Delhi High Court
Meenakshi Kanwar vs Vinay Aggarwal And Ors on 8 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 8th August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 5644/2011
MEENAKSHI KANWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anit Sharma, Adv.
Versus
VINAY AGGARWAL AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Sharma with Mr. Nitesh
Jain & Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner claims to have been elected unopposed to the post of
Organizing Secretary of Indian Medical Association (IMA), Haryana (not
made a party to the present writ petition) for a term till 31st December,
2011. It is further the claim of the petitioner that on an election petition
being filed by certain other persons (who have also not been made party
over here), the respondent No.4 Indian Medical Association, Head
Quarters, New Delhi on 3 rd January, 2011 constituted an Election Tribunal.
It is the case of the petitioner that the said election petition has been filed
beyond the prescribed time of 15 days as prescribed in Memorandum,
Rules and Bye-Laws of IMA (HQ) and in fact the Election Tribunal ought
not to have been constituted. It is further the case of the petitioner that the
said Election Tribunal vide its Minutes of Meeting dated 13 th February,
2011 (signed on 4th April, 2011) unanimously declared the election of the
petitioner as well as election to the other posts to be violative of the norms
of democracy, equality and fairness and directed fresh elections to be held.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the said decision of the
Election Tribunal.
2. Even if it were to be believed that the Minutes of the Meeting of 13 th
February, 2011 were signed on 4th April, 2011, this petition has been filed
after four months therefrom.
3. The counsel for the respondent No.4 IMA (HQ) appearing on
advance notice states that the petitioner has suppressed facts from this
Court. It is stated that multifarious litigations with respect to the aforesaid
elections of IMA (Haryana) are pending in Courts of several districts of
Haryana. It is further contended that the same advocate who has preferred
this petition had also earlier filed W.P.(C) No.4672/2011 on behalf of one
Dr. Naresh Jindal and which writ petition was dismissed on 1 st August,
2011; that the petitioner has suppressed from this Court that the Election
Commission has now vide Notification dated 26 th / 30th May, 2011
announced fresh elections to IMA (Haryana). It is yet further contended
that the husband of the petitioner has also filed a suit in the Court at
Faridabad impugning the Minutes of the AGM held on 23 rd April, 2011 of
IMA (HQ) in which the election aforesaid was set aside and fresh elections
directed. It is contended that the petitioner has suppressed the suit filed by
her husband also. It is yet further contended that IMA (HQ) has received
summons of CS(OS) No.1780/2011 filed in this Court purportedly on
behalf of IMA (Haryana) but by the husband of the petitioner on behalf of
IMA (Haryana) impugning the decision aforesaid dated 13 th February,
2011 / 4th April, 2011 and which has also been concealed. It is stated that
an application for interim relief was filed in the said suit also but no
interim relief was granted.
4. On enquiry, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is
not expected to know the activities of her husband. On further enquiry
whether the petitioner is residing along with her husband, the answer is in
the affirmative. On yet further enquiry whether the husband of the
petitioner has any interest adverse to the petitioner, the answer is again in
the negative.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has however with reference to the
Memorandum, Rules and Bye-Laws of IMA (HQ) and IMA (Haryana) has
sought to contend that setting aside of the election is improper. It is further
contended that the election which was set aside and election now underway
are only to the post of President and Vice President and not of the post of
Organizing Secretary to which the petitioner was elected unopposed.
6. A perusal of the Agenda item No.E-14, which has been approved by
the AGM of IMA (HQ) shows that the entire election process in which the
petitioner was elected unopposed was set aside and it was found that there
is absolute void in the Haryana State branch requiring immediate elections.
There is thus no merit in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner
that the decision in the AGM on 23rd April, 2011 does not concern the post
of Organizing Secretary.
7. The counsel for the respondent No.4 IMA (HQ) has also contended
that the first phase of the fresh election process for the post of President
and two Vice Presidents is underway and the last date of receipt of ballet
papers is today and the counting is to commence from tomorrow.
8. The aforesaid facts would show that the petitioner and her husband
are indulging in judicial adventurism. They have been filing and have got
filed petitions to stall the election process now underway. It is
inconceivable that the petitioner would not know about the suit filed by her
husband. In fact, the counsel for the petitioner has been answering queries
about the said suit. The same is indicative of the petitioner being fully in
the know of the said suits and filing whereof was not disclosed before this
Court. The purport of all the said proceedings is the same i.e. to stall the
elections now underway, whether by impugning the order of the Election
Tribunal or the decision in the AGM of IMA (HQ). It was incumbent upon
the petitioner, while approaching this Court in discretionary jurisdiction to
make a clean breast of affairs and which has admittedly not been done.
Though the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against for abuse of process
of this Court but it is felt that imposing costs on the petitioner while
disposing this petition would serve the purpose. Accordingly, while
dismissing the petition, the petitioner is directed to deposit costs of
`30,000/- with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority and to file
the receipt of the said cost with the Registry of this Court within 10 days
failing which the Registry to re-list this petition for initiating appropriate
proceedings against the petitioner.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 08, 2011
'gsr'
