Delhi High Court
Sanjiv Aggarwal vs Bharat Scouts And Guides & Anr. on 6 December, 2016
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10828/2016 & CM No.42476/2016
SANJIV AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. P.R. Chopra, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
versus
BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Santosh Krishnan with
Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 06.12.2016
1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 25.11.2016 on which
date, the Court had posed a query to the counsel for the petitioner that prior
to instituting the present petition, when the petitioner had filed an earlier
petition against the respondents, registered as WP(C)No.7993/2016, wherein
respondent No.1/Association had filed a counter affidavit questioning the
right of the petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India on
the ground that the respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, as it is
not a State or an agency of the Sate or a public authority and had specifically
denied the assertion of the petitioner that the salary of the Director of the
respondent No.1/Association is being disbursed by the Government of India
and the funds of the respondent association are controlled by the
Government of India, then why were the said facts not brought to the notice
of the Court while drafting the present petition, instead of copying verbatim,
the averments made in the earlier petition. Counsel for the petitioner had
stated that though he did receive a copy of the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent in the earlier petition, the averments made in para 2 of the
present petition were maintained on the basis of clear instructions received
from his client.
2. In view of the said submission, it was deemed appropriate to direct
the presence of the petitioner today for him to offer an explanation.
3. The petitioner appears today and states that he was not even aware of
the fact that any counter affidavit had been filed by the respondent in the
earlier petition and therefore, there was no question of his giving any
instructions to his counsel at the time of drafting the present petition.
4. Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the
submission made on the last date that the petitioner was well aware of filing
of a counter affidavit by the respondent No.1 in the earlier petition and he
had instructions to make similar averments in the present petition as had
been made in the earlier petition with regard to the respondent No.1
association being a State.
5. There is a clear dichotomy between the stand of the petitioner and his
counsel. They are both cautioned to be more careful in future, while drafting
petitions and making averments on oath.
6. It may be noted that the present petition was filed on 10.11.2016. The
prayer made therein is for including the petitioner's name in the list of valid
nominations for the post of Vice President of the respondent No.1
association and permitting him to contest the election that was to be held on
27.11.2016. The Court is informed that the election has already been
conducted on 27.11.2016 and the results were declared on the very same
day, wherein out of 50 candidates, six have been elected to six posts of Vice
President.
7. In view of the fact that the election has already taken place and the
results declared, the present petition is disposed of as infructuous with
liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the results of the election in
respect of the posts of Vice Presidents of the respondent No.1/Association,
before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
8. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DECEMBER 06, 2016
sk
