Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Singh Parihar vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107251-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 298 of 2023
Appellant :- Dharmendra Singh Parihar
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Rishikesh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Khare
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2023 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed holding that an individual member has no locus to challenge the election conducted by the outgoing committee.
Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Kamla Kant Agarwal vs. State of UP & ors; 2008 (7) ADJ 601 to submit that the judgment of this Court in Kaushik (Shri) vs. State of up & ors; 2006 (2) UPLBEC 1834 has been distinguished in Kamla Kant Agarwal (supra) and the preliminary objection raised therein with regard to the challenge raised by the writ petitioners therein, individual member to maintain the writ petition was turned down.
Having heard this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through paragraph nos.'7', '42' and '48' of the judgment of Kamla Kant Agarwal (supra), it is relevant to note that in the aforesaid case, the dispute was with regard to the exclusion of the member of the general body who raised the dispute before the writ court and election of a rank outsider as an office bearer, whereas in the present case the election has been held by the outgoing committee. There is no dispute about the fact that the name of the petitioner/appellant was included in the electoral college. Reliance placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge, Kamla Kant Agarwal (supra) is of no benefit to the petitioner.
Further reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Ratan Kumar Solanki vs. State of UP; 2010 (1) ADJ 262 to submit that the Division Bench in the said case had also turned down the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the individual member of the Society challenging the election of office bearers. Having gone through the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ratan Kumar Solanki (supra), we are required to note that the observations in para '20' as follows:-
"20. Wherever, the rights of in individual are affected adversely, if otherwise permissible in law, we find no reason to non suit such individual in availing extraordinary, equitable remedy under Article 226 though it is always open to this Court to decline to exercise its equitable jurisdiction for the self imposed reasons like delay, laches, alternative remedy, conduct of the petitioner etc. but merely because he is not the entire body, his individual rights which are affected, cannot be allowed to remain unchallenged merely on the ground that he is an individual. But, in a case where rights of the entire body are affected, in that case obviously an individual member may not be permitted to approach this Court unless he is able to show that besides infringement of the rights of the body collective, there is an infringement of his individual right also which is enforceable in a Court of law by filing a writ petition under Article 226. This is what has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Indian Sugar Mills Association through its President Shri Hari Raj Swarup Vs. Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh Labour Department and others AIR 1951 Alld. 1 where it was held that only those persons whose interest are directly affected by a statute or an order can seek for redressal of their grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution. It also held that it is the interest of the petitioner which must be directly affected and the extraordinary jurisdiction is not to be used for all kinds of disputes even where the remedy in common law otherwise is available, but it should be sparingly used more particularly in those particular cases where the right of a person has been seriously infringed and he has no such efficacious remedy available to him. "
From a careful reading of the above observations, it is evident that the Division Bench had rejected the preliminary objection and maintained the writ petition noticing that this Court cannot decline interference in its equitable jurisdiction merely on the ground that the challenge is not by entire body, in case the individual right of the writ petitioners are affected. It is, however, observed that in a case where the rights of the entire body are affected, in that case obviously an individual member may not be permitted to approach this Court unless he is able to show that besides infringement of the rights of the body collective, there is infringement of his individual right is also which is enforceable in a Court of law by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Noticing the above decisions, we raised a pointed query to the counsel for the petitioner/appellant herein to demonstrate that individual right of the writ petitioner has been affected by conduct of the elections by the outgoing committee of the institution in question. The grounds raised in the writ petition are placed before us to submit that no notice about the date of election has been served upon the members of the general body of the college and due to lack of intimation, right of vote of the petitioner has been infringed. The other grounds raised in the writ petition are with regard to the disputed list of 123 members of the general body which dispute allegedly is still to be decided by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, and is pending before it.
As regards the allegations of infringed rights of the petitioner/appellant herein, vague assertion in the writ petition that no notice has been given to the members of the general body of the Society about the date of election is not convincing. With regard to other grounds about the validity of the list of general body, the same cannot be said to be an individual dispute.
Even otherwise, the factual dispute raised in the writ petition cannot be examined by this Court within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute about the fact that the elections were held by the outgoing committee. No interference can be made in the smooth running of the college at the instance of the one agitated member of the general body of the committee.
For the aforesaid, adding to the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any ground for interference.
The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
P Kesari
