Delhi High Court
Deepansh Kalra vs Registrar Co-Operative ... on 25 April, 2017
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2327/2017 & CM No.15132/2017
DEEPANSH KALRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Moni Cinmoy with Mr. Manoj Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Varun Nischal with Mr. Mukesh
Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 25.04.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that he is
the President of Bairwa Bharti CGHS Ltd. and praying inter alia for issuing
directions to the Respondent/RCS amongst others, for restraining the
Administrator from interfering in the affairs of the society.
2. Accompanying the petition, is an application filed by the Respondent
(CM No.15132/2017) praying inter alia that as an interim measure,
operation of the Agenda notices dated 31.03.2017 and 04.04.2017 issued by
the Administrator, appointed by the Respondent/Registrar Co-Operative
Societies and the election process set into motion by him, be stayed.
3. When the matter was taken up in the first round, learned counsel for
the Respondents had stated that he did not have clear instructions as to the
background in which the Agenda notice dated 31.03.2017 was revised by the
Administrator by issuing another Agenda notice dated 04.04.2017. At his
request, the matter was passed over, to enable him to obtain necessary
instructions from the Administrator.
4. On the second call, Mr. R.S. Sahota, Advocate appointed by the
Registrar Co-Operative Society as an Administrator, appears along with the
counsel for the Respondent No.1/Registrar Co-Operative Societies and states
that he was appointed as the Administrator of the Society vide order dated
04.05.2016 and by now he has taken all necessary steps to conduct the
election of the Managing Committee of the Society, that is scheduled to be
held on 30.04.2017. He states that Bye-law 23 of the Society contemplates
that the Managing Committee must consist of a minimum of five members
and a maximum of fifteen members and to give a larger representation to the
members of the Society, vide earlier Agenda notice dated 31.03.2017,
members were informed that an election shall be conducted in respect of five
posts in the Managing Committee. But the same was revised to enlarge the
number to eleven members. He further states that the Bye-laws make it
mandatory for two lady members to be elected to the Managing Committee
but the Agenda notice dated 31.03.2017 had erroneously reserved only one
post for lady candidates, which was later on increased to two posts.
5. Lastly, vide Agenda notice dated 31.03.2017, the election of the
Managing Committee of the Society was scheduled on 23.04.2017 but later
on, it had transpired that the election of the three Municipal Corporations in
Delhi was fixed for the same date. Thereafter, the Agenda notice dated
04.04.2017 was issued, rescheduling the date of the election to 30.04.2017.
The Administrator states that the process of submitting the nominations and
finalizing the list of candidates has already taken place and the election shall
be held at the end of this week.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Administrator is
not empowered to enlarge the composition of the Managing Committee of
the Society on his own when it has always consisted of five members and
such a power can only be exercised by the General Body.
7. It is apparent that the election process has started and once the wheels
are set into motion, courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering in the
said process. Even if there is some illegality or breach of rules, as has been
alleged by the petitioner herein, courts should forbear from interfering with
the election process. There are several judicial pronouncements that state
that as a matter of general principle, courts should refrain from interfering
with the election process between the commencement of such a process and
the stage of declaration of the result. Once the election is over, the aggrieved
party has always an option to pursue his remedies in accordance with law.
[Refer: Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, (1952) 1 SCR 218; S.T.
Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan and Ors.; (1988) 1 SCC 572, Umesh Shivappa
Ambi and Ors. Vs. Angadi Shekara Basappa and Ors.; (1998) 4 SCC 529,
Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingirid Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha
Utpadak Sanstha and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (2001) 8 SCC
509 and Avtar Singh Hit vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee
and Ors.; (2006) 8 SCC 487].
8. As the reliefs prayed for in the present petition are all based on the
election process, this Court declines to entertain the same at this belated
stage. Parties aggrieved by the result of the election including the petitioner
herein, shall be entitled to seek their remedies before the appropriate forum,
in accordance with law after the elections are over.
9. While disposing of the present petition, we may clarify that we have
refrained from making any observations on the merits of the pleas taken by
the petitioner which shall be considered before the appropriate forum, if he
seeks legal recourse after the election process is over.
10. The petition is dismissed along with the pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
APRIL 25, 2017
afa
