Haryana Wrestling Association ... vs Wrestling Federation Of India And ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 60 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                         Judgment reserved on:    12.12.2011

%                        Judgment delivered on:   04.01.2012


+         W.P.(C.) No. 4860/2011 & C.M. No. 19583/2011 (for intervention)


          HARYANA WRESTLING ASSOCIATION AND ANR
                                               ..... Petitioners
                     Through: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate .

                                      versus

          WRESTLING FEDERATION OF INDIA AND ORS
                                                   ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr.    Pradeep      Dewan,       Senior
                                Advocate, with Mr. Anupam Dhingra,
                                Advocate,    for     the     respondent
                                No.1/WFI.
                                Mr. Devrat Sharma & Mr. M.P.Singh,
                                Advocates, for the respondent
                                No.2/UOI.
                                Mr. Navin Chawla, Mr. Bharat Arora
                                and Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar,
                                Advocates, for the respondent No.4.
                                Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta, Advocate,
                                for the applicant in C.M. No.
                                19583/2011.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI



W.P.(C.) No. 4860/2011                                            Page 1 of 33
                                 JUDGMENT

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

C.M. No. 19583/2011 (for intervention)

This application has been preferred by Sh. K.S. Minhas to intervene in

the present writ petition. He claims to be the Life President of WFI. He has

already initiated two civil suits, details whereof are contained in the

application and have been noticed in the following judgment. The pendency

of the said suits has no bearing on the determination of the issues raised by

the petitioners in the writ petition. My reasons for the said observation are

detailed in the following judgment. The present application is clearly an

attempt on the part of the applicant to put a spoke in the wheel and prevent

this Court from disposing of the writ petition. I, therefore, find no merit in

this application. The same is, accordingly dismissed.

W.P.(C.) No. 4860/2011

1. The petitioners, i.e. petitioner No. 1/Haryana Wrestling Association

(HWA) acting through its Hony. Secretary Sh. Raj Kumar Hooda and

petitioner No. 2/Sh. P.V. Rathee, representative of the petitioner No. 1, have

preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

seek a writ of certiorari - to quash the order dated 05.04.2011 issued by the

Returning Officer of the respondent No. 1/Wrestling Federation of India

(WFI), whereby the representation of petitioner No. 1 dated 04.04.2011 to

revise the election schedule was rejected, and Article XIII (d) of the

Constitution of WFI was held to be in operation. The petitioners also seek

quashing of the election of respondents No. 4, 5 & 6, i.e. Sh. Dushyant

Sharma, Sh. Raj Singh and Sh. Hamza Bin Omar as the President, Secretary

General and Senior Vice President respectively of WFI on the ground that

the same has been held in violation of the Constitution of WFI. Certain

interim reliefs have also been sought by the petitioners keeping in view the

final reliefs.

2. The petitioner No. 2 filed his nomination to contest for the post of

President of respondent No. 1/WFI as the nominee of petitioner No. 1. The

Returning Officer rejected the said nomination by the impugned order dated

8.4.2011.

3. At this stage itself I may take note of the order dated 15.07.2011

passed in these proceedings. The counsel for the petitioners was asked to

explain as to how the petitioners can raise a challenge to the elections for the

posts of Senior Vice President and Secretary General inasmuch, as, no

person aggrieved by the said election had preferred a petition, and the

petitioner No. 2 was not a candidate for the said posts. The counsel for the

petitioners had then made a statement that he confines the relief in the

petition to challenge the election for the post of President only.

Consequently, respondents No. 5 & 6, who were elected to the post of

Secretary General and Senior Vice President respectively in the election

process in question, were deleted from the memo of parties by the said order

dated 15.07.2011.

4. Respondent No. 1/WFI is a society registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860. WFI is the apex body in India for the sport of

wrestling. It represents India in all wrestling events around the world. It has

affiliated units in each & every State. It is recognized by the respondent No.

2/Union of India (UOI) for the purpose of releasing the grant in aid, training

and selection of wrestlers who represent the nation in various international

wrestling meets and championships.

5. The case of the petitioners is that the constitution of respondent No.

1/WFI was amended in the year 2007 by inserting Article XIII (d) therein.

Article XIII (d) reads as under:

"It shall be mandatory requirement of elections to the post of President, Senior Vice President and Secretary General that

only those members, who had held the office in the outgoing Executive Committee of WFI for a period of 4 years shall be eligible to contest the election."

6. The purport of the said amendment was that only existing executive

members of WFI, who had served in that capacity for a period of four years,

were eligible to contest the elections for the post of President, Senior Vice

President and Secretary General, and all other members of the WFI were

precluded from doing so. Consequently, there was a limited contest for the

said three posts, which, undoubtedly, are the most important posts in the

organization of WFI.

7. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1/HWA is the

apex body for the discipline of wrestling in the State of Haryana and is one

of the affiliated units of WFI. It is also the case of the petitioners that it was

mooted that Article XIII (d) be deleted from the Constitution of Respondent

No.1/WFI as it had the effect of restricting participation and competition for

election of the President, Vice President and General Secretary of

respondent No. 1, to only those members of the Executive Committee of

WFI, who had served as such for a period of four years. However, the then

General Secretary of WFI, who was eyeing the post of President in the next

process of election, was not in favour of deletion of Article XIII (d), as the

said deletion would increase competition and reduce his chances of getting

elected. Consequently, the President of the WFI called a Special Meeting of

the General Council/General Body of respondent No. 1/WFI on 05.02.2011,

wherein the amendment of the Constitution of WFI was approved. One of

the amendments approved was that Article XIII (d) be deleted.

8. On 12.03.2011, the then Secretary General of WFI, namely Sh. Kartar

Singh, IPS, issued a notice for holding of elections of the office bearers of

WFI. The election for the various posts was scheduled to be held on

15.04.2011. The following schedule was fixed for conduct of elections:

TIME SCHEDULE FOR WFI‟S ELECTION

DATE ACTIVITY

5th April 2011 Publication of the Electoral College

5th-6th April 2011 Collecting of nomination papers of candidates for various posts and members of the Executive Committee.

          8th April 2011          Scrutiny of nomination papers

          9th April 2011          Withdrawal of nomination by candidates,
                                  if any

          10th April 2011         Publication of final list of candidate and
                                  their circulation to all Units

          15th April 2011         Annual General Body Meeting at 11:00
                                  A.M., New Delhi

9. It appears that on 25.03.2011, the erstwhile Secretary General of WFI

also appointed Mr. Justice S.K. Aggarwal (Retd.), Judge of this Court, to

function as the Returning Officer. It appears that the Government of India

took note of the aforesaid notification of election, as well as appointment of

Returning Officer in their communication dated 28.03.2011.

10. The nominee of the Returning Officer issued a communication dated

28.03.2011 to the various State Wrestling Associations, Union Territories

Wrestling associations, Services Sports Control Board (SSCB), Railway

Sports Promotion Board (RSPB), FILA Bureau Members & Life Presidents

on the subject of holding of elections of the office bearers and members of

the Executive Committee of WFI for the next four years term. In this

communication Article XIII (d) of the Constitution of WFI was specifically

referred to and reproduced in relation to the elections for the post of office

bearers and/or members of the Executive Committee.

11. It appears that petitioner No. 1/Sh. Raj Kumar Hooda, represented

against, firstly, the reference made to Article XIII (d) despite the same being

deleted by the General Council on 05.02.2011, and also represented against

fixation of the tight schedule for holding the elections on the ground that

even though the Electoral College was scheduled to be declared only on

05.04.2011, the nominations were invited to all the posts by 06.04.2011,

thereby giving hardly any time for the intending candidates to approach the

other members for subscribing to their nominations.

12. According to the petitioners, in response to the said representation

made by the petitioner No. 1, the Observer appointed by the Government of

India issued a communication dated 05.04.2011. The Returning Officer was

made aware of the issues raised by the petitioner No. 2. The Government of

India also communicated, inter alia, to the Returning Officer that the

restrictive clause similar to one contained in Article XIII (d), was proposed

to be incorporated in the Constitution of the Indian Olympic Association,

which had not been approved by the Ministry of Sports. The Government

Observer also agreed with the grievance of the petitioner No. 2 with regard

to the insufficiency of time allowed for filing of nominations. It was further

stated that it would be in the interest of purity of electoral process that

sufficient time is given to the intending candidates to file their nominations

as stipulated in the Standard Election Bye-Laws circulated by the Ministry

of Sports to all National Sports Federations.

13. On 7th April, 2011, the Government of India acting through its Under

Secretary in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports also sent a

communication to respondent No.1 stating that Article XIII (d) is contrary to

the Government Guidelines on Good Governance and Healthy Development

of Sports as it perpetuates existing members, and does not provide level

playing field to all the member units. It was also stated that holding of

elections by office bearers of the respondent/federation without addressing

the said issue would not only be violative of the resolution passed by the

General Council at its previous meeting held on 5.2.2011 wherein it had

been decided to dispense with the said clause, but it would also deny the

opportunity to the members who have not held such positions in the

outgoing Executive Committee of WFI for a period of four years from

contesting the elections. It was, therefore, recommended that the general

body should first settle this matter and after confirming the removal clause,

should proceed with the elections with revised schedule giving due time at

each stage of the election process, including time for the candidates to

campaign for themselves. It was also stated that proceeding with the

elections without properly addressing these matters, would result in an

impasse, as the Government would not be in a position to recognize the new

management as legitimate management of the WFI and provide financial

and other support for development of sports.

14. The petitioner submits that the Returning Officer appointed by the

General Secretary passed the impugned order dated 05.04.2011, rejecting the

representation of petitioner No.1 dated 4.4.2011 to revise the election

schedule. The Returning Officer also held that Article XIII (d) of the

Constitution of WFI continued to remain in operation. The relevant extract

from the impugned order passed by the learned Returning Officer in this

regard reads as follows:-

„ii. Mr. Narender Hooda next argued that in the alternative, even if the amendment vide resolution dated 17.12.2007 is taken to have been validly passed, the deletion of the same vide resolution dated 05.02.2011 was validly passed and that the rigors contained in section 12 of the Societies Registration Act do not apply for amendment of the rules and Regulations of the WFI. There is a difficulty in accepting this submission.

iii. The perusal of the records reveal that the notice dated 03.12.2010, calling for special General Council meeting inter alia to consider and adopt the amendments to the constitution of WFI as given in Annexure A at Ranchi, Jharkhand, as well, as the subsequent notice dated 12.01.2011, rescheduling the said meeting with the same agenda, and even the minutes of the said meeting are signed by Mr. G.S.Mander,President, and not by Secretary General as required by Article XV relating to the amendment of Rules and Regulations which read as follows:

"No amendment shall be made to these Rules and Regulations except at the Special General Council

Meeting of the WFI and supported by the 2/3rd of the representatives present and voting. All proposed amendments must be presented to the Secretary General, at least three weeks before the meeting and forwarded by him to every member at least fourteen days before the meeting"(emphasis supplied)

In addition to the above the minutes of the meeting of all the meeting dated 05.02.2011 are yet to be confirmed by the General Council.

In view of all this, it is difficult to accept the contentions that by virtue of the said Resolution, clause XIII(d), stands deleted or it can be given effect to. In respect to the other amendments referred to in the said resolution, the same result would follow.

iv Mr. Narender Hooda next argued till the Electoral College is finalized, the nomination cannot be submitted or called and therefore, the date of calling of the nominations and others election dates be rescheduled. It was pointed out that I the prescribed proforma for nominations require to mention their serial number of the Electoral College, which may not known to the candidates in the absence of the publications of the Electoral College.

v. There may be merit in this contention, but it is not possible for this Authority to reschedule the dates, particularly when the same have been approved by the Government as well as the Hon‟ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

vi. Mr. Narender Hooda has also argued that the Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act do not apply for amendment to Rules and Regulations of the Society. Learned Counsel frankly conceded that even if Section 12 does not apply, the power would still remain the General Council to add to amend the Rules and Regulations. It is not necessary to deal with this argument any further."

15. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act has no application so far as the

amendment to Article XIII (d) is concerned. He also submits that the

resolution dated 05.02.2011 took effect the moment it was passed, and it was

neither dependent upon registration by the Registrar, nor on its confirmation

in the subsequent meeting.

16. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School & Ors. Vs.

Mahender Kaur (Smt.) & Ors., 1993 (Suppl.) (4) SCC 26.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the

Secretary General of WFI, i.e., respondent No.5 was called upon to call a

meeting of the Council, inter alia, to consider amendment to Article XIII(d),

he did not do the needful as he was himself not interested in the said

amendment being brought about. Consequently, the President himself called

the meeting of the Council to consider the said amendment. He relies upon

Article X(a)(i), which sets out the duties of the President. These duties

empower the President to call meeting of the Council and Executive, if he

deems it appropriate. He, therefore, submits that the meeting in which the

amendment to Article XIII(d) was considered was duly called for the said

purpose.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the WFI in their

counter affidavit admit and acknowledge the position that the resolution

passed in the Governing Council meeting on 5.2.2011 whereby Article

XIII(d) was deleted, was confirmed in the next meeting of the Governing

Council held on 18.6.2011. In reply to ground "G", in their counter

affidavit, respondent No.1 has, inter alia, stated as follows:-

"The proposed amendment, as per the provision of the Constitution of WFI, was put in the agenda in the meeting held at Ghaziabad on 05/02/2011. The proposed amendment of Article- XIII (d) was passed, which required to be confirmed. The proposed amendment of Article- XIII (d) was confirmed in General Council Meeting dated 18/06/2011 held at Jammu."

19. Learned counsel submits that following the passing of the impugned

order by the learned Returning Officer, holding that Article XIII(d)

continued to remain in operation despite the amendment carried out in the

meeting of the Council held on 05.02.2011, the learned Returning Officer,

inter alia, rejected the nomination of the petitioner for the post of President

on 8.4.2011.

20. The petition is opposed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 4. Learned

counsel for respondent no.1 submits that Article X(d)(xiii) shows that before

the minutes of the meeting are confirmed in the next meeting, they do not

come into operation. He submits that even though the amendment to

Article XIII(d) was passed vide resolution dated 5.2.2011, the said

amendment was not confirmed till after holding of the elections on

18.6.2011. Consequently, the said amendment did not take effect at the time

when the election was held between 5.4.2011 and 15.4.2011. Article

X(d)(xiii) which is relied upon by respondent No.1 reads as follows.

"X(d) x x x x x x x x

xiii) To keep records of the proceedings, resolutions and decisions of all meetings of the council, Executive Committee and other committees. The minutes having been confirmed by the Chairman of the next meeting shall be the conclusive evidence of their correctness."(Emphasis supplied)

21. Mr. Chawla who appears for respondent No. 4 firstly submits that no

candidate, whose nominations were found to be valid by the Returning

Officer, raised any grievance with regard to the time schedule notified by the

General Secretary for conduct of elections between 05.04.2011 &

15.04.2011. The petitioner not even being a qualified candidate, therefore,

could not have raised any grievance in relation to the time schedule fixed by

the General Secretary vide a notice dated 12.03.2011. He submits that the

said time schedule was also approved by the Government on 28.03.2011,

when the Government sent its communication approving the appointment of

Mr. Justice S.K. Aggarwal, (Retired) Judge, Delhi High Court, as Returning

Officer for the elections of the WFI to be held on 15.04.2011.

22. Mr. Chawla submits that the notice dated 12.01.2011 issued by the

then President of WFI proposing to hold special meeting of the General

Council of WFI on 05.02.2011 at Ghaziabad itself is under challenge in

CS(OS) 143/2011 filed by one Sh. K.S. Minhas, who claims himself to be

the Life President of WFI. In this suit, the plaintiff has, inter alia, sought a

declaration that the notice calling the said special meeting of the General

Council on 05.02.2011, and the proceedings of the special meeting of

05.02.2011, are null & void. The submission of the learned counsel for the

respondent No.4 is that the President of the WFI was not authorized to call

any meeting of the General Council, inter alia, to consider the amendment to

Article XIII (d). In this regard he places reliance upon Article X(d) which

states that the "Honorary General Secretary shall be responsible for

carrying out the general business of the federation, keeping the minutes of

the meeting, maintaining of the records of the federation, calling meeting of

the General Council and the Executive Committee."

23. Mr. Chawla further submits that a second suit preferred by one Sh.

Kartar Singh and Sh. K.S. Minhas being CS(OS) 1477/2011 is also pending

disposal in this Court. In this suit, the plaintiffs have assailed the results

declared in the election process in question on 15.04.2011 by the Returning

Officer for the posts of Officer Bearers of the Executive Committee of WFI.

Other consequential reliefs have also been sought in that suit. Mr. Chawla

submits that since these suits are pending disposal, this Court should not

exercise its jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.

24. Mr. Chawla submits that the Registrar could not register the

amendment in the Articles made on 5.2.2011, as the WFI had not enclosed

the requisite documents as per the guidelines/check list of the said

department. He submits that the reasons given by the learned Returning

Officer in the impugned order for concluding that Article XIII (d) is in

operation, and not effected by the resolution passed by the General Council

on 05.02.2011 deleting the same, are germane and reasonable. He submits

that the impugned order has to be tested on the basis of the facts as existing

on the date on which the same came to be passed, and not on the basis of any

subsequent facts or communications. He, therefore, supports the view of the

learned Returning Officer that Article XIII (d) continued to remain in

operation for the following reasons:

(i) The meeting of 05.02.2011 of the General Council, and the

subsequent meeting of 18.06.2011 are under challenge.

(ii) Minutes of the General Council meeting held on 05.02.2011 required

to be confirmed before they could come into operation and they were

not confirmed at the time when the elections were notified on

12.03.2011 and held between 05.04.2011 & 15.04.2011. They were

confirmed only on 18.06.2011.

(iii) The amendment to the articles were not registered with Registrar, and

unless so registered, they could not come into operation.

(iv) The amendments are themselves in serious doubt as two suits

assailing them are pending disposal before this Court.

(v) The petitioner has himself given up the challenge to the elections to

the other posts, and he is only challenging the elections to the post of

President. However, the issues raised by the petitioner, if allowed to

be agitated and in case the petitioner succeeds, would impact the

elections to the other posts of Senior Vice President and General

Secretary, even though they no longer are parties to the present

petition.

25. The Government of India, i.e. respondent no.2 has also filed its

counter-affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit of the Government that though

by its communication dated 07.04.0211 the Government had objected to the

restrictive clause in the constitution of WFI, i.e. Article XIII (d) and to the

schedule of elections which did not give due time at each stage of the

election process, since the elections were held by the federation on the

strength of the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court on 13.04.2011 in

S.L.P. (Civil) 10183/2011, "with a view to obviating a situation of vacuum

in the management and governance of the sport of wrestling in the country,

the Government granted conditional recognition to the newly elected office

bearers and the members of the Executive Body vide letter No. F.51-1/2011-

SP.III dated the 15th June, 2011 (Annexure IV) subject to fulfillment of the

following conditions within a period of three (3) months from the date of

issue of the letter:

(a) Incorporation of government guidelines in its constitution on age and

tenure of office bearers as per circular dated 1st May, 2010.

(b) Removal of restrictive clause requiring the candidates for the posts of

President, Senior Vice President, Secretary General and any other

posts to be members of the outgoing governing body for at least four

years."

26. The submission of learned counsel for respondent no.4 that this

Court should not entertain the present writ petition on account of the

pendency of the aforesaid two civil suits in this Court, wherein challenge to

the amendment of the Articles as well as the election process is pending, has

no merit. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition on the basis of

undisputed facts. The issues raised by them are purely legal and require

determination on a reading of the Articles of the constitution of respondent

no.1. Unless and until the resolutions in question dated 05.02.2011 and

13.06.2011 are set aside, they would continue to operate with full force.

Mere pendency of other civil proceedings, therefore, cannot come in the way

of this Court in entertaining and deciding the present writ petition.

Pertinently, there is no interim stay granted by the Civil Court either of the

resolutions dated 05.02.2011 or 13.06.2011 passed by the General Council,

or in relation to the election process in question.

27. The submission of learned counsel for respondent no.4 that since

the petitioner has given up the challenge to the election held for the posts of

Senior Vice President and General Secretary, the present petition cannot

proceed, as the determination of the issues raised by the petitioner with

regard to the enforcement of the resolution of the General Council, whereby

amendment of Article XIII(d) was made on 05.02.2011, would directly

impact the election to the said posts as well, cannot be accepted. The

petitioner had given up the said challenge to the elections for the post of

Senior Vice President and General Secretary, as the respondents had raised

an objection on the ground that the petitioner was not a candidate for the

said posts, and was only a candidate for the post of President. Therefore, the

locus standi to challenge the elections for the posts of Senior Vice President

and General Secretary was questioned. It is in this background that the

petitioner gave up the challenge to the elections for the posts of Senior Vice

President and General Secretary. However, it does not mean that the

petitioner is precluded from raising all such issues as are relevant and

germane for challenging the election to the post of President of the WFI. If,

as a consequence of the judgment of this Court in this petition, the elections

to the post of Senior Vice President and General Secretary also become

vulnerable, that is not a reason not to entertain the present petition.

28. I would now deal with the issue as to whether the President had the

power to call the special meeting of the General Council to consider the

proposed amendment to Article XIII(d) of the Constitution, and; whether the

amendment to Article XIII (d) of the Constitution of respondent No. 1/WFI

either required confirmation or registration before the Registrar of Societies

under the Societies Registration Act, before it became effective.

29. Admittedly, in the Special Meeting of the General Council held at

Hotel - Mela Plaza, District - Ghaziabad the Articles/Constitution of the

WFI was amended, whereby clause (d) of Article XIII was deleted. The

effect of this amendment was to throw open the posts of President, Senior

Vice President and Secretary General to contest by all members of WFI,

which, prior to the amendment could be contested only by those members

who had held office in the outgoing Executive Committee of WFI for a

period of four years. Respondents No. 1 & 2 in their counter-affidavit do

not contest the power of the President to call a Special Meeting of the

General Council. However, respondent No. 4 in its counter-affidavit has

urged that the President has no power to prepare the agenda relating to the

amendment of the Constitution of respondent No. 1. In this regard, reliance

is placed on Article XV of the Constitution of respondent No. 1.

30. I do not find any merit in this submission of respondent No. 4. Article

XV of the Constitution of the WFI reads as follows:

"XV - Amendments to the Rules and Regulations

No amendment shall be made to these Rules and Regulations except at the Special General Council Meeting of the WFI and supported by 2/3rd of the representatives present and voting. All proposed amendments must be presented to the Secretary General, at least three weeks before the meeting and forwarded by him to every member at least fourteen days before the meeting." (emphasis supplied)

31. Therefore, the requirement is that the proposed amendments must be

presented to the General Secretary at least three weeks before the meeting

and forwarded by him to every member at least 14 days before the meeting.

The argument of the respondents is not that the proposed amendments were

not so presented to the General Secretary at least three weeks before the

meeting.

32. However, the General Secretary failed to act on the said proposal as

required by him. The General Secretary cannot hold the respondent No.

1/WFI and its members to ransom by not calling a meeting to consider the

proposed amendment to the Constitution of respondent No. 1/WFI, merely

because he may not be in favour of the proposed amendment. To deal with

such a situation and break the stalemate Article X(a)(i) empowers the

President to call meetings of the Council and Executive, if he deems it

proper. It is in exercise of this power that President called the Special

Meeting of the General Council on 05.02.2011 to consider the amendment to

the Constitution of WFI, including the deletion of clause (d) of Article XIII.

Therefore, the submission of respondent No. 4 that the meeting called by the

President on 05.02.2011 at Hotel - Mela Plaza, District - Ghaziabad to

consider the amendment to the Constitution of WFI was without authority,

has no merit and is rejected.

33. The submission of the respondents that the resolution passed on

05.02.2011, thereby amending the Constitution of WFI (including the

deletion of clause (d) of Article XIII) could not take effect until it was

confirmed by the Chairman in the subsequent meeting, is also meritless.

Article XV deals with the aspect of amendment to the rules & regulations. It

does not provide that the resolution amending the rules & regulations or

even the Constitution requires confirmation at a subsequent meeting before

it takes effect. No other article of the constitution has been relied upon to

support this submission.

34. Reliance placed by the respondents on Article X(d) appears to be

misplaced. Article X(d) deals with the powers & responsibilities of the

Honorary General Secretary of WFI. It does not deal with the aspect - as to

when and how the resolutions passed by the General Council shall take

effect. Clause (xiii) of Article X (d) merely states that it shall be the duty of

the Hony. General Secretary to keep records of the proceedings, resolution

and decisions of all meetings of the Council, Executive Committee and other

Committees. Merely because this sub-Article also states that "The minutes

having been confirmed by the Chairman of the next meeting shall be the

conclusive evidence of their correctness", it does not mean that in this

sentence one can read the mandatory requirement that the resolution/minutes

of the Special Meeting of the General Council should first be confirmed by

the Chairman of the next meeting, before they take effect. The confirmation

by the Chairman of the next meeting only leads to authentication of the

minutes of the Council/Executive Committee/other Committees.

Pertinently, there is no dispute that in the subsequent meeting held on

18.06.2011 the General Council has approved the amendments to the

Constitution adopted on 05.02.2011 by the Special Meeting of the General

Council. The aforesaid clause does not mean that unless the

minutes/resolution passed by the General Council are approved or confirmed

by the Chairman in the next meeting, they shall not come into effect

forthwith. The confirmation would relate back to the date on which the

resolution was initially passed.

35. I also do not find any merit in the respondents submission that unless

the amendment to the Constitution was registered by the Registrar of

Societies, the same could not be said to have come into effect. Section 12 of

the Societies Registration Act, on which the respondents placed reliance, has

absolutely no application in the present case. Section 12 of the Societies

Registration Act reads as follows:-

"Whenever it shall appear to the governing body of any society registered under this Act, which has been established for any particular purpose or purposes, that it is advisable to alter, extend, or abridge such purpose to or for other purposes within the meaning of this Act, or to amalgamate such society either wholly or partially with any other society, such governing body may submit the proposition to the members of the society in a written or printed report, and may convene a special meeting for the consideration thereof according to the regulations of the society;

but no such proposition shall be carried into effect unless such report shall have been delivered or sent by post to every member of the society ten days previous to the special meeting convened by the governing body for the consideration thereof, nor unless such proposition shall have been agreed to by the

votes of three-fifths of the members delivered in person or by proxy, and confirmed by the votes of three-fifths of the members present at a second special meeting convened by the governing body at an interval of one month after the former meeting."

36. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that Section 12 is

applicable only where the amendment is sought to be made with regard to

the purpose for which the society is constituted, so as to alter, extend or

abridge such purpose, or the amendment is sought to be made to amalgamate

the society either wholly or partially with any other society.

37. Firstly, that is not the case in hand. Amendment to Article XIII (d)

neither seeks to alter, extend or abridge the purpose for which the respondent

No.1 society has been constituted, nor the management of the

respondent/society is sought to be amalgamated either wholly, or partially,

with any other society.

38. Secondly, a plain reading of Section 12 of the Societies Registration

Act shows that it no where talks about the amendment to an Article being

first registered with the Registrar before it comes into operation.

39. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Committee, Khalsa

Middle School & Anr. (Supra) is clearly applicable in the present case. In

this case, the appellant school initially was a minority educational

institution. It was converted into a non-minority educational institution by

amendment of its articles. Some time thereafter, it was again converted into

a minority institution. The amendments were made by passing resolutions

by the society. The last of these resolutions, whereby the minority status of

the institution was restored, took some time for its registration. In the

meantime, the services of a teacher of the institution were terminated. The

issue arose whether the appellant/institution was entitled to be treated as a

minority institution under the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act

and the Rules framed thereunder, during the period between the passing of

the last of the resolution (thereby restoring the minority status of the

institution), and its registration. The Supreme Court, after taking note of the

statutory provisions, including that contained in Section 12A of the Societies

Registration Act as applicable to Delhi, which provided for registration of

change of name of the society (and with which we are not concerned in the

present case), held as follows:-

"Apart from the requirement contained in Section 12A for registration of the change of name of a Society, with the Registrar, there is no requirement in the Societies Registration Act which requires registration of any amendment in the memorandum of association or the rules and regulations of a society to be registered with the Registrar. Even in the Companies Act, 1956 a distinction is made in the matter of alteration of the memorandum of association and alteration of

the articles of association. Under Section 18 of the Companies Act, it is necessary that the alteration of memorandum of association be registered with the Registrar of Companies within the prescribed period and the alteration takes effect from the date of its registration and under Section 19(1), it is provided that the alteration shall have effect only if it has been duly registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 18. There is no such requirement with regard to registration of the alteration in the articles of association of the company. Here we are concerned with the amendment in the rules and regulations of the Society. In the absence of any requirement in the Societies Registration Act that the alteration in the rules and regulations must be registered with the Registrar, it cannot be held that registration of the amendment is a condition precedent for such an alteration to come into effect. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of Shri Mehta that the amendment which was made in the rules and regulations by resolution dated July 1, 1979 did not come into effect till March 13, 1980 when the amended rules and regulations were registered with the Registrar, Firms and Societies. The said amendment should be treated to have come into effect from the date on which the resolution making the said amendment was passed, i.e., July 1, 1979. As a result of the said amendment in the rules and regulations of the Society, the alterations made in the rules and regulations in 1963 were reversed and the position as it stood prior to the amendment of 1963 was restored. Consequently, the school which was a minority institution till the amendment of the Rules and Regulations in 1963 and had ceased to be a minority institution as a result of the amendment in 1963 regained its status as a minority institution after July 1, 1979, when the rules and regulations were amended and the original position was restored. In view of the restoration of the minority character of the institution the provisions of the Education Act and the Education Rules ceased to be applicable to the institution after July 1, 1979. The impugned order of termination of the services of the respondent was passed on December 31, 1979, i.e., after the school had become a minority institution. The said order

cannot, therefore, be held to be invalid on the ground that it was passed in contravention of Section 8 of the Education Act. The order passed by the Delhi High Court quashing the said order as well as the Disciplinary proceedings cannot, therefore, be upheld. The respondent was placed under suspension on August 11, 1972 and continued under suspension till April 9, 1973 on which date the Education Act came into force. In other words she was under suspension at a time when the Education Act was not in force. The order of suspension cannot be judged on the basis of the provisions of the Education Act and the Education Rules. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the direction of the High Court quashing her order of suspension." (Emphasis supplied)

40. Consequently, it is clear to me that the amendment to the Constitution

including the deletion of clause (d) to Article XIII took effect on 05.02.2011

itself and was not dependent either on confirmation thereof, or registration

thereof, as contended by the respondents. The impugned order dated

05.04.2011 passed by the learned Returning Officer, insofar as it holds that

Article XIII(d) was effective, and in operation, on the date of notification of

the election process, therefore, cannot be sustained and is set aside.

41. The elections to the various posts held between 05.04.2011 to

15.04.2011 could not have been governed by Article XIII (d) of the

Constitution of WFI which stood deleted on 05.02.2011. Consequently, the

rejection of the petitioner's nomination for the post of President by the

learned Returning Officer vide order dated 08.04.2011 was illegal and

cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The election for the post of

President of WFI in the aforesaid election process is, therefore, liable to be

set aside, and fresh elections deserve to be called for the said post.

42. However, since the petitioner has given up the challenge to the

elections for the posts of Senior Vice President and General Secretary in the

election process in question, and the same has not been challenged before

me in these proceedings, the elections to the said posts is sustained, without

prejudice to the rights of any other person to challenge the same

independently in other proceedings.

43. I also find merit in the petitioner's submission that the election has not

been fairly held, on account of the tight time schedule fixed by the then

General Secretary for conduct of elections vide his notice dated 12.03.2011.

Pertinently, the publication of the Electoral College was scheduled for

05.04.2011, i.e. on the same day on which the process of filing of

nomination papers of candidates for various posts members of the Executive

Committee started. The said process concluded on the following day, i.e. on

06.04.2011. Therefore, the eligible members, who could be interested in

filing their nomination papers and offer their candidature for various posts of

members of the Executive Committee, were granted hardly any time to

verify as to whether, or not, they were themselves eligible and, if so, as to

who all were eligible to either contest the elections or to sponsor/support the

nominations. It is well-known that unless an eligible member, who may be

desirous of contesting the elections is made aware of the electoral college, he

may not be able to take a call on whether, or not, to file his nomination. A

candidate is entitled to know as to who all constitute the electoral college

sufficiently in advance so as to enable him to assess his chance on the basis

of the support that he may enlist. It is for this reason that not only the

Government Observer, but even the Government itself called upon the

respondent/WFI to fix a time schedule which would lead to conduct of

elections in a transparent manner and to maintain the purity of the election

process. The learned Returning Officer before whom the grievance was

raised, obviously could not have tempered that the election schedule given to

him for conduct of elections even though he agreed with this grievance of

the petitioner.

44. However, that does not mean that the respondent/WFI itself could not

have heeded to the advice of the Government Observer and to the

Government's advice contained in the communications dated 05.04.2011 &

07.04.2011 respectively.

45. It cannot be said that the government approved the time schedule

fixed by the respondent /WFI merely because the Government accepted the

nomination of the learned Election Officer, as nominated by the General

Secretary. It is clear that when the petitioner raised the issue with regard to

the time schedule, the said issue was gone into and after application of mind

the Government conveyed its desire that the elections be held with a proper

schedule so that transparency and purity is maintained in the election

process.

46. The counter-affidavit of Government of India shows that though they

disapproved to the conduct of the elections in question either on the basis of

Article XIII(d), or on the basis of the time schedule fixed for holing the

elections. Only so as to obviate the situation of a vacuum in the

management and governance of WFI, the Government granted conditional

recognition to the newly elected office bearers subject to conditions.

47. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is allowed. It is

declared that Article XIII(d) of the constitution of WFI stood deleted on

05.02.2011, and the said deletion took effect forthwith. It is also declared

that the elections held by the respondent, WFI between 05.04.2011 and

15.04.2011 on the basis of Article XIII(d) were illegal. The election for the

post of President of WFI, held in the election process between 05.04.2011

and 15.04.2011 is hereby set aside. The orders dated 05.04.2011 and

08.04.2011 of the learned Returning Officer, insofar as they hold that Article

XIII(d) was effective and operative in relation to the election process in

question, and insofar as the petitioners nomination for the post of President

was rejected, are set aside. The respondent no.1 is directed to initiate fresh

process for holding the election to the post of President in terms of its

amended constitution forthwith. The notification for conduct of elections

should be issued within the next two weeks.

48. Petition stands disposed of. Parties are left to bear their respective

costs.

(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE JANUARY 04, 2012 'BSR'/SR