Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Hence, as per the applicants, the entire control of the election is in the hands of the Board. As per the applicants, the members of the Board are entitled to contest the election as many times as they wish and, therefore, those who are to contest the election are custodian of the election process. Consequently, absolute power having been vested to the Board results into corrupt practices in the election and there is no fair and impartial elections since last two to three elections. As per the applicants, the dispute is going on in respect of removal of Acharya Shri Ajendraprasadji and such dispute is being vigorously contested by Shri Nautam Swami, who was Chairman of the Board. As per the applicants, if the Board is elected in free and fair election, the majority of the members of the Board may not get re-elected and as per the applicants such has happened in the case of other temple namely Junagadh Temple, which is subordinate to Vadtal Temple. As per the applicants, in Junagadh Temple, there is a separate scheme but the powers of holding election virtually is taken away from the Board and entrusted to Presiding Officer as may be appointed by the Court with the consent of the parties and the election result is also different. As per the applicants, in the election of 2005 a larger number of Tyagis and Prashads were excluded from the voters' list and the board does not like to add or continue the names of the persons, for whom the members of the Board of the managing trustees feel that they may not vote for them. As per the applicants one Naranbhai Muljibhai Dabhi had addressed a letter by raising objections against preliminary voters' list for exclusion of a larger number of voters in the list of Grahasthis but such objections were not properly considered. As per the applicants, the Board has also resolved to amend the election rules in a manner that unless the identity card or documents for identity are shown they will not be permitted to cast the vote. As per the applicants, in order to manipulate the voters' list certain persons, who were desirous to donate and become voters are not permitted by the Board. Resultantly, the eligible persons are kept out of the election. As per the applicants, day-by-day the followers of Swaminarayan Sampraday are increasing, but in spite of the same, in the year Vikram Samvat 2051, the total number of voters were 21086, whereas in the next election of Vikram Samvat 2056, such voters are reduced to 17327. Further in the next election of Vikram Samvat 2061, the list of voters is reduced to 10969. The complaint was also made for exclusion of about 7000 voters, wrongly deleted from the voters list, but the same is not properly attended. As per the applicants, the reduction of voters in the list is by 50% in the span of about ten years in spite of the fact that the number of followers of Swaminarayan Sampradaya are increasing day-by-day. As per the applicants, no Haribhakta or voter is permitted to inspect the record of the Trust. Therefore, unless the transparency is maintained and books of accounts are allowed to be inspected there will not be any chances of voters' list as per the scheme. As per the applicants, even diocese is by and large divided into sub-divisions of Vadtal Pradesh, Gadhada Pradesh and Junagadh Pradesh. Therefore, the persons who is Hari Bhakta and who resides in any of the aforesaid areas would be entitled to cast their vote in election in their respective temple committees. The Hari Bhaktas of Gadhada cannot take part in election of Junagadh Pradesh or Vadtal Pradesh. Vice-versa Vadtal Temple voters cannot take part in Junagadh or Gadhda Pradesh. Said principle is applicable in the election of all three Temple Committees, namely; Vadtal, Junagadh and Gadhada. Wrongful inclusion of names of the persons who are the Hari Bhaktas not residing in any sub- division of Southern diocese but are residing in the area of Northern diocese; names of the persons those who are residing in the area of Nar Narayan Dev, Hari Bhaktas who are residing in Rajkot which is subordinate temple of Vadtal Pradesh are being deprived of their rights by a collusive decree obtained by consent, i.e. two Hari Bhaktas have filed Suit which is admitted within two days of filing of said suit and deprived the Hari Bhaktas from taking part in the election process. These illegalities are in respect of the constituencies of Gruhasthas. As per the applicants, large number of Tyagis and Parshads are excluded though they are voters in the earlier list and even same situation is for the list of Grahasthas. The aforesaid are sum and substance of various allegations made against the Board and the crux of the allegation is that since the Board to hold the election through the Returning Officer or the Presiding Officer, who is to be appointed by the Board and further Board also enjoys concurrent power for holding of the election there are large number of manipulation at the election resulting into artificial majority or artificial minority as per the convenience of the members of the Board, who are to contest the election. Therefore, the election is not being held in a free and fair and impartial manner and, therefore, the Scheme already settled for election deserves to be modified.

17. Mr.Nanavati, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr.Mangukiya, contended that various averments made in the applications show that there is tendency on the part of the Board to retain power by one way or another. Those who are in power are in complete command and control of the election, inasmuch as the power to appoint the election officer vests with the Board and the election officer is to function for holding of the election after the stage of preparation of the preliminary voters' list under the Supervision and guidelines of the Board. It was submitted that there are huge monetary operations and properties of the Trust runs into crores of rupees. The members of the Board wanted to retain the power. If the election is held in a free and fair manner from amongst the eligible voters, the members of the Board, who are in power may not be re-elected and, therefore, in past as per various incidents narrated the voters' list are being manipulated in a manner that there is convenient and comfortable position to get re-elected or to get supporters of the members of the Board in power for being elected. The objections have been filed in the past but they are not being considered by any independent authority but are considered by the election officer, who is to work and answer to the board itself. It was submitted that in order to maintain the transparency in the election and to ensure that the election is held in free and fair atmosphere from amongst the eligible voters the appointment of independent agency is required. In the present scheme the power is vested to the board itself and hence, the modification is called for. It was submitted that the applicants in the application at paragraph 31 has in detail shown various methods to be adopted for free, fair and transparent election. However, in the prayer clause, by error instead of paragraph 31 it is wrongly typed as paragraph 27. It was submitted that after the applications were considered by this Court the advertisement was also issued as if the applicants were praying for modification with the details as mentioned in paragraph 31 of the application and it is also prayed for the direction to the effect that the election process be conducted from the stage of preparation of the voters' list by independent persons so appointed by this Court, may be retired Judge of this Court. He fairly submitted that the other prayers at paragraph 36BB and 36(B) are interim prayers. He also submitted that ultimately this Court may appropriately decide for giving such power to any independent agency for holding and supervising the election process. During the course of hearing Mr.Nanavati, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the prayer is made for holding the election process by any retired Judge of this Court, but such prayer may also be considered for any officer who may be appointed by the learned District Judge of Kheda and such appointee may be any former District Judge or any Officer of the Court. He submitted that such scheme is in operation so far as the temple committee of Junagadh is concerned and this Court, in any case, may consider the prayer of the applicants to that extent. He submitted that ultimately this Court may finalize the aspect of any independent person or authority but the essential purpose of the applicants is to get the earlier scheme modified in a manner that the election of the Board is held in a free, fair and transparent manner and is conducted and finalized by any independent person or any independent agency or any independent authority.

42. The applicants have made large number of allegations for the arbitrary decision by the Board for inclusion or exclusion in the voters' list and have also made allegation that in spite of the fact that the followers or disciples of Swami Narayan Sect are increasing day-by-day, number of voters has been reduced within a span of ten years. There is no evidence produced by the applicants for showing the genuineness of the allegations, save and except the applications made by certain persons for so-called misdeeds for inclusion or exclusion as voters and the affidavits in support thereof, which are denied by the concerned respondents. As such, in normal circumstances in absence of any satisfactory evidenced led, this Court cannot proceed on the basis that the contents of the applications are true and correct, but at the same time, majority of such applications preferred by the applicants were accepted and as per the respondents, such applications were considered and appropriate decision was taken. This Court wanted to take care of instilling of confidence in the election process of the Board. We find that unless the manipulation at the election is satisfactorily demonstrated inference cannot be drawn to the effect for manipulation merely because the Trustees, who were earlier members of the Board, are re-elected at the election or the number of voters have gone down. But at the same time, instilling confidence in the election would be an aspect, which Court may consider if the Court finds that such confidence is shaken amongst large number of voters or independent of it, the confidence of the voters is required to be instilled in the election process.

48. The prayer insisted by the applicant for delegating the power for appointment of the election officer to be entrusted to the District Court and not with the board cannot be readily accepted on a mere apprehension that the person, who has worked in the cadre of former District Judge or City Civil Judge would not independently discharge his duty, only because he has been so appointed by the board and not by the District Court. A person, who has worked in the judiciary in the cadre of District Judge or City Civil Judge is supposed to be aware about all statutory provisions and the legal aspects in the process of election. As observed by us in the earlier paragraph, there is inbuilt mechanism provided in the Act by virtue of the provisions referred to herein above read with the above referred decision, the application can be made under Section 56A of the Act to the District Court for appropriate direction in a given case such situation arises. But it is true that as per the scheme of Section 56A such application is to be made by any trustee of the trust and as the said election officer is not the trustee of the trust or member of the board, he may not be in a position to apply to the District Court under Section 56A of the Act directly for any appropriate direction. Similarly, as per the above referred provisions of Section 50 of the Act, suit for removal of the Trustees or the manager can be undertaken by the charity commissioner or two or more persons having interest in the Trust, but after obtaining consent in writing of the charity commissioner as provided under Section 51. In any case, the election officer is not the person, who would have interest in the Trust and, therefore, may not be in a position to apply to the charity commissioner under Section 51 for removal of any trustee or manager of the trust, even if he finds that the situation is so created by any trustee or manager. In above referred Section 22 when any change report is submitted, the deputy or assistant charity commissioner, though has power to hold the inquiry may hold inquiry but such would be after the election is over and the result is declared by the election officer and the election officer thereafter may not have any role to play even if something wrong has taken place in the process of election. In our view, as per the discussion made by us in the earlier paragraph for considering the inbuilt mechanism of the Act such mechanism or provisions can be resorted to by any trustee of the trust or the charity commissioner or the person having interest in the trust including the beneficiary of the trust. As the election officer is not the person, who could be said to have any interest in the trust, we need to further examine the resolution of any dispute which may arise between the election officer and the board after his appointment when the election process is on or such election officer has not properly discharged his duties for holding of the election. In a case where election is to be held by the trustees themselves or any ordinary person appointed by the board or the trustees, it might stand on a different footing and different consideration, but when a person so appointed is such who has formerly worked in the judiciary in the cadre of the district judge or city civil judge and if he finds any difficulty in the process of election either by way of interference through the members of the board though otherwise not permissible as per the election rules or he finds that the board is to terminate his power, because he is discharging the duties independently which is not comfortable or convenient to the board or its members, who are in power or who are having majority, we find it appropriate to make one additional provision to the effect that once the election officer is so appointed by the board his appointment shall not be terminated or any other person shall not be appointed as the election officer by the board in his place, unless such permission is expressly granted by the District Court. We also find it appropriate to make provision for giving liberty to the election officer to apply to the district court or any direction if such election officer finds that it is necessary for him to discharge his duties by maintaining the sanctity of the election process so as to properly discharge the confidence of the voters upon him for conducting the election as per the election rules. In our view, such an appointment if so incorporated would give sufficient protection to the election officer in discharge of his duties without any interference by anyone, may be of any of the group, either in power or rival to the group in power and it would also rule out any interference by any persons to the election officer in properly discharging of his duties. Hence, for resolution of any dispute may be between the board and the election officer and for smooth discharge of the duties by the election officer for maintaining the sanctity in the election, we find that appropriate additional provision deserve to be made.