Delhi High Court
Sanjiv Aggarwal vs Bharat Scouts And Guides And Ors on 2 March, 2017
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7993/2016
SANJIV AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. P.R. Chopra, Advocate.
versus
BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Krishanan and
Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocates for R-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 02.03.2017
1. As per the Registry, respondents No.3 to 9 have been duly served.
However, none has appeared on their behalf, nor have the counter affidavits
been filed. Accordingly, the respondents No.3 to 9 are proceeded against ex-
parte.
2. Pleadings qua the respondent No.1 and 2 are complete.
3. The petitioner prays for striking down a list of Life Members of the
respondent No.1, as declared on 03.8.2016. The main grievance of the
petitioner is that the respondent No.1 had prepared a list of 23 Life Members
of the respondent No.1/Association as on 03.8.2016 and the petitioner and
the respondents No.3 to 9 are a part of the said list. At the same time, the
names of the respondents No.3 to 9 are featuring in the list of Associate
Members displayed by the respondent No.1 on its website. In support of the
said submission, Mr. Chopra, counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure
P-2, which includes the list of Life Members of the respondent No.1 vis-a-
vis Annexure P-3, which includes the list of Associate Members. It is stated
that the respondents No.3 to 9 whose names are featuring at Sr. No. 17-23 of
the list of Life Members, also feature at Sr. No. 34 to 39 and 42 of the list of
Associate Members, which is impermissible as it would adversely affect the
prospects of the petitioner, who has filed his nomination papers to contest
for the post of a Life Member Representative, that was received by the
respondent No.1 in August, 2016 (Annexure P-5).
5. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 draws the attention of
the court to the documents filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-6, Minutes
of the Meeting of the respondent No.1, held on 04.3.2016 to state that the
names of the respondent No 3 to 9 were approved for enrolment as Life
Members of the respondent No.1 and once they have been enrolled as Life
Members, their names shall automatically stand deleted from the list of
Associate Members. He therefore explains that there is no overlap in the list
of Life Members and Associate Members, as contended by the other side.
He also seeks to clarify that the election to the post of the Life Member
Representative was to be conducted in August, 2016, but due to disputes
raised by the petitioner herein, the said elections have been deferred and the
same shall be conducted in the near future.
6. Satisfied with the reply given by the other side, learned counsel for
the petitioner states that as long the names of the respondents No. 3 to 9 are
not shown in two lists and are deleted from the list of Associate Members,
he has no objection to the elections being conducted now.
7. The petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the submissions
made by counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. It may be observed herein
that while disposing of this petition, the court has not expressed any opinion
on the maintainability of the present petition, an objection that has been
raised by the respondents No.1 and 2 in the counter affidavit. The said issue
is left open for adjudication in an appropriate petition.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MARCH 02, 2017
ap/rkb
