging non- adherence to the rules of the game set out by defendant no.2, Returning Officer, himself, with respect to the proxy voting that he had permitted by notification dated CS no.646/17 Vidyut Arora (Senior Citizen) & Anr Vs. S-Block Welfare Society Greater Kailash 16/21 18.04.2017 Ex.PW1/3 and the proxy voting by residents who were out of station, with the authorization being issued by way of email, through supplementary notification Ex.PW1/4. It is urged that the constitution of the defendant no.1 did not provide for proxy voting. Despite objections raised, the same was permitted and the rules thereof were flouted by defendant no.2 I.e Returning Officer himself, by permitting persons not duly authorized to cast their votes. However, the allegations of the plaintiffs are that the Returning Officer had asked outgoing Secretary i.e. defendant no.3 to get ballot papers print, which was an utter abuse of his authority. Only one request through email was received by the Returning Officer that was consequentially allowed for voting. It is further their allegation that the margin of victory was very narrow, essentially because multiple votes were cast by some voters and some were cast without proper authorization by way of proxy voting. It is the same that made all the difference in the results declared as Ex.PW1/6. It is also an allegation that Mr. Rahul Bansal himself has contested election as a candidate and his wife has been permitted to cast vote on his behalf. There are discrepancies alleged with respect to the authorization letter that form part of the electoral record. In the email dated 04.05.2017, Ex.PW1/25, sent by Defendant no.2 through defendant no.4, the Returning Officer has virtually admitted the fact that objections were raised and there were lapses in the conduct of the election. He has only clarified that same was done in good faith. Thus, the present suit has been filed for the prayers discussed.