Munnu Lal Mishra vs National Federation Of The Blind ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 2075 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J.

IA. NO. 11008 OF 2007

1. This order shall dispose of plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the code of civil procedure seeking a restraint against the defendants to hold election on the basis of present voters list and registration form with the help of paid staff of the Federation.

2. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and Permanent injunction seeking a decree of declaration that the voter list, resolution dated 8th September, 2007 with regard to cancellation of affiliate body and the registration form prepared by defendants, as illegal. The plaintiff has also sought a decree for mandatory injunction seeking direction against the defendants to hold the election of the Executive Council under the supervision of an independent agency or under the supervision of an observer appointed by the Court.

3. The plaintiff contended that he is a member of defendant No.1 and he was the Vice President of Central Zone of the National Federation of the Blind. It is contended by the plaintiff that earlier defendant No.1 was known as National Federation of Blind Graduates, however, in the year 1978, the name of the defendant no.1 was changed to National Federation of the Blind. This is stated that the defendant No.3 is involved with the affairs of the defendant no.1 Federation since 1978 and is its General Secretary since 1987 and he is managing its affairs. It is asserted that although there are 14 members of the Executive Council of defendant No.1, however, defendant No.3 is wholly and solely responsible for managing the affairs of defendant No.1. Allegation of the plaintiff is that in managing the affairs of the defendant no.1 the defendant no.3 acts with high handedness and arbitrarily and if anyone speaks against the high handedness and arbitrariness of defendant No.3, his membership is immediately terminated by Executive Council of defendant No.1.

4. The plea of the plaintiff is that the election of the Executive Council of defendant No.1 takes place on all-India basis and the members who join the Federation in the year prior to the election are eligible to participate in the election. Eligible members of the Federation have to get their names registered to cast their votes for the Executive Council and their names are included in the voter list which is prepared by the Federation. The federation, defendant No.1 provides admit cards to the members who get their names registered after depositing the prescribed fee.

5. According to the plaintiff, though the Federation had decided that the list of actual members should have been published by 31st December, 2005, however, list was published only in May 2007. It is further asserted that the list of registered members who have voting rights should have been published by 31st August, 2007, however, the list had been made available on compact disc (CD) only on 11th September, 2007. According to the plaintiff, he had to resign from the post of Vice President of Central Zone on 12th September, 2007 on account of autocratic, undemocratic and unconstitutional functioning of defendant No.3. The plaintiff has also alleged difference in the voter list which was prepared at the time of election of Madhya Pradesh Branch of the Federation which was issued by the Head Office of the Federation and the present voter list. The discrepancy in the names of actual members published in May 2007 has also been alleged and it is contended that the discrepancies are on account of manipulations done by defendant No.3 in the ensuing election.

6. The grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant No.3 is holding the post of General Secretary for more than 25 years and he conducts election in such a manner in connivance with his trusted paid employees that no other person, who contests the election, succeeds in the election as the persons who are employed to manage the election process are the paid employees of the National Executive Council of defendant No.1 where the dictate of defendant No.3 prevails. The apprehension of the plaintiff is that the elections which are scheduled to be held on 4th November, 2007 at Udaipur (Rajasthan) shall not be free, fair and impartial. It is further pleaded that the rules and regulations of defendant No.1 prohibits any paid employee to be a member. However, there are various paid employees of the Federation whose names appear as members of the defendant No.1. Even the names of the members who have died appears in the list of members provided by the defendant No.3.

7. Other allegation of the plaintiff is that there have been several instances where paid employees were made to escort the members for casting their votes and the conduct of these escorts was detrimental to hold free and fair election as they tampered with the votes of opponents. According to the plaintiff, column 9 of the registration form provides for help of guide/escort for registered members who do not know braille script and in such cases central representatives are appointed as guide/escort who are directly accountable to General Secretary and they play a very crucial role at the time of voting and at the time of counting, as they manipulate and tamper with the votes in favor of the candidate they are interested. It is alleged that although the election is conducted by secret ballot, however, the presence of paid employees as escorts defeats the very purpose of secret ballot.

8. On these grounds, the plaintiff has sought an interim order that the defendants more particularly defendant no.3 be restrained from holding the election on the basis of present voter list and registration form with the help of the paid staff of the Federation.

9. The suit of the plaintiff and the application for interim injunction is contested by the defendants contending inter alia that the plaintiff has concealed the material fact as he is seeking election to the posts of President and General Secretary in the ensuing election in respect of which the voter list has been challenged. It is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for interim relief on the ground that various candidates to various posts for the ensuing election are the necessary parties who have not been imp leaded and, therefore, the plaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and interim relief as sought by the plaintiff should be declined. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 have also opposed the grant of interim relief on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and the plaintiff has been a party to all the decision taken by National Executive Council of defendant no.1 with regard to process of election including mode of registration, format for registration, finalization of list of eligible members entitled to be registered on payment of registration fee and on completing the registration form along with finalization of registrants/voter list etc and he did not object to the decisions taken earlier and this fact has also not been disclosed by the plaintiff. Concealment of the fact that the plaintiff had filed objection to the voter list circulated in May 2007 and which objections were considered and voter list was rectified, has also been alleged against the plaintiff. Grant of interim relief is also opposed on the ground that in the plaint plaintiff has not sought any consequential reliefs after the cancellation of impugned voter list and even a decree of mandatory injunction has been sought without challenging the appointment of nomination-cum-election committee formed by the National Executive Council of defendant No.1 to which decision the plaintiff was a party and no bias or malafide has been alleged against the said election committee. It is also contended that the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of relief of declaration and deficient court fee has been paid as the assets of the defendant No.1 are more than Rs.70.00 crores and the plaintiff has valued the suit for Rs.20.00 lakh only.

10. The defendants further contended that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff with malafide intention as plaintiff was not allowed to continuously burden the defendant No.1 with heavy bills of mobile phones sometimes ranging between Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month without any justification, to which strong exception was taken by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 more so because the cheques issued by the plaintiff were dishonoured towards the payment of installment of housing loans to defendant No.1. The defendant No.3 has categorically denied that defendant No.3 is solely responsible for managing the affairs of defendant No.1. According to him the bye laws of defendant No.1 provides for rights and duties of each of the office bearers separately and everyone operates in accordance with those rights and duties. It is also contended that the plaintiff has been a party to the approval of registration form by the National Executive Council and the plaintiff never differed from the decisions taken by the National Executive Council and, therefore, the allegations now made in the suit are after thoughts an election gimmick before the elections. The allegations of any high handedness or any decision taken arbitrarily by the defendant No.3 contrary to the rules is not admitted and it is contended that no instance of such high handedness or arbitrary decision taken by the defendant no.3 have been given. It is contended that till the plaintiff was the vice president of Central zone no such objections were ever raised by the plaintiff and some of the anomalies pointed out by the plaintiff in the voter list were corrected and other anomalies alleged that the names of dead members were not deleted in the list of members, were found to be untrue as those members were found to be alive. After May 2007 when the plaintiff had raised certain specific objections to the list, no specific objections were raised by the plaintiff. Even in the plaint the allegation made are generic and no instances have been given of the paid employees being the members of the Federation, dead members whose names have not been deleted, details of paid employees who tampered with the votes or such instances and the instances of high handedness and arbitrary decisions taken by the defendant no.3.

11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the pleadings and documents filed and relied on by the parties. This has not been disputed that the plaintiff was a party to the various decision taken by the National Executive Council including conduct of election, preparation of voter list, finalization of registration form and appointment of an independent election committee and did not differ from the decision taken by the National Executive Council nor objected to the procedure adopted and form finalized. If the plaintiff was involved in the process of decision making for conducting the elections and for the modalities of election which has already been set into motion, normally he cannot be allowed to seek stay of ensuing elections to be held on 4th November, 2007 on the basis of the voter list, against which objections were filed by the plaintiff and which were considered and decided and the list was finalized thereafter and the registration form was also approved in the meeting which was also attended by the plaintiff.

12. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions, consequently does not press the interim relief seeking the stay of election on 4th November, 2007. Perusal of the application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, shows that the plaintiff has only sought the relief that the defendants be restrained more particularly defendant No.3 to hold the election on the basis of present voter list and registration form with the help of the paid staff of the Federation. The learned Counsel for plaintiff contended that though the relief for appointment of independent observers has not been prayed specifically as an interim relief but considering the facts and circumstances, independent observers should be appointed to have free and fair election.

13. To press for the relief for appointment of independent observers, the plaintiff has contended that there has been large scale manipulations in the list and the list which was to be published by 31st December, 2005 was published in May, 2007. It is also contended that the list of registered members who have voting rights should have been published by 31st December, 2005 whereas the list has been given on 11.9.2007 only on CD. To substantiate these allegations the plaintiff has tried to show the discrepancies between earlier lists of Central zone and other zones and subsequent lists prepared. According to him numbers of members of Madhya Pradesh branch in the earlier list are at variance with the present voter list which shows only 405 members. It has also been contended that in the voter list published in May, 2007 there were 961 actual members in the Maharashtra branch whereas the list circulated shows 1440 as registered members on the compact disc.

14. The defendant No.3 has categorically denied that defendant No.3 is solely responsible for managing the affairs of defendant No.1 and for the preparation of voter list or that the voter list has been manipulated at his instance or that the objection raised against the voter list were not considered and mistakes rectified, as the bye laws of defendant No.1 provides for rights and duties of each of the office bearers separately and everyone operates in accordance with those rights and duties. It is also contended that the plaintiff has been a party to the approval of forms and modalities of election and consideration of cases to enroll members which may have come up during the present term of National Executive Council for consideration. The plaintiff never differed with the decisions taken by the National Executive Council nor objected and, therefore, there is no question of any high handedness or any decision taken arbitrarily by the defendant No.3 contrary to the rules. It is also asserted that the perusal of the plaint and the replication by the plaintiff will reflect that besides the generic allegations, no specific instances have been given by the plaintiff of the violation of the rules and enrollment of the members contrary to the rules of defendant No.1. The plaintiff had been a Vice President of Central zone at the relevant time and consequently it also cannot be inferred that had there been such violations as alleged by the plaintiff, he would not have had the knowledge about the specific instances.

15. From perusal of documents filed by the parties, it transpires that in fact the plaintiff had filed objections to the list of members for voting pursuant to communication dated 27th April, 2007 inviting objections to the voter list. The plaintiff had objected to about 26 cases in the members list including the objection that the names of some of the dead members had not been deleted which objection was found to be incorrect. Plaintiff had raised objections that two members from Varanasi, namely, Patia Sen and Gopal Chand Upadhyay were dead and he had sought deletion of their names. On verification by the concerned Varanasi Unit, it was found that they were alive and strong exception was taken to the unethical and reckless allegation of the plaintiff. The defendants have contended that the objections against the list were invited by letter dated 27th April, 2007 and very few objections had been received, one of which were from the plaintiff. This fact has not been controverter by the plaintiff.

16. The decision was taken on 17th March, 2007 to hold the election in November for which a list was prepared which was circulated which was admittedly received by the plaintiff in May, 2007. After considering the list the objections were filed by the plaintiff. In the objections filed by the plaintiff on 15th May, 2007, the plaintiff had taken about twenty eight specific objections. The plaintiff raised objections in respect of the list which was prepared considering the eligibility till 31st December, 2005 as according to the bye-laws of the federation, candidate eligible for election should have been enrolled in a year preceding the year in which the General Body is held. Since the General Body was to be held in 2007, therefore, the eligibility was to be considered up till 31st December, 2005.

17. In the letter dated 15th May, 2007 the plaintiff had raised about 28 specific objections besides the general objections that the description of receipt number and whether the member is blind and sighted had not been given in most of the cases of the members. The defendant Nos.1 and 3 in their written statement has categorically contended that any member who enrolls himself as a member of the defendant no.1 at any time in the year preceding the year of the general body meeting, is entitled to take part in the general body meeting and cast his vote by registering for the concerned general body and paying the registration fees and completing all other formalities as decided by NEC. Similarly, the bye laws also provides that for being eligible to seek any office of the defendant no.1, the concerned member should have uninterrupted membership of at least four years apart from other conditions. No objection has been raised about those members who are contesting the elections. The objection is to the members who are the voters. All those members who has been enrolled as the members of the federation, defendant No.1 on or before 31st December, 2005 were eligible to register themselves after making payment of the registration fees of Rs.20/- which was decided by NEC. In its meeting held on 17th March, 2007 it was decided at Nagpur to hold the General Body Meeting and election on 4th November, 2007 at Udaipur, Rajasthan and consequently the list of eligible members was circulated and objections were invited where plaintiff filed objections dated 15th May, 2007 raising 28 specific objections regarding the members including the objection that some members are dead. In the circumstances it is apparent that the plea of the plaintiff that the membership list should have been published by 31st December, 2005 is not correct. The plaintiff in the plaint did not disclose that he had filed the objections by letter dated 15th May, 2007 which were considered and certain anomalies pointed out by the plaintiff were rectified. The plaintiff also cannot feign ignorance of the registering of the members till 31st August, 2007 who have voting rights, as it was decided in the meeting of NEC held on 17th March, 2007 at Nagpur which was attended by the plaintiff and no objection was taken to the decisions taken by the NEC on 17th March, 2007. The defendants have categorically denied the averment that there are 5285 registered members as has been alleged by the plaintiff. It has been categorically contended that the compact disc containing the names of the registered members was circulated on 11.9.2007 which has been admitted even by the plaintiff. However, no objection to the same has been filed by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff could file the objections to the list which was circulated in May, 2007 raising 28 objections, which were considered, had there been any objections to the list of members circulated by compact disc and which was also placed on the Internet, the plaintiff would have again filed the objections which had not been done.

18. In the plaint also no specific instances have been given about those members who are not eligible to participate in the election. It is also relevant to note that to the list circulated in May, 2007 the plaintiff had raised specific objections regarding the names of the members and as to why they were not eligible, in his communication dated 15th May, 2007. However, in the plaint there are no such specific objections to the names of any of the alleged ineligible members whose names have been put on the compact disc and on the Internet for the ensuing election on 4th November, 2007. In the circumstances, the probable inference is that voter list is proper for the purpose of election and the allegations made by the plaintiff alleging discrepancies in numbers is without any rational basis and attempt to mislead and get the interim relief. Had there been genuine specific objections, the plaintiff would have raised the same. This probable inference gets further support from the communication dated 15th May, 2007 wherein plaintiff raised specific objections against the names of various members. These objections were considered and some rectification was carried out and other objections raised, such as that the names of some of the dead members which were not deleted, were found to be incorrect. Thereafter when plaintiff wrote another letter dated 30th July, 2007, none of those objections which were raised in the letter dated 15th May, 2007 regarding specific members were taken or reiterated. The plaintiff had again raised objection to the list of members on 6th August, however, no specific objections were taken except that there are discrepancies between the various branches list which were prepared earlier. The plaintiff has kept his allegations deliberately vague regarding the list of various branches. The details of various branch lists as to their dates and other particulars have not been given by the plaintiff. The lists prepared earlier will be different from the lists prepared later on, unless the allegation of the plaintiff is that there has not been any change in number of members. No specific objections have been disclosed by the plaintiff to the list of member which had been put on the internet and which was also provided to the members on the compact disc. Consequently, in these facts and circumstances it is difficult to draw an inference that there are manipulations in the list of eligible members of voters which seems to be one of the main plank of the plaintiff seeking an interim order against the defendants regarding conduct of ensuing elections.

19. The plaintiff has also relied on alleged discrepancies in the list of members provided by the defendants, on the basis of a typed comparison giving the name of places, number of members in the old list and number of members in the new list. The said typed comparison is neither signed by anyone nor it gives the dates of the old list or the dates of the new list. Who has seen those lists and who has prepared this comparison statement has not been disclosed nor copies of such lists have been filed on the basis of which alleged comparison was prepared. The plaintiff had filed the objections to the list of members on 15th May, 2007 and such objections as are canvassed now on the basis of this typed comparison, were not adverted to in his objections. Consequently on the basis of alleged discrepancies also which are without any relevant particulars, it cannot be inferred prima facie that the list of eligible members for voting, suffers from such discrepancies which will entitle the plaintiff for appointment of independent observers in order to hold a fair election fixed on 4th November, 2007.

20. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.Sharma has sought appointment of an independent observers, though no such prayer has been made on behalf of plaintiff in the application for interim orders under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that defendant No.3 had reserved the pre-emptry powers to appoint the members of the Election Committee and therefore, the election committee which has been appointed pursuant to the decision of the NEC on 8th September, 2007 which was also attended by the plaintiff, cannot be termed as an independent impartial committee.

21. In the meeting of the National Executive Council (NEC) on 8th September, 2007 it was decided to constitute an Election Commission, Nomination Committee comprising of Sh.Rajpal Singh, Retd SDO from Haryana Govt; Mr. Kishan Verma, GM Stationary Stores, Delhi University and the Chairperson to the Election cum Commission Committee was to be nominated by defendant No.3 in consultation with Sh.Virender Arya, convener of the organizing committee.

22. Perusal of the pleas raised by the plaintiff, reflects that no allegations have been made about Sh.Rajpal Singh and Mr.Kishan Verma that they are not impartial or biased. Even against the Chairperson who is a principal of the Government school of Udaipur who has been nominated by defendant No.3 in consultation with Sh. Virender Arya, convener of organizing committee, no allegation that he is not impartial of bias has been made. There are no allegations that Sh. Virender Arya has colluded with defendant no.3 in appointing the Chairman of election committee, has been made.In the replication filed by the plaintiff, the allegation which has been made is that the name of ADM, Udaipur was discussed being the Chairman of the Committee, however, he was not appointed. What is relevant in these circumstances is that plaintiff participated in the NEC held on 8.9.2007 where Sh. Rajpal Singh, Retd SDO from Haryana Government and Mr. Kishan Verma, GM Stationary Stores, Delhi University were appointed as the members of Election Committee and it was also agreed that defendant No.3 will nominate the Chairman in consultation with Sh. Virender Arya. The plaintiff has not raised any objection the nomination of Chairman of defendant No.3 in the plaint. The plea of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the power of defendant No.3 was unrestricted, also cannot be accepted as the Chairman was to be appointed in consultation with Sh. Virender Arya and no allegations have been made against Sh. Virender Arya that he is a man of defendant No.3 or is biased or is against the plaintiff. The plaintiff also did not raise any objection against the nomination of a Principal of the school as the Chairman of the Election Committee. Plaintiff had attended the meeting of NEC on 8th September, 2007 and no objection to the appointment of election committee was raised by the plaintiff. The only allegation which has been made is that Sh.Inder Singh who is a nominated member of the NEC and who is also contesting the election is closely related to one of the members of the Election Committee. The allegation is utterly vague and had not been raised in the plaint so that an answer could be elucidated from the defendants. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff is also unable to point out as to how Inder Singh is related to which member of the Election Committee. In any case this allegation will not substantiate the case of the plaintiff against the defendant no.3 as this may only result in some favor being shown by the alleged member in favor of Shri Inder Singh. The plaintiff has not alleged or shown that Shri Inder Singh is contesting the election for the same posts for which the plaintiff is contesting the election. On the basis of these averments and the allegations, no inference can be drawn that the Election Committee comprising of three persons shall be biased and will not be able to function independently so as to have fair and impartial election and independent observers should be appointed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

23. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs have also relied on the allegations made in the plaint that election of defendant No.3 was cancelled in 1986. No copy of the order cancelling the election and the reason for cancellation of the election of defendant No.3 has been produced and in the circumstances plaintiff is unable to point out the reason for cancellation of election of defendant No.3 in 1986. Merely because the election of defendant No.3 was cancelled in 1986 does not lead to any logical conclusion that there will be manipulation by the defendant No.3 in the present election also when an independent Election Committee has been set up for conducting the elections and regarding the eligible member list no cogent objection has been filed by the plaintiff. It is also not apparent that in 1986 when the election of defendant no.3 was cancelled, the elections were conducted by an independent election committee or not. The defendant no.3 has pointed out that the election was cancelled in 1986 on account of a bundle of votes found in the box in favor of another candidate during an electric failure. On this ground also the plaintiff is not entitled for appointment of independent observers as nothing can be imputed to the defendant no.3 in the present facts and circumstances.

24. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff on instructions has already given up the claim for stay of the election as the election process has already been set pursuant to the decision taken by National Executive Council in various meetings in which plaintiff participated without any objection till 12th October, 2007 when he resigned and, therefore, the election cannot be stayed. The relief claimed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff for appointment of independent observers in the facts and circumstances also cannot be granted for the reasons stated hereinabove.

25. Therefore the plaintiff does not have a prima facie case for appointment of independent observers and the application for interim injunction is liable to be dismissed. Considering the fact that an independent election committee has already been set up without any objection by the plaintiff, it will not be appropriate to appoint other independent observers. The application for interim order is therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed in the present facts and circumstances. It is, however, clarified that the outcome of the election will be subject to the present suit. It is also clarified that anything stated hereinabove shall not be final expression of the controversies between the parties. CS (OS) No.1755/2007

Original documents or certified copies thereof be filed within four weeks.

List before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial and marking of documents on 14.1.2008.

List before the Court for framing of issues on 11.4.2008.