Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

elections are conducted in a fair and autonomous manner, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitutions and Bye-laws of the CSI and KCD.
IV. Pass any such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

The prayer is to set aside an election held in the XXV Ordinary Triennial Council and issue direction to conduct a fresh election in terms of Bye-laws of the Church of South India and Karnataka Central Diocese. It is an admitted fact that the 2nd respondent/ Church of South India is an "unregistered private trust". Therefore, what is sought at the hands of this Court is to the elections conducted to an unregistered private trust. It is for that reason this Court while entertaining the writ petition on 07-12-2021 had passed the following, after hearing the matter at some length:

10. The learned senior counsel strenuously contended and took this Court though plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court and other constitutional Courts to buttress his submission with regard to maintainability of the petition. Every one of those judgments is distinguishable without much ado on the facts obtaining in those cases. Much reliance is placed on JIGYA YADAV v. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND OTHERS - (2021) 7 SCC 535. The Apex Court therein was considering certain actions of the Central Board of Secondary Education. The Central Board of Secondary Education ('CBSE') is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and directions were issued to all the institutions, be it private or public, which would come within the ambit of the CBSE. The Bye-laws of the CBSE and all other incidental issues were considered on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and a slew of directions issued by the Apex Court at paragraph 192. They were concerning the education of students in the nation. This cannot by any stretch of imagination be paraphrased to the disputes of a private Trust concerning the petitioner. A private election conducted to an unregistered private Trust cannot be agitated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is held to be maintainable against the Bar Association as the Advocates Association has cast upon itself a public character. The Advocates are not mere arbiters but Officers of the Court who assist the Court in running the justice delivery system and, therefore, the Court holds that a writ against Advocates Association was maintainable. I fail to understand as to how this would even be applicable to the issue that is brought before this court. To iterate, it is an admitted fact that the respondent is a private unregistered trust which is completely a private body. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMAKRISHNA MISSION AND ANOTHER v. KAGO KUNYA AND OTHERS2 becomes apposite. The Apex Court, in the said case, has held as follows:

13. Any effort that is now sought to be made by the learned senior counsel to bring Church of South India to come within 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India are all rendered an exercise in futility. As the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is pre-eminently a public law remedy is not generally available against private wrongs. The scope of issuance of a writ at the hands of this Court is limited to enforce a public duty. I fail to understand as to what public duty or public law element that can be projected in the case at hand. The respondent is a private unregistered Trust. The Trust conducts elections as a private affair within itself. There are several issues concerning elections, which according to the petitioner, was not free and fair. Therefore, the remedy for the petitioner would always be before a competent civil Court.