K.Malaisamy And Ors vs T.N.Chaturvedi And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 4524 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Date of Decision: 01.10.2013

+      W.P.(C) 2122/2013 and CM No. 4024/2013 (stay)


       K.MALAISAMY AND ORS                     ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr Rana Mukherjee and Mr Kumar
                   Ranjan, Advs.


                           versus


    T.N.CHATURVEDI AND ORS                .... Respondents
                  Through: Mr B.T. Singh, Adv for respondents
                  1 and 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Rule 10 and Rule 14 of the Memorandum of Association and

Rules of Indian Institute of Public, to the extent they are relevant, read

as under:-

"10. Vice Presidents - Four Vice-President of the Institute shall be elected by the Executive Council from among the members of the General Body, two elected every year, and shall hold office until the Second Annual General Meeting of the General Body after their election but shall be eligible for re- election."

"14. Election and Co-option of Members referred to in Rule 13 (1) (vi) -- (1) Members of the Institute shall elect from amongst themselves twenty members of the executive Council, once in a period of four years, who shall co-opt the remaining eight members of the Executive Council provided that no member who has contested election and lost shall be co-opted to the Executive Council for that term. The co-option and constitution of Committees of the Executive Council shall take place at the Meeting referred to in Rule 9

(a) or at a subsequent meeting of the Executive Council to be convened as soon, thereafter as possible."

2. In terms of Rule 14, as extracted above, the members of the

Institute elected from amongst themselves, 20 members to the Executive

Council in the election held on 21.09.2012. A meeting of the Executive

Council was convened by its Director and Member Secretary for

12.10.2012. Item No. 1 and 4 of the agenda initially circulated for the

said meeting read as under:

        Item No.                   Item                      Page
                                                             No.

        Item No. 288.1.            Election of two Vice- 1
                                   Presidents     of   the
                                   Institute under Rule 10
                                   of the Rules of the




                                   Institute.
        Item No. 288.4            Co-option of eight 4
                                  members         to     the
                                  Executive          Council
                                  under Rule 14(1)&(2)
                                  of the Institute.

3. On the date of the meeting, i.e., 12.10.2012, a revised agenda for

the said meeting came to be circulated by the Director and Member

Secretary, Item No. 1 and 3 of which read as under:

        Item No.                  Item                      Page
                                                            No.

        Item No. 288.1.           Co-option of eight 1
                                  Members         to     the
                                  Executive          Council
                                  under Rule 14(1) & (2)
                                  of the Institute.
        Item No. 288.3            Election of two Vice- 3
                                  Presidents     of   the
                                  Institute under Rule 10
                                  of the Rules of the
                                  Institute.

Though there is dispute between the parties as to when the revised

agenda was circulated, that would not be material for the purpose of

disposal of this writ petition.

4. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that in terms of the

above-referred rules, the elected members of the Executive Committee

were first required to elect two Vice-Presidents for the year 2012-14 as

required by Rule 10 and thereafter, the elected members of the

Executive Council were to co-opt 08 members in terms of Rule 14, but,

in terms of the revised agenda, elected members of the Executive

Council instead of first electing two Vice-Presidents, first co-opted 08

members of the Executive Council and thereafter the Executive elected

two Vice-Presidents, thereby giving an opportunity to the 08 co-opted

members to participate in the elections of two Vice-Presidents.

According to the petitioners as a result, they could not be elected as

Vice-Presidents since the nominated members did not cast their votes in

their favour. Their contention is that had the elected members first

elected two Vice-Presidents before co-opting the 8 members of the

Executive Council, they would have got elected as Vice-Presidents.

5. In my view, the rules of the institute do not support the contention

of the petitioners before this Court. This is nowhere the requirement of

the rules that the elected members of the Executive Council will first

elect two Vice-Presidents and thereafter proceed to co-opt 08 members

in terms of Rule 14. Though Rule 10 comes before Rule 14, but, that is

not determinative since Rule 10 comes under the Chapter „Office

Bearers‟, Vice Presidents being amongst the Office Bearers of the

Institute, whereas Rule 14 comes under the Chapter „Executive

Council‟. In my opinion, a correct interpretation of the rules would be

that the elected members of the Executive Council should first co-opt 08

members in terms of Rule 14 and thereafter elected two Vice-Presidents

in terms of Rule 10 since that would enable the co-opted members to

participate in the election of the two Vice-Presidents. It would be

important to note that Rule 10 provides for election of Vice-Presidents

by the Executive Council, not by the elected members of the Executive

Council, and the composition of the elected Executive Council is not

complete unless 08 members are nominated by the elected members in

terms of Rule 14. The interpretation being suggested by the petitioners

would result in excluding the co-opted members of the Executive

Council from participating in the elections of the Vice-Presidents which

certainly does not appear to be the intention of the rule makers since

Rule 10 talks of election of the Vice-President by the Executive Council

and not by its elected members alone. In any case, Rule 14 itself

stipulates that the co-option in the Executive Council shall take place at

the meeting referred to in Rule 9(a) or at a subsequent meeting to be

convened as soon as thereafter as possible and Rule 9(a) refers to the

first meeting of the Executive Council convened after the annual

meeting of the General Body. Therefore, the intention of the rule maker

is quite clear, i.e., the co-option in the Executive Council must take

place in the very first meeting of the Executive Council and if for any

reason that does not become possible, in a subsequent meeting to be

convened at the earliest possible.

6. Since in terms of the revised agenda, the elected members of the

Executive Council first co-opted eight members, which was followed by

election of two Vice-Presidents, no fault can be found with the

procedure adopted in the meeting held on 12.10.2012.

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

CM No. 4024/2013 also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

V.K. JAIN, J

OCTOBER 01, 2013 BG