Narayan Dash & Others vs Bhabani Sankar Acharya & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 8374 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  W.A. No.1199 of 2022

      Narayan Dash & Others                 ...                  Appellants
                                                     Mr. Basudev Pujari, Advocate
                                         -Versus-
     Bhabani Sankar Acharya & Others        ...              Respondents
                                                    Mr. Neelakantha Panda, Advocate

                                  W.A. No.1206 of 2022

     Sashi Bhusan Dash                      ...                  Appellant
                                                     Mr. Basudev Pujari, Advocate
                                         -Versus-
    Collector, Koraput & Others             ...              Respondents
                                                    Mr. Neelakantha Panda, Advocate


                                      CORAM:
                                      JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
                                      JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                          ORDER

01.08.2023 Order No.

02. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. These writ appeals are combined together for disposal by a common order inasmuch as the common judgment dated 12.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in those appeals.

3. Heard Mr. Basudev Pujari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Neelakantha Panda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. By means of these Writ Appeals the appellants have challenged the common judgment dated 12.08.2022 delivered in W.P.(C) No.12396 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.13742 of 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has observed principally as follows:

"6. By impugned letter an elected body has been declared to be dissolved and substituted by an ad-hoc body. Relied upon clauses 21 nor 26 in the bye laws authorized such action to be taken by the Central Executive Committee. Tenure of office bearers in the elected body of Koraput unit of the association has ended. Court has not been shown any provision in the bye laws empowering the Central Executive Committee to impose an ad- hoc body on an unit of the association. Clause-26 empowers the Central Executive Committee to appoint sub-committee. That is not a power as cannot be exercised for appointing ad-hoc committee replacing an elected body, whose term has expired."

5. It is an admitted position that the dispute relates to formation of Koraput District Committee of Odisha Ministerial Officers foundational Association, herein after referred to only as the District Committee. The allegation that has been made in the writ petition is that under Clauses 21 or 26 of the bye-laws, no power has been given to the District Committee to form an ad hoc District Committee without holding the election. The bye-laws as referred above is bye- laws of the Society. The dispute is a dispute amongst the members of the Society. It has been stated by Mr. Basudev Pujari, learned counsel who has appeared for the appellants that despite specific objection being raised relating to the maintainability of the writ petition, the said question has not been answered by the learned Single Judge. The question of maintainability is based on the ground that no writ can be issued against the Opposite Parties, because they do not come even under the broader definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. That apart, the internal dispute of this nature of a domestic organization cannot be the subject matter of any writ proceeding. We

have read the text of the judgment and we find substantive force in the submission of Mr. Pujari, learned counsel.

6. Mr. Neelakantha Panda, learned counsel has appeared for the writ petitioner-respondents. We have heard also Mr. Panda, who has very fairly submitted that the election process is ongoing for election of the District Committee, Koraput.

7. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that for such dispute as enumerated in the writ petition, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not have been invoked. Only recourse that is available to the aggrieved person is to approach the Civil Court of the competent jurisdiction. Hence, we hold that the writ petition was not maintainable. Accordingly, we set aside the common judgment dated 12.08.2022 and dismiss the writ petitions.

8. In the result, the Writ Appeals are allowed.

No order as to costs.

(S. Talapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASISH KUMAR KAR Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Aug-2023 20:10:28