Naresh Jindal vs Indian Medical Association & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 3647 Del

$~58
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+          W.P.(C) 4672/2011
           NARESH JINDAL                                            ..... Petitioner
                        Through:            Mr. Anil Sharma, Adv.
                                     Versus
           INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ORS             ..... Respondents
                        Through: Mr. Shaurabhn Dhawan, Adv. for Mr.
                                   Laliet Kumar, Adv. for UOI.
           CORAM:
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                              ORDER

% 01.08.2011

1. The petition has been filed claiming the following relief:-

"Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ of similar nature for directing the respondents to provide the list of presidents and secretaries of IMA Haryana State, Presidents and Secretaries of local branch of IMA under jurisdiction of IMA Haryana State, list of ex-officio and elected state council members from IMA Haryana, central representative list from local branches of IMA Haryana, list of members of central working committee and voter list held on 31.3.2011 and for the current year from 1.4.2011 and minutes of 205th central working committee held on 23.4.2011 and 24.4.2011 at Ghaziabad."

2. The writ petition came up first before this Court on 7 th July, 2011

when it was the case of the counsel for the petitioner that the documents

aforesaid are needed for the purpose of ensuing elections and to prevent

IMA, Haryana from changing the list of members and office bearers.

Finding that the relief sought for was against the IMA Haryana, it was

enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how this Court would have

territorial jurisdiction. The counsel for the petitioner was also directed to

show as to under which Rule/Regulation the respondents were obliged to

maintain the documents sought and/or owed a duty to supply the same to

persons such as the petitioner and as to why the provisions of RTI Act, 2005

could not be invoked.

3. The petitioner has since filed an affidavit in which it is inter alia

stated that the RTI Act is not applicable to IMA Headquarter at New Delhi

or to IMA Haryana. Need is not felt to comment on the said plea.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has with reference to the Memorandum

Rules and Bye-Laws of IMA Headquarters stated that as per Clause 40-C

thereof, the legal proceeding where the IMA Headquarters is a party are to

be instituted under the jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi only.

5. Even though notice of the writ petition had not been issued but IMA

Haryana has since, under cover of index dated 20 th July, 2011 filed a list of

Presidents and Secretaries of local branches of IMA Haryana as on 31 st

March, 2011 as well as the list as on 1st April, 2011, the list of Central

Council Members, State Members of Local Branches etc. The counsel for

the petitioner also confirms that the documents insofar as demanded from

IMA Haryana stand supplied to the petitioner.

6. The counsel for the petitioner however now contends that IMA

Headquarter has not supplied the particulars aforesaid. Upon being asked as

to under which provisions IMA Headquarter is required to maintain the

same, attention is invited to Clause 39 of the Memorandum, Rules and Bye-

Laws aforesaid whereunder the Honorary Secretary General of IMA

Headquarters is required to maintain a correct and up-to date branch-wise

register of all members of the Association. Attention is also invited to

Clause 26 where, upon formation of a Branch, intimation has to be sent to

IMA Headquarter and the local Branches required to submit through the

State Branch an annual return of the members on 30th April of each year.

7. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to why the

petitioner needs such particulars from IMA Headquarters when the same

have been supplied by IMA Haryana. The counsel states that the same has

become necessary owing to the discrepancy as admitted by IMA Haryana in

its letter dated 7th April, 2011 at page 25 of the paper book. The counsel

however fairly admits that neither has any such plea been taken in the

petition nor has it been stated in the petition that the lists are required from

IMA Headquarter as well as IMA Haryana.

8. The letter dated 7th April, 2011 does not admit of any inconsistency

between the list maintained by IMA Haryana and IMA Headquarters.

Moreover when the district branches are required to communicate with the

Headquarters through the State Branch only, I do not see any reason for

entertaining this petition particularly when the dispute is relating to election

and it appears that this petition may be used to stall/delay the election

process.

9. The counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention to a letter

written by him on behalf of IMA Haryana to IMA Headquarter seeking the

particulars. However the present writ petition is admittedly not being filed

on behalf of IMA Haryana but by the petitioner in his personal individual

capacity.

10. No case is therefore made out of entertaining the petition against IMA

Headquarters, the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 01, 2011/bs..