Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the circumstances,. I am of the view that it would 'be expedient, in the interest of justice not only to stay the impugned Order but also the further proceedings before the trial Court, being Special Civil Suit No. 32/2001/SR/II till the further hearing of this Writ Petition. I order accordingly, Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal returnable in three weeks. Hamdust permitted.

In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 is at liberty to proceed with the election programme by re-notifying the schedule as required in accordance with Regulation No. 38 of Devasthan Regulation including by publishing it in the Official Gazette. The respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court when this Order is made and assures through his Counsel that necessary action would be taken and the elections will be held within two weeks from today. This assurance is accepted.

9. Shri M. B. D'Costa, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3/ Original Petitioner in Election Dispute on the other hand referred to Articles 30, 40 and 41 of the Devasthan Regulation to contend that liberal interpretation should be given to the said provisions to the effect that the Administrative Tribunal is empowered to grant injunction as has been granted hi the present case. He has referred to various irregularities committed during the election.

10. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell upon the various irregularities pointed out by the respondent No. 3, for the same will have to be adjudicated in the Election Petition filed before the Administrative Tribunal. What is relevant in the present petition is : whether the Tribunal or for that matter President of the Administrative Tribunal had authority to grant injunction restraining the newly elected Body from taking charge as the Members of the Managing Committee of the Devasthan? It is well settled that remedy of questioning the election is a creature of statute and it can be pursued only in the manner provided therefor and in no other manner. No doubt the regulations provide for filing an election dispute, but the authority of the Administrative Tribunal cannot transcend beyond the statute. The scope of jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal in such dispute is only to adjudicate whether the election in question is valid or otherwise. Surely, therefore, the Administrative Tribunal has no authority to interdict the election process or to restrain the newly elected Body from taking charge. No such express provision has been brought to my notice. So long as the Administrative Tribunal does not render declaration that the election is void till such time the newly elected Body cannot be kept away from the management of the Devasthan. In the circumstances, it is not possible to countenance that the Administrative Tribunal can pass an order so as to injunct the newly elected Body. But the mandate of the law is to instal the newly elected Body at the earliest opportunity. Only this approach would further the interest of the Members who have expressed their mandate in the said Body. The impugned order is therefore without authority of law.

12. Shri D'Costa, learned Advocate is right in pointing out that the scheme of Devasthan Regulation is such that the intention is that immediately after the election is concluded the aggrieved party can approach the Administrative Tribunal and it is expected of the Administrative Tribunal to decide the dispute expeditiously preferably before the newly elected Body takes charge. Shri D'Costa, learned Advocate also pointed out that similar provisions are made in the Code of Communidades and in both these proceedings experience has shown that the election disputes are not decided within the statutory time frame for variety of reasons, and in some cases even till the term of the newly elected Body expires. This, surely is not a happy situation. The election dispute in relation to such institutions, if any, has to be resolved with utmost despatch. The State Government shall look into Ae matter and ensure that competent persons are appointed as the Chairman/Member of the concerned Tribunals and vacancies are filled at the earliest and that even in future such posts shall not be allowed to remain vacant for a long time. It cannot be ignored that the Devasthan, Co-operative Societies or such organisations are the fulcrum of the Society. For any civilised Society, rule of law is the essence. Rule of law does not mean enacting law without providing the machinery to enforce the same. Without providing forum for redressal of disputes is - denying the Rule of law and only indulging in lip service. If disputes in such institutions remain unresolved, for long, due to non availibility of redressal forum, than it is for sure that the aggrieved would take recourse to other measures not condusive to the healthy competition and sustained development of the Society. Needless to mention that such institutions are the foundation of our democracy. Therefore, in the interest of all concerned, the Tribunals which are created to regulate the disputes with intention to expeditiously dispose of such matters are manned by competent persons and not allowed to remain vacant for a long time without any justification. We hope and trust that the Government would take appropriate remedial steps in this regard with right earnest.