Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is the case of the petitioners herein that the elections held on 11th February, 2001 by which the petitioners have been elected as members of Managing Committee for the triennial commencing from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2004, are valid elections and the order dated 3-4-2001 holding the elections on 11-2-2001 contrary to the order of the Government, and that elections held on 11-2-2001, cannot be considered as legal and the request to administer the oath to the committee was not granted as per the order dated 3-4-2001 which deserves to be set aside. It is vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioners that the elections were scheduled for 11-2-2001 and as per Article 26 of the Devasthan Regulation, the same were held, the petitioners have been elected and the elections have not been challenged in appeal as provided under Article 30 as the appeal was required to be filed within the time limit of 10 days from the date of the election.

6. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been vehemently argued by learned Advocate Mrs. Agni that when the elections were scheduled for 11th February, 2001 which were under the Devasthan Regulation, the Government or the Administrator cannot change the statutory date. It is contended and urged on behalf of the petitioners that by letter dated 8-2-2001, the elections were postponed to 25th February, 2001 and that this date cannot be changed unless and until the general body meeting is called, as power to change the date of elections vests with general body under the Devasthan Regulation and the Government has no power to extend the date. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioners that on 11-2-2001 when the elections were held 145 members were present and the same has been recorded in the minutes on the subsequent date i.e. 25th February, 2001, which was the date fixed for elections. At that meeting 439 members were present and they have accepted the elections of the committee held on 11-2-2001 which has not been challenged by an appeal. Due publicity has been given to the elections held on 11-2-2001 and, therefore, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Order dated 3-4-2001 deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that it was an error of jurisdiction on the part of respondent No. 1 to adjourn the elections for 25th February, 2001 by Order dated 8-2-2001 and, therefore, the respondents having committed the error of jurisdiction, the petitioners are entitled for grant of relief and the issue of writ of certiorari. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioners that the question pertains to the interpretation of the Devasthan Rules and Regulation and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to file this petition.

8. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent on Article 70 of the Devasthan Regulation which deals with the powers given to the Administrator relating to the control and superintendence over the Devasthan. A reference is also made to sub-section (17) of Article 70, which provides as under :

"Article 70---It shall be incumbent on the Administrators of Talukas (concelho), as Administrators of the bodies of members (mazanias);
(17) To transmit Government decisions to the Managing Committee;"

10. The fact that the notice was given in the news papers to postpone the meeting and no notice was published by the petitioners herein to the effect that the meeting was scheduled for 11-2-2001 for holding the elections. The petitioners not having given due notice of the meeting of 11-2-2001 it is not open to the petitioners to contend that they have been validly elected for which no notice of time for holding election was also given, as laid down under Article 38(4) of the Devasthan Regulation. Further notice of the meeting to be held on 25-2-2001 at 11 a.m. has been given in the Official Gazette. In the absence of any notice having been given of the elections on 11-2-2001 and the time, so far as the petitioners are concerned, they were not entitled to hold the elections. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance has been placed on Union of India and another v. State of Haryana and another, . However, so far as this ruling is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts of the present case as it is not a question of interpretation of the Rules, but the question pertaining to the order dated 8-2-2001 which has not been challenged. Further, in view of the fact that notice of postponement was published in the papers, the question arises as to whether the meeting held on 11-2-2001 when the purported elections were held, was valid or not, is a matter which requires evidence. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is also placed on State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 86. So far as this ruling is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the challenge is not made to the letter of 8-2-2001. The declaration sought is in respect of the letter of 3-4-2001 and a declaration to the effect that the elections are valid. Further, so far as these order dated 8-2-2001 which is the basis for holding elections on 25-2-2001 instead of 11-2-2001 because, though, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they have sought a declaration under prayer (c) that the purported relaxation of the statutory date of election of the mazanias of Mahalasa Devasthan dated 11-2-2001 on the part of respondents No. 1 and 2 is without jurisdiction and though the said order has been referred to in the petition, there is no challenge to the order dated 8-2-2001.