Eshu Chaudhary vs Delhi High Court Bar Association ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6854 Del

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                      Judgment Delivered On: 08.11.2016


W.P.(C) 8179/2016


ESHU CHAUDHARY                               ..... Petitioner

                        Through:   None


                        versus


DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION
AND ORS                                ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ravikant Chadha, Sr. Advocate, Chief Election Commissioner Mr. R.K. Watel, Advocate, Election Commissioner.

Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Respondent No.3 in person.

Mr. Rishabh Bansal, Advocate for R-4 along with Mr. Abhijat, Respondent No.4 in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

CM APPL.41013/2016 (Directions) The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of Ms. Sunita Bhardwaj, who has

offered her candidature for the post of President of the Delhi High Court Bar

Association in the ensuing elections, scheduled to be held on 18.11.2016. The

present application essentially prays for a direction to the Election Commission

to install and utilize Electronic Voting Machines at the ensuing election.

Although, none appears on behalf of the applicant, I am informed by Mr.

Ravikant Chadha, Chairperson of the Election Commission as well as Mr. Rajiv

Khosla and Mr. Abhijat, current President and Secretary respectively, of the

Delhi High Court Bar Association, that Electronic Voting Machines have been

requisitioned for the ensuing election and shall be used for casting of votes as

well as for counting thereof.

In view of the foregoing, the reliefs sought in the present application

stand satisfied.

The application is disposed of accordingly.

W.P.(C) 8179/2016 & CM APPL.33836/2016 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. There was no appearance on

behalf of the petitioner on the last date of hearing as well.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was

instituted, inter alia, praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents

to conduct the election to the executive of the Delhi High Court Bar

Association, in accord with the Rules and election by-laws, effective from

01.10.2012. That issue is no longer res-integra, inasmuch as, by way of order

dated 19.09.2016, passed by the Court of ADJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New

Delhi in Civil Suit No.346/2016, titled as "Rajiv Khosla vs. Delhi High Court

Bar Association & Ors.", which order has not been challenged before this

Court, and has attained finality, the present issue has already been determined

by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

It is further clarified that, insofar as the constitution of the Election

Commission is concerned, the said order dated 19.09.2016 has already been

modified by this Court by way of order dated 30.09.2016 in C.M.(M) 950/2016,

titled as 'Abhijat vs. Rajiv Khosla & Ors.'. The said order dated 30.09.2016 is

made absolute.

Before disposing of this petition, it would be appropriate to reiterate the

order dated 03.10.2016 whereby the notice pertaining to the schedule for the

election to the Delhi High Court Bar Association was taken on record. I am

informed at the Bar by Mr. Ravikant Chadha, Chief Election Commissioner,

Mr. R.K. Watel, Election Commissioner, Mr. Rajiv Khosla, President of Delhi

High Court Bar Association and Mr. Abhijat, Secretary of Delhi High Court Bar

Association that the said election schedule, as recorded in the order dated

03.10.2016, is being scrupulously observed and the election, which is scheduled

to be held on 18.11.2016, shall be held in accord with the Rules and by-laws of

the Association, as they existed prior to 01.10.2012. Therefore, the said order

dated 03.10.2016 is also made absolute.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending

application also stands disposed of.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J NOVEMBER 08, 2016 dn