Delhi High Court
Narendra Nahata vs Shree Aggarsen North Ex Welfare ... on 1 June, 2022
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 1st June, 2022
+ CS(OS) 286/2022
NARENDRA NAHATA .... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vikas Manchanda, Ms. Riya
Gulati, Mr. Himanshu Bidhuri, Mr.
Anish Dewan, Mr. Naman Garg &
Ms. Ritu Jain, Advocates.
versus
SHREE AGGARSEN NORTH EX WELFARE SOCIETY (REGD.)
.... Defendant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate
along with Rajeev Aggarwal & Ms.
Shilpa Singh, Advocates for D-1 & 2.
Mr. Tanmay Mehta & Mr. Virender
Singh Rana, Advocates for D-4, 8 , 9,
10, 11, 16, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34,
35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47
& 48.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff, a member of defendant No.1-Society which is registered
under Societies Registration Act, XXI of 1860, has filed a suit for
declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions with the following reliefs:
"a. Pass the decree of Declaration that the election notification dated
21.04.22, as the process of conducting election by Defendant No.2 of
Defendant No.1 society be declared sham and rigged, as in the entire
process there was no group recognized and only on the date of
allotment of symbol common symbol has been issued by the Defendant
No.2 under the garb of previous practice; and
Signature Not Verified
TIWARI
Signing Date:07.06.2022
17:11:25
b. Pass decree of declaration that forming of group/party to contest
the election of Defendant No.1 is bad and election is also against the
election notification also;
c. Pass decree of declaration that all the contestants of election be
given different symbol or no symbol to the election of Defendant No.1
society and issuance of common symbol is against the MOA and rules
of Defendant No.1 and also not defined under the society registration
Act, 1860 where in the defendant no.1 society is registered; and
d. Pass decree of declaration there by declaring the act of
distribution of common symbol to defendant No.2 vide order dated
04.05.22 as bad and against the MIOA and rules of Defendant No.1;
and
e. Pass a decree of declaration that acts of Defendant No.4, 7 to 10,
15, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, to 35, 37, 38, 40 to 42 and 44 to 47
contesting with symbol of Coin and brick. And defendant No.3, 12, 13,
16, 17, 21, 23, 28 and 30 contesting with the symbol "Bow with Arrow"
and the Defendants No.3, 19, 26 and 36 contesting with symbols of
Stethoscope and the defendant No.14 and 20 allotted with symbol of
OM be declared to have been doing/indulged in unfair activity and
working against the interest of Defendant No.1 society in association
with Defendant No.2; and
f. Pass a decree of Permanent Injunction be passed in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby directing the Defendant
No.1 society not to allow any contestants/ candidates to contest election
with common symbol for free and fair election in the present election or
in future elections and same should be based on their calibre to get
elected: IN ALTERNATE the Defendant No.1 and 2 be directed to not
mark any symbol to any of the contestants/ candidates in the present
election as well as in the future election; and
g. Pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction thereby directing
Defendant No.1 and 2 to conduct the election among contestants/
candidates by treating them as an individual contestants and not any
group of set of persons for the Election of the election so scheduled in
term of GBM decision dated 27.02.22 of the Defendant No.1 and the
election in group or with common symbol be restrained in future also;
and
h. Pass a decree of Mandatory Injunction thereby directing election
so scheduled in term of GBM decision dated 27.02.2022 of the
Defendant No.1 be conducted through some retired judge of this
Hon'ble Court and similar practice be done under the instruction of
registrar of societies in future while appointing the returning officer;
and
Signature Not Verified
TIWARI
Signing Date:07.06.2022
17:11:25
i. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction there by directing the
defendant No.1 and 2 to conduct election so scheduled in term of GBM
decision dated 27.02.22 of the Defendant No.1 through EVM and not by
paper ballot as the previous election was also done through EVM; and
j. Pass a decree of Mandatory injunction there by directing the
defendant No.1 so scheduled in term of GBM decision dated 27.02.22 of
the Defendant No.1 by taking any independent place of office of
returning officer of the election; and
k. any other or further relief or reliefs to which the Plaintiff is
entitled in law and equity and the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper be
passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants."
2. Essentially, the relief sought as "Prayer-A" is that the election
Notification dated 21st April, 2022 be declared sham and rigged but the
elections have already been concluded on 22nd May, 2022 and „‟ has become
infructuous.
3. "Prayer-B" was to declare the forming of groups/party to contest the
election of defendant No.1 as bad. "Prayer-C" was a declaration that all
the contestants of the election be given different symbol and no member
should be given a common symbol and issuance of such common symbol is
against Memorandum of Association and Rules of defendant No.1.
"Prayer-D" was to declare distribution of common symbols by defendant
No.2 as bad. "Prayer-E" also related to issue of common symbols being
issued to different contesting members. The relief of permanent injunction
was sought to restrain the contestants from contesting the Elections under
the same symbol and mandatory injunction was sought to conduct the
elections amongst the candidates as individuals and not as a group. Learned
counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the other reliefs claimed
in the plaint may have now become infructuous, but "Prayer-C" which is in
respect of issuance of common symbols been against the Memorandum of
Signature Not Verified
TIWARI
Signing Date:07.06.2022
17:11:25
Association and Rules of defendant No.3, still survives.
4. However, the issuance of common symbols or contesting elections
was all a part of conducting the elections. Since the elections stand
concluded, these Prayers have also become infructuous.
5. A Mandatory Injunction was sought that the election scheduled to be
held in terms of General Body Meeting decision dated 27 th February, 2022
be conducted through a retired District Judge and that the elections be
conducted through EVM and not paper ballot and that for the purpose of
conducting the elections on 22nd May, 2022 any independent place like
office of Returning Officer, be taken.
6. The plaintiff by way of the present suit had sought to challenge the
steps being undertaken by the Returning Officer for conducting of elections.
The elections stands concluded on 22nd May, 2022 and any grievances about
any procedure and practice followed during the elections can now be
challenged as part of a challenge to elections. The reliefs claimed in the
present suit have become infructuous in view of the elections having been
successfully concluded on 22nd May, 2022 and the Executive Committee
having been duly elected. Nothing more survives in the present suit which
is hereby dismissed, as infructuous.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
JUNE 01, 2022
va
Signature Not Verified
TIWARI
Signing Date:07.06.2022
17:11:25
