JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The plaintiff in the suit seeks a declaration that he was a valid candidate for the post of President of Association of Otolaryngologists of India (in short AOI), Election, 2003. In alternative it is prayed that the entire election of AOI for 2003 be declared illegal and invalid. Further prayer is to set aside the election of defendant No. 5 to the post of President Elect.
2. Defendant No. 1 is an Association of Otolaryngologists of India and defendant No. 2 is the past President of the said Association. Defendant No. 3 is Dr. Santanu Banerjee, the current President and defendant No. 4 is the Honorary Secretary while defendant No. 5 who has been imp leaded is the President elect.
3. Plaintiff by I.A. No. 9407/2002, application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, seeks an interim direction for defendant No. 5, who is the President Elect, to be restrained from functioning as the President Elect. I.A. No. 11964/2002 is the application moved by defendant seeking vacation of interim stay vide order dated 1.11.2002.
4. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated is that he had duly filed its nomination for the post of President on 15th September, 2003, well within the last date of receipt of nomination. The Secretary of the Association duly received the nomination form, proposed and seconded, for the post of President Elect from the plaintiff. The plaintiff's nomination has been rejected for not being accompanied with the "certificate of good standing". The plaintiff assails this rejection as illegal and submits that he was eligible and should have been considered for the post of "President Elect" and in his absence the entire election process has been vitiated. As no ex-parte order was granted by the Single Judge, the plaintiff challenged the same in appeal. The Division Bench in appeal preponed the hearing of the suit by the Single Judge to 23rd October, 2002. Vide orders dated 1st November, 2002, election qua the post of President was stayed.
5. In the instant case, as the plaintiff's nomination had been rejected on account of not being accompanied with "goodstanding certificate", the defendant No.5, who was the only other candidate was in the fray and was elected unopposed. Vide order dated 10th January, 2003, the Court directed that even if the result is declared and defendant No. 5 is elected, he would not assume charge without the leave of the Court. It is in this background that the present application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and the defendant's application for vacation of stay have come up for arguments before the Court.
6. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it was for the first time, in these elections, that the condition with regard to furnishing of `goodstanding certificate' had been insisted upon. He submits that the Rules and Bye-laws do not contain any provision for annexing of the said certificate. The only requirement is that the candidate should be a person of goodstanding. This he submits in the background of plaintiff's qualifications and experience are not in dispute. The learned counsel submits that the Bye-laws do not require the goodstanding certificate to be annexed.
7. Mr. Mahajan further relying on the nomination form, which is sought to be made the basis of requirement of furnishing of the `Goodstanding certificate' submitted that there were two asterix (**) on the column proposed by and seconded by. Relying on the following note appended to the asterix :
** Local/State Branches may nominate suitable candidate for any office of AOI as their official candidate. However individual member can also submit nomination as per constitution duly proposed and seconded by member of good standing. In the later case a certificate of good standing from the local/state branch has to be attached with the nomination. Any incomplete nomination paper shall be rejected by the returning officer."
8. Mr. Mahajan submits that one of the plausible interpretation was that goodstanding certificate was to be supplied in respect of proposer and seconder only. I am of the view that this would be over stretching the language and militates against the principles of harmonious interpretation. The requirement obviously is with regard to the "good standing certificate" of the candidate. Additionally it may be for the proposer and seconder. However to urge that the candidate himself may not furnish a good standing certificate if the proposer and seconder have furnished, would be in violation of the Bye-laws.
9. Mr. Mahajna next submitted that it was at the reverse of the nomination form that this requirement for producing the "good standing certificate" was given. Counsel for the defendants have opposed the grant of any injunction stating that defendant No. 5 being the only candidate has been elected unopposed. It has been brought to my attention that a `President elect' has also to function as Member of the Governing body and to discharge other functions which are enumerated in Bye-law 10. There is no doubt that the President elect has to discharge functions of the members of the governing body and carry out other duties as set out in the bye-laws. The question which we need to consider is whether the rejection of the nomination form of the plaintiff was justifiable or not? The nomination form even though it may be the first time has clearly indicated the requirement for furnishing of a goodstanding certificate. What is important is that the plaintiff himself had correctly perceived the same as a requirement. This becomes apparent from the plaintiff's own letter dated 19th September, 2002. The plaintiff responded to the intimation from the Secretary rejecting the nomination paper in the following words :-
"Dear Venakat, Thanking you very much for your letter No. AOI/HONY.SECY/EL-22/2002 dated 18.9.2002, received just now. I am grateful to you for having pointed out the lacuna in my nomination paper, due to non-accompaniment of good standing certificate.
I am sorry this is due to oversight. As you are aware, I am life member of both AOI National Body as well as Delhi branch and have been attending their meetings and actively participating regularly. Moreover, I have nothing due as fees etc. towards these organizations.
It is therefore, requested that this matter may kindly be reconsidered and I am enclosing herewith my good standing certificate issued by President, Delhi branch as required under your rules and regulations.
This is for your kind attention, perusal and favorable consideration."
10. From the foregoing, it is clear that the plaintiff accepted the same as a lacuna in the nomination paper and accepted the same as having been caused on account of oversight. Plaintiff bona fide sought the reconsideration of the rejection of his nomination. It was not the plaintiff's contention that either the Goodstanding certificate is not required or that it had to be submitted by the proposer and seconder and not the person seeking election. While, it is correct that subsequently, in his letter of 23rd September, 2002, where among other legal grounds this plea is also sought to be taken.
In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of ad interim injunction. This appears to be an unfortunate case, where the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of furnishing documents required for nomination. Defendants have also produced on record that it is not only the plaintiff's nomination form which was rejected in the absence of `Goodstanding certificate', but also nomination of 16 candidates who had applied either for President-elect, Member of the Editorial Board and Member of the Governing body, whose nominations forms had been rejected for non-accompaniment of the "goodstanding certificate". It is stated that in none of these cases, any relaxation has been permitted by the Association. In this view of the matter, the defendant cannot be faulted with for insisting on the requirement of furnishing the `Goodstanding certificate' uniformly. The balance of convenience is also not in favor of the plaintiff as the defendant No. 5 cannot be prevented from carrying out and discharging its duties as the President-elect. The injunction application is dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. I.A. No. 11964/2002 is allowed.