Bombay High Court
Rajghor Ranjhan Jaynatilal vs Election Scrutiny Committee Of B.B.A ... on 4 March, 2024
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2024:BHC-AS:12589-DB 502-WP-3365-2024.DOC
Ashvini Narwade
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ASHVINI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAPPASAHEB
KAKDE WRIT PETITION NO. 3365 OF 2024
Digitally signed by
ASHVINI
BAPPASAHEB KAKDE
Date: 2024.03.15
16:59:10 +0530 Rajghor Ranjhan Jaynatilal ... Petitioner
Versus
Election Scrutiny Committee of B.B.A. & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Debasish Mitra, Mr. Ranjan Rajghor, Mr. Sudeep Das Gupta a/w. Mr.
Mercy Thomas for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mukul Tally, Mr. Yash Kataria and Ms. Nikita Jadhav i/b. S.
Mahomedbhai & Co. for Respondent No.1.
_______________________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATED: 4th MARCH, 2024
_______________________
Oral Judgment :- (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J)
1. On an urgent application as made on behalf of the petitioner, we have
taken up the proceedings on board.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the
decision of the election scrutiny committee of the Bombay Bar Association, (an
association of the Advocates on the original side of the Bombay High Court),
whereby the petitioner's nomination form, for election to the membership of
the standing committee held on 29 February 2024 was rejected. Such elections
concerned the election of the President, the Vice-President, Honorary
Secretary and members of the Standing Committee.
4th March, 2024
502-WP-3365-2024.DOC
3. The Petitioner had submitted her nomination form for election as a
member of the Standing Committee, however, the Advocate (respondent
No.2) who proposed the Petitioner's nomination form, withdrew her consent.
For such reasons, the election scrutiny committee on 17th February 2024
decided that the petitioner's nomination form was required to be rejected.
4. The elections were scheduled on 29th February 2024. On the same day,
the results thereof were declared late in the evening. Today the new Committee
is to take over the charge. It is at this stage that the present proceedings are filed
praying for the following diverse reliefs.:-
"A) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to set aside the decision of the
scrutiny committee invalidating form of the candidate petitioner which
was duly signed on the last date of submission by proposal and
seconded.
B) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to stop election of BBA / and its
result as natural justice has not been followed by the scrutiny committee
while scrutinising the forms.
C) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to direct scrutiny committee to
add name of petitioner in list by allowing replacement of proposer and
till then stay to the election of BBA to get equal opportunity of
contesting to petitioner be given and natural justice be followed.
(D) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to set aside the decision of the
scrutiny committee by directly entertaining letter of proposer in this
regard of form ofpetitioner without any rules for it and without giving I
giving opportunity to petitioner to replace proposer.
E) That this Hon'ble court be pleased direct the committee to take
cognizance of other form replacing proposer due to last minute belated
backout of the proposer with undisclosed reason giving rise to
malpractices in election by 3rd party.
F) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to stay the election of BBA/result
till the rules and provisions are formed with regard to dealing with such
belated withdrawal of proposal/seconder in nomination form of
candidates be done.
4th March, 2024
502-WP-3365-2024.DOC
G) That this Hon'ble court be pleased to set aside the decision of the
scrutiny committee depriving the petitioner form her right of equality
of contesting election being permanent member and fair opportunity of
replacing the proposer in event of belated withdrawal of proposer."
5. At the outset, an objection is raised by Mr. Tally, the learned Counsel for
Respondent No.1, to the maintainability of this Petition. He would submit that
the prayers made by the petitioner are in relation to the elections, which have
already been held, the results of which stand declared. It is submitted hence at
such stage no relief can be granted to the Petitioner on a concluded election
process. The next objection of Mr. Tally and which is more fundamental is that
the Petition is also not maintainable, for the reason that the Bombay Bar
Association is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India, as none of the essential requirements to hold this body to be a 'State'
under Article 12 are present. It is hence Mr. Tally's submission that the Petition
needs to be dismissed.
6. Mr.Mitra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions submits
that the Petitioner is not pressing for all the reliefs. The only reliefs which
would be pressed by the Petitioner are prayer clauses (d) and (g). He submits
that the intention of the Petitioner is that the Bombay Bar Association needs to
have rules to deal with such situation, that when for no fault of the candidate
his nomination form cannot be invalidated / rejected, merely because the
proposer withdraws his / her recommendation in proposing a nomination.
4th March, 2024
502-WP-3365-2024.DOC
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are not persuaded to
accept the contentions, as urged on behalf of the Petitioner, that any relief can
be granted to the Petitioner, by entertaining this Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution. This, firstly, for the reason that we cannot accept the
Petitioner's contention that the Bombay Bar Association is a 'State' under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. We are informed by Mr. Tally that the
Bombay Bar Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, having its bye-laws and Rules. It does not receive any aid / financial
assistance from the government to meet its expenditures, nor does the
government have any other form of controlling stake either in the
establishment or in the management or administration of the bar association.
There is no deep or pervasive "State control" in the management of its affairs.
Furthermore, the functions of the Bombay Bar Association do not relate/or are
governmental functions. For all these reasons the Bombay Bar Association
cannot be held to be a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Thus, on this ground alone, we cannot entertain this Petition. We may observe
that the alternate remedy for the Petitioner, if at all, would be to file a Civil Suit
for redressal of any election grievance which the Petitioner has.
8. Be that as it may, the issues which are raised in the Petition concern the
elections of the Standing Committee of the bar association. Election itself is a
creature of the statute. Such elections are held according to the Rules and
4th March, 2024
502-WP-3365-2024.DOC
Regulations. If the Petitioner has any grievance regarding the same, certainly
the remedy for the Petitioner cannot be to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this
Court.
9. Needless to observe, as fairly stated by Mr. Tally, if the Petitioner has any
grievance, she is free to make a representation to the standing Committee of
the Bombay Bar Association, which would look into all the concerns raised by
the Petitioner.
10. Before parting we may clarify that our observations as made in this
judgment are confined in the context of the petitioner's case which raises issues
in regard to the elections of the bar association. Hence our judgment ought not
to be construed to have delved on any other issues which are not before us.
11. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
4th March, 2024
