Orissa High Court
Suryanarayan Kar vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR W.P.(C) No.25153 of 2024
Suryanarayan Kar .... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Ray, AGA
(O.P. Nos.1 to 6)
Mr. A. Mohanty, Senior Advocate
(O.P. No.7)
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
(O.P. No.10)
Mr. B. Bhuyan, Senior Advocate
(O.P. No.13)
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:19.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19.11.2025
1.
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned order dated 3rd October, 2024 as at Annexure-10
of the learned A.D.M.-cum- Election Officer, Keonjhar,
namely, opposite party No.4 declaring the result of the
election of the Office Bearers of the Keonjhar District Truck
Owners' Association, Keonjhar (shortly as 'the
Association') as illegal and non est in the eye of law and
further to declare the involvement of the said Election
Officer in conducting the election of the Association for the
year 2024 to be in contravention of the direction issued by
this Court by order dated 15th September, 2023 in W.A.
No.2319 of 2023 on the grounds stated therein.
2. The brief facts of the case are stated herein below.
According to the petitioner, this Court in W.A. No.2319 of
2023 directed opposite party No.2 to hold election of the
Association by an order dated 15th September, 2023 as at
Annexure-1 but all such exercise was undertaken by
opposite party No.4. It is further pleaded that opposite party
No.4 was specifically directed therein not to be involved in
the election process, however, it has not been strictly
complied with. It is claimed that opposite party No.4 was
engaged in conducting the election in utter disregard to the
Court's order at Annexure-1, inasmuch as, the voter list was
prepared by him including the names of the members, who
are no more alive and some others having no eligibility to
participate in the election and are not even the members of
the Association. Referring to the letter dated 26th June, 2024
of opposite party No.2 at Annexure-2, it is further pleaded
that the additional draft member list was directed to be
displayed for inviting objections and also to consider the
disposal of such objections with findings along with
recommendation for finalization of the voter list in
compliance of the Court's order in W.A. No.2319 of 2023
and in the process, opposite party No.4 was allowed to be
involved in the process of election. It is alleged that opposite
party No.4 claimed himself as the Election Officer and
conducted the election fixing the dates with the election
schedule of the Association and while claiming so, the
notification dated 21st August, 2024 at Annexure-3 is
referred to by the petitioner. Similarly, referring to a copy of
the minutes of the proceeding of the Committee constituted
for conduct of election of the Association at Annexure-4, it
is also pleaded by the petitioner that opposite party No.4
was directly involved in such election. For financial and
necessary logistic support for holding the election, opposite
party No.2 had correspondence vide Annexure-5 with the
Association to discuss about the same with opposite party
No.4 and relying upon the same, it is again pleaded that
such involvement of the election officer is established being
contrary to the direction of this Court in W.A. No.2319 of
2023. With other correspondences as at Anenxures-6, 9 &
10, it is pleaded that opposite party No.4 was allowed to be
a part of the election process, which was specifically
directed to be avoided in view of the Court's order at
Annexure-1 and not only that, such involvement is
established from Annexure-7, a Corrigendum was issued by
him dated 9th September, 2024 besides releasing the details
of the voting centres for the election as per Annexure-8
mentioning therein the members to cast votes Zone-wise
and the date of such election i.e. on 28 th September, 2024
with the counting of votes and declaration of its result on
29th September, 2024. With the above facts pleaded on
record, according to the petitioner, the entire election
process stood vitiated as a result and in view of the
involvement of opposite party No.4 and hence, the result of
the election is to be declared as illegal and unsustainable in
law.
3. Opposite party No.2 filed counter with the pleading that a
Committee was constituted to facilitate the election process
vide Annexure-A/2 with a direction to opposite party No.3
in that regard and not only that, such Committee was
delegated the duties and responsibility for the said purpose.
As per the schedule fixed in consultation with the
Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar, by an intimation in that
regard vide Annexure-B/2, it is further pleaded that the
election to the Office Bearers of the Association has been
held. As per the schedule, it is stated therein that after the
final list of the members was published, who were eligible
to participate in the General Body Meeting to cast their
votes, opposite party No.2 fixed the election date scheduled
to be held on 28th September, 2024, later to which, opposite
party No.4 invited the nominations and accordingly, by
following due process, the election was held and the result
was declared to ensure that the elected body takes over the
management of the Association smoothly. It is also pleaded
that opposite party No.4, who had joined recently was
delegated the responsibility to conduct the election, the fact
which is known to the petitioner but for the fact that he has
been unsuccessful in the election, the writ petition is filed
and at no point of time, since finalization of the voter list
and filing of nominations, any objection was ever raised by
him before opposite party No.2. According to the pleading,
it is further stated that opposite party No.2 had the authority
allowed by the Court's order in W.A. No.2319 of 2023 to
delegate the duties and all such responsibilities related to the
election to the Committee constituted and accordingly,
opposite party No.4 was allowed to conduct the election and
not that, he himself declared to be the Election Officer, as it
has been alleged by the petitioner.
4. Opposite party Nos.3 & 4 filing separate counter
affidavits denied that there has been any illegality
committed in holding the election stating therein that as per
the Court's direction issued in W.A. No.2319 of 2023,
opposite party No.2 held election and at the same time,
delegated responsibility to be managed by the Committee. It
is further pleaded that the direction in W.A. No.2319 of
2023 authorized opposite party No.2 to delegate all such
duties and responsibilities to a dependable and responsible
competent officer, hence, the involvement of opposite party
No.4, who was not posted as ADM and the
Additional/Deputy Registrar of the Societies by the time
when such direction was received for the fact that he joined
much thereafter, the Ex-ADM was relieved on 21st August,
2024. Since the direction was categorical and to avoid
involvement of the then ADM-cum-Additional/Deputy
Registrar of the Societies in the process of election and as he
was transferred and relieved and thereafter, the successor
was delegated the responsibility to conduct the election on
28th September, 2024 and ultimately, with the counting of
votes, the result was declared on 29th September, 2024,
according to opposite party Nos.3 & 4, no any illegality has
been committed, as a result. It has also been pleaded at the
end that the Association was a registered Society and if it is
aggrieved by the election process in view of Section 11(A)
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act'), the recourse and remedy would be
approaching the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having the
territorial jurisdiction to deal with the same and therefore,
the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Opposite party Nos.10 & 13 also filed separate counter
affidavits and pleaded that there is strict compliance of the
Court's order in W.A. No.2319 of 2023 dated 15 th
September, 2023 and the election process has been held
accordingly and in the light of direction issued therein and
such election was held with the involvement of opposite
party No.4 by the orders of opposite party No.2, who was
allowed to delegate all such duties and responsibility but not
to engage the then ADM-cum-Additional/Deputy Registrar
of the Societies posted at Keonjhar. Opposite party No.10
pleaded that a Committee was constituted in view of
Annexure-A/10, whereafter, the election was conducted. It
is further pleaded by opposite party No.10 that opposite
party No.3 furnished the names of the members of the
Committee to conduct the election as per Annexure-B/10
and ultimately, it was approved by opposite party No.2 with
an intimation as per Annexure-C/10 to conduct the election
of the Association with the approval accorded for the said
purpose. Similar to the counter of opposite party Nos.2, 3
and 4, it is pleaded by opposite party No.10 as well as
opposite party No.13 that the then ADM after being
transferred, the successor was entrusted to take charge to
conduct the election of the Association, hence, the direction
in W.A. No.2319 of 2023 has been complied with in letter
and spirit. Likewise, the pleading of opposite party No.13
outrightly denied the claim of the petitioner alleging the
election ought to have been conducted properly and as
required by law.
6. Perused the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner to the
counter of opposite party Nos.3 & 4, wherein, it has been
pleaded that opposite party No.2 failed in discharging the
legal obligation in convening a General Body Meeting of
the Association before the election was held for its Office
Bearers on the date fixed, which is not in compliance of the
direction of this Court in W.A. No.2319 of 2023.
7. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner; Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State; Mr.
Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party No.7;
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.10; and
Mr. Bhuyan, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party
No.13.
8. Against the order in W.P.(C) No.21806 of 2023, the
intra- court appeal was filed in W.A. No.2319 of 2023 and it
was disposed of on 15th September, 2023 vide Annexure-1
setting it aside followed by a direction issued to opposite
party No.2 to take all such necessary steps in holding
election to the posts of the Office Bearers of the
Association. The manner in which the election is to be held
commencing from the preparation of the voter list till such
time, the result of the election to be declared was outlined
by this Court while disposing of the appeal with a specific
direction to opposite party No.2 to conclude the same within
a stipulated period him having the power to delegate all
such duties and responsibilities to a competent officer, who
is dependent but not the ADM-cum-Additional/Deputy
Registrar of the Societies posted at Keonjhar at the relevant
point of time. After the election was over, it has been
alleged by the petitioner that the concerned ADM posted at
the time of election has been involved despite the fact that
there has been a direction not to engage him. The grievance
of the petitioner is that a serious wrong has been committed
by opposite party No.2 in not holding the election by
himself but instead engaging the ADM-cum-
Additional/Deputy Registrar of the Societies, hence, the
election is to be declared as invalid.
9. As per the schedule fixed, the election was held on 28th
September, 2024 and the result was declared on 29 th
September, 2024. The result of the election was requested to
be displayed by a letter i.e. Annexure-10 of opposite party
No.2, as the election officer of the Association addressed to
opposite party No.5 and the Association. A copy of the bye-
law of the Association is made available to the Court at the
time of hearing. The memorandum of the rules and
regulations amended on 1st April, 2015 of the Association
has been produced from the side of the petitioner and on a
bare reading of the same, it is made to reveal from Clause
3(A) thereof that the members of the Governing Body shall
be elected for a period of three years and six months with
effect from the date of its commencement consisting of
President, Vice-President, Secretary and other Office
Bearers. Since a dispute arose, the writ petition in W.P.(C)
No.21806 of 2023 was filed and it was disposed of by order
dated 13th July, 2023 with a direction to prepare electoral
roll and to place it before the ADM-cum-Additional/Deputy
Registrar of the Societies, Keonjhar for its finalization. Such
order was challenged in W.A. No.2319 of 2023 and therein,
apart from the challenging the claim of the Association, the
maintainability of the writ petition was questioned pleading
that any such dispute arising out of election process is
entertainable by the Civil Court with a reference to Section
11(A) of the Act. As earlier discussed, opposite party No.2
was directed to carry out the exercise and to conclude the
election process by 15th September, 2024. The direction to
opposite party No.2 contained, inter alia, the powers to
delegate the duties and responsibilities to any such officer,
who is dependable and competent to manage it with a rider
that the then ADM-cum-Additional/Deputy Registrar of the
Societies was not to be involved.
10. From Annexure-A/2 to the counter of opposite party
No.2, this Court finds that pursuant to the direction, as
aforesaid, opposite party No.2 intimated opposite party No.3
regarding the Committee constituted for the election to be
supervised including the Additional District Magistrate
(Revenue), namely, Mr. Lalit Soreng, OAS (S) with 7 other
members besides opposite party No.5. Such was the
intimation in the month of July, 2024. After the constitution
of the Committee, as it is made to understand, opposite
party No.2 delegated the responsibilities to the ADM in
terms of the Court's order in W.A. No.2319 of 2023, for the
latter, to conduct the election as per the schedule appended
thereto fixing the dates with the nomination forms sold and
nomination received, till such time, the result is declared on
29th September, 2024. From Annexure-B/2 of the counter of
opposite party No.2, it is revealed that the ADM (Revenue)
was leading to the Committee with others constituted to
supervise the election, till it is concluded. By the time the
election was held on 28th September, 2024, Mr. Soreng had
been relieved and succeeded by Mr. Mandaradhara Mahalik,
ADM (General), Keonjhar. According to opposite party
Nos.3 & 4, said Mr. Mahalik, who joined shortly before the
election on 28th September, 2024 had not been assigned with
the matters of registration of the Societies, rather, one Mr.
Alok Kumar Pradhan, ADM (Revenue) was performing
such duties of the District Registrar and Additional
Registrar of Societies and he was not involved in the
process of election of the Association. The said fact has not
been denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit filed
by him. In fact, opposite party Nos.10 and 13 claimed that
Mr. Mahalik, ADM (General) was in-charge of the election
as a member of the Committee constituted by opposite party
No.2 and hence, there is due compliance of the Court's
order in W.A. No.2319 of 2023. It is made to reveal from
the counter affidavit of opposite party No.2 that he was
responsible to initiate the exercise and to hold the election
and delegated the duties and responsibilities to the
concerned ADM, who, ultimately, as a leading member of
the Committee supervised the same and finally, the result
was published on 29th September, 2024 as per Annexure-10.
According to the Court, there has been due compliance of
the direction issued in W.A. No.2319 of 2023.
11. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the election
was to be conducted by opposite party No.2 and before that,
General Body Meeting was to be called for and that apart,
the ADM was involved in spite of the fact that he was not to
be engaged. But, on a reading of the order in W.A. No.2319
of 2023 at Annexure-1, it is clear and conspicuous that the
then ADM-cum-Additional Registrar of the Societies posted
at Keonjhar and his involvement in the holding the election
was directed to be avoided. It is not that the successors were
not to be engaged in the election process joined after the
then ADM-cum-Additional Registrar of the Societies, who
was relieved on transfer. The concerned ADM and in-charge
of the Registration of the Societies was directed not to be
involved in the election process. But, it does not mean that
any such officer, who joined thereafter and particularly, the
ADM, not in-charge of the Registration of the Societies, was
also not to be engaged. The officer concerned assigned with
the responsibility of the registration of the Societies was
directed not to be a part of the exercise to be undertaken by
opposite party No.2, but the concerned ADM, Mr. Soreng,
who had joined on 8th February, 2024 and was delegated the
duties of the election was relieved on 21 st August, 2024 and
Mr. Mahalik succeeded him, however, was not assigned any
such matters related to registration of the Societies, a duty
which was performed by Mr. Pradhan ADM (Revenue).
Under such circumstances, to alleged that the election
process is vitiated by not complying the Court's order in
W.A. No.2319 of 2023 is totally misconceived and hence,
liable to be rejected.
12. Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, a host
of decisions have been referred to and relied upon from the
side of the petitioner and the opposite parties. Mr. Tripathy,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that the writ petition is maintainable
notwithstanding any such alternative remedy available
under the Act, which is contradicted. Mr. Mohanty, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No.7,
particularly, referring to the decision in Ajay Hasia and
others Vrs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others (1981)
1 SCC 722 contends that unless and until, the tests
delineated therein are satisfied, a writ jurisdiction cannot be
invoked. According to Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner, a writ jurisdiction is
invocable and cannot be opposed on the ground of
alternative remedy, which is not a bar as such. But, the fact
remains, the earlier writ petition was entertained and
disposed of and in spite of an objection from the side of the
State with reference to Section 11(A) of the Act in the
appeal, direction was issued to opposite party No.2 to hold
the election. Such a question as to absence of jurisdiction or
power to invoke writ powers was not considered by the
Court in W.A. No.2319 of 2023. As the case at hand is a
sequel to the election dispute between the parties,
consequent upon disposal of W.A. No.2319 of 2023, leaving
the question of jurisdiction open to be adjudicated upon in
any other appropriate proceeding, the Court is of the view
that the objection of the State and in particular, opposite
party No.2 is to be overlooked, all the more when, the
process of election was a subject of challenge and it led to
the directions issued by this Court, proper compliance of
which, has been questioned by the petitioner.
13. Since a large number of citations are cited on the
maintainability of an election dispute, this Court is obliged
to share its view, even though, concluded earlier not to
examine the same for the reason stated. In fact, to deal with
an election dispute, specific provision is made under the
Act. According to the Court, a Truck Owner's Association
generally cannot maintain a writ petition on its internal
election, especially, if an alternative statutory remedy is
available. The maintainability of a writ petition, rather,
depends on several factors, including, whether, the
Association is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, the nature of the dispute, etc. On a conspectus of the
decisions referred to by both the sides, it is made to
understand that the following conditions determine, if an
Association's election dispute can be entertained invoking
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, such as, availability of alternative remedy, which
means, the writ petitions are typically not entertained, if an
effective alternate remedy exists under the relevant law and
in normal circumstances, the consistent view has been that
the parties should avail the civil remedies to resolve election
disputes; secondly, the Association must either be a State
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India or perform a
significant public function and generally, a Truck Owner's
Association, as a registered Society, does not fall under such
category, since it is a private body and the law is that
disputes against private entities that do not perform any
public duty cannot be addressed through a writ petition;
thirdly, a writ jurisdiction is not suited for matters involving
complex and serious disputed questions of fact that require a
detailed evidence, as election disputes often involve such
facts, hence, making the Civil Court, with its trial procedure,
a more appropriate forum; and lastly, if the election process
is either underway or already concluded, it is advisable to
file an election dispute after the results are declared.
13.1. According to the Court, at times, certain factors favour
filling of writ petitions but the same could be under very
limited circumstances, like arbitrary and illegal actions of
the State authorities, for instance, where, the election
disputes involve malafide or illegal intervention of State
authority and this may occur, if the Registrar of Societies
acts arbitrarily or in violation of statutory rules concerning
the Association; a writ jurisdiction may also invoked, if the
aggrieved can demonstrate that all other available statutory
remedies have been exhausted without resolution; an
Association may be able to file a writ petition, if the dispute
concerns a collective right or the members are unable to
approach the Court individually due to any other
disadvantages, however, this is typically not applicable in
internal election matters, where individual members are
capable of seeking redress under law. It is to be concluded
that a statutory remedy is the most suited approach but
under exceptional circumstances discussed herein above, a
writ jurisdiction may be invoked. Law is also well settled
that alternative remedy is not a bar from entertaining the
disputes of present nature exercising writ powers provided
the other conditions are fulfilled. In the case at hand, it
could be said that the challenge to the exercise of authority
by opposite party No.2 in the manner expected, since
questioned, the Court is possessed of the jurisdiction, which
is directly not related to the validity of the election and its
result involving decision on any disputed question of fact
and hence, the need for adjudication thereof.
14. With the above discussions as above, the final
conclusion is that the election of the Association in view of
the order in W.A. No.2319 of 2023 has been held under the
control and supervision of opposite party No.2 executed by
the Committee constituted for the said purpose led by the
ADM, who was not in-charge of any such duties vis-à-vis
Registration of the Societies and since the specific direction
was not to engage the ADM posted at Keonjhar by the time
of its disposal, it is to be held that no illegality has been
committed, till the entire exercise was over and therefore,
the claim of the petitioner on any such ground is without
any basis and hence, the election result as per Annexure-10
dated 3rd October, 2024 deserves no interference.
15. Accordingly, it is ordered.
16. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed,
however, in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok
