Telangana High Court

Prashant K. Lahoti vs Alliance Francaise Of Hyderabad on 5 July, 2024

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2958 of 2023
ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order

dated 02.03.2023 passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Courts at Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Court below') in I.A.No.710 of 2022

in O.O.P.No.15 of 2022.

2. Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of Mr. Pramod Maligi, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Mr. P.

Rajendar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.8 and Mr. K.K.

Waghray, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9, 13 and 15.

3. Vide the said impugned order, the Court below has dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2

read with Section 151 of CPC and vacated the interim injunction order

earlier granted.

4. The petitioner vide his application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2

read with Section 151 of CPC has sought for issuance of an injunction,

restraining the respondent Nos.7 and 9 to 15 from claiming themselves

as elected members of the respondent No.1 Society.

::2::

5. The dispute in the present Civil Revision Petition and in the O.O.P.

pertains to the respondent No.1 Society. The said Society is a Society

registered under the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Public Society

Registration Act, 1350, in November, 1980 with registration No.1210 of

1980. Presently, the Society is governed by the Telangana Societies

Registration Act, 2001. The dispute is in respect of the election of the

office bearers of the said Society. The primary grievance of the petitioner

is non-inclusion of his name as eligible candidate for being elected to the

executive committee in the elections held on 03.04.2022.

6. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was

that the election that was convened on 03.04.2022 is in total

contravention to the basic norms of a democratic set-up, particularly, so

far as the election of the office bearers of the Society. The respondent

No.1 Society is governed and managed by an executive committee

comprising of eight (08) members. As per the requirement of the statute,

every Society is obligated to file within fifteen (15) days the list of

members to the Registrar of the Society which shall be containing the

names and addresses of the members which in the instant case does not

seem to have been complied with.

7. Likewise, the eight (08) members to the executive committee were

required to be elected by way of a secret ballet from among the members ::3::

of the Society. In addition, there shall be Ex-Officio member as ninth

member. The term of office of the executive committee is two (02) years.

The last elections that were conducted by the respondent No.1 Society

was in the year 2018 with their term coming to an end in the year 2020.

However, due to COVID pandemic, the elections could not be convened

beyond the year 2020 and the previous elected body continued to

discharge their duties. After many requests were made by the members

of the Society, finally the executive committee in its meeting held on

25.02.2022, the members of the office bearers chose one Shri Ravi

Eshwar Chand, the respondent No.8 in the O.P. as an election officer.

8. As per the convention, the director of the respondent No.1 Society

issued election schedule vide his e-mail dated 12.03.2022, wherein it

was disclosed that the elections for executive body of the Society would

be held on 03.04.2022 and accordingly it was decided to have the

following schedule in the elections:

      "Date             Schedule
      10-3-2022         Voters list will be released
      14-3-2022 to      Nominations will be received.
      18-3-2022
      19-3-2022 to      Withdrawal of the applications
      21-3-2022
      3-4-2022          Elections and declaration of the committee
                        members."

9. It is said that the voters list was finalized on 10.03.2022. The

finalized list was not an updated one as the list included many members ::4::

who had already expired. As per the schedule, the petitioner also with in

intention to contest the elections sent his nomination in the requisite

form to the office of respondent No.1 Society which in turn had

forwarded the same to the Returning Officer. However, when the election

results were declared, respondent Nos.7 and 9 to 15 were unanimously

elected as executive members and the nomination of the petitioner stood

unaccepted. It was this election which was under challenge in the O.O.P.

with a prayer for interim relief by way of an application under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.

10. The petitioner had filed the original O.P. challenging the said

elections on the ground that the elections have been illegally conducted

wherein the respondent Nos.2 to 8 had all colluded together while

declaring the respondent Nos.7 and 9 to 15 as the elected office bearers.

It was specifically contended that various nominations of other members

were illegally excluded for being considered for elections.

11. Initially the Court below had granted an interim injunction.

However, vide the said impugned order, the application under Order

XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was dismissed and the interim injunction

earlier granted stood vacated which led to filing of the present Civil

Revision Petition.

::5::

12. Challenging the said order dated 02.03.2021 passed in I.AN.o.715

of 2022 in O.OP.No.15 of 2022, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioner contended that the Court below failed to appreciate the

fact that the notification dated 12.03.2022 issued by respondent No.1

Society did not stipulate that the nomination forms were required to be

submitted to respondent No.8 directly or for that matter did not disclose

as to the person, venue and the time of submission of the nomination

forms.

13. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, if under the

given circumstances petitioner has submitted his nomination forms to

the respondent No.1 Society, the same cannot be said to be erroneous or

bad in law. He further contended that the Court below has also erred in

not appreciating the fact that, in fact, the entire alleged election was

conducted without any election rules being notified nor were there any

guidelines or instructions issued as to the manner in which the elections

have to be conducted, in the absence of which also the entire election

process has to be vitiated.

14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contended that

the Court below erred in not appreciating the fact that in the absence of

any notification / guidelines or instructions and also the notice dated

12.03.2022, if the petitioner has submitted his nomination form to the ::6::

respondent No.1 Society which stands proved and established, under

the circumstances there was no reason why nomination of the petitioner

ought to have been rejected. He further contended that there was ample

proof available to show that the respondent No.1 Society which had duly

acknowledged receipt of the nomination by the petitioner in fact had

forwarded the same to respondent No.8.

15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the

respondent No.8 in sheer collusion with respondent No.7 and 9 to 15 got

the so-called election conducted in total violation of all norms and

principles associated with the election and in the process got the

aforesaid respondents, viz., respondent No.7 and 9 to 15 elected without

there being any proper election conducted.

16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents opposing the

Revision contended that a plain reading of the pleadings submitted by

the petitioner itself would clearly indicate that the elections were

conducted in the very same manner as they were being conducted in the

past. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to now cry foul so far

as the election process is concerned, particularly when he himself had

not submitted his nomination before the competent authority.

17. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there

was no scope for the Court below to have continued with the ex-parte ::7::

interim relief granted earlier as the so-called elections had already been

convened and the office bearers have also taken over the charge as

office-bearers much before the ex-parte interim order was passed by the

Court below. He further submitted that in view of the various judgments

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that once the election

has begun there could not have been stay of the further proceedings of

the election and the only remedy available being that of passing of a final

order. Therefore, vacating the stay order passed by the Court below

cannot and should not be acceptable.

18. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on

perusal of the records, particularly taking into consideration the

contentions and averments made by the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner and further taking into account the materials which have been

placed along with the petition would go to show that in fact the manner

in which the so-called election had been convened does not seem to be

by following any sort of norms, rules, guidelines or instructions.

19. Though the impugned order is not one which decides the original

petition itself on merits, rather is an order by which the I.A. i.e.,

I.A.No.710 of 2022 which is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1

and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed, thereby the interim

injunction earlier granted on 04.04.2022 stood vacated.

::8::

20. From perusal of the proceedings drawn for the so-called elections

of the respondent No.1 Society, it appears that the schedule of the

elections was as under:

"14.03.2022 to 18.03.2022 was the period during which the nomination forms were to be submitted, 19.03.2022 the candidates were granted time to withdraw their application, on 10.03.2022, the voters list was published and 03.04.2022 from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. the Chief Body was ordered to be convened for the election of the executive committee members."

21. Apart from this schedule, there was no further notification /

instructions / guidelines that were issued. The said notification itself

was issued by one Mr. Jayesh Ranjan, the president of respondent No.1

society. As per the said notification, there were no specific details in

respect of who would be the election officer, who would be the person to

whom the nomination forms has to be submitted and who would be

scrutinising the nomination forms so also the details of the voters list,

whether there were any objections to be submitted on the publication of

the voters list in case if there is any error / mistake in the course of

publication. Incidentally, 18.03.2022 was the last date for submission of

the nomination form which was a public holiday because of the Holi

festival. In terms of the said, the petitioner submitted that his

nomination to respondent No.1 Society has been duly accepted by the

Director of the respondent No.1 Society. As would be proved from the ::9::

WhatsApp message of the Director dated 21.03.2022 and the WhatsApp

messages that were sent on the subsequent dates also establish this

fact.

22. Further, from the proceedings it is evident that the nomination of

the petitioner got rejected only for the reason that the Director to whom

the nomination form was submitted had sent a scanned copy of the

nomination to the respondent No.8 who was the alleged election officer.

In fact, the petitioner herein had given physical hard copy of the

nomination and it was the Director who was supposed to send the

physical hard copy to the election officer and if the Director has sent a

scanned copy, the same cannot be attributed fault or default on the part

of the petitioner.

23. The aforesaid facts are all the admitted factual matrix of the case.

This by itself would clearly establish that the so-called elections of the

respondent No.1 Society were not conducted in a democratic manner.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Union

Territory of Ladakh vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference 1

in paragraph No.39 has held as under:

"39. This case constrains the Court to take note of the broader aspect of the lurking danger of authorities concerned using their powers relating to elections arbitrarily and thereafter, being

2023 SCC Online SC 1140 ::10::

complacent, rather over-confident, that the Courts would not interfere. The misconceived notion being that in the ultimate eventuate, after elections are over, when such decisions/actions are challenged, by sheer passage of time, irreversible consequences would have occurred, and no substantive relief could be fashioned is just that - misconceived. However, conduct by authorities as exhibited herein may seriously compel the Court to have a comprehensive re-think, as to whether the self- imposed restrictions may need a more liberal interpretation, to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done, and done in time to nip in the bud any attempted misadventure. We refrain from further comment on the Appellants, noting the pendency of the contempt proceeding."

25. The Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri Arjun Chandra Das

vs. Ranjit Oja 2 in paragraph Nos.8 and 9 dealing with the topic of

elections and the spirit in which the elections have to be conducted

made the following observations:

"8. Though the election of a College Student Union need not be equated with general election for legislature/parliament, the spirit of the procedure of electioneering has to be followed where election by democratic norms is contemplated. The process and procedure and the norms followed in any type of elections should not be taken lightly and should be set aside on the ground, generally followed in election procedure.

9. The courts below granted temporary injunction on the ground only that the suit would be defeated if the temporary injunction was not granted. Considering the nature of the case, the courts below ought to have consider and find out a prima facie case for trial. In that case

AIR 1995 GAUHATI 108 ::11::

the judicial responsibility of the court to follow the spirit of the procedure and norms of a election matter."

26. What really needs to be appreciated is that when elections are to

be convened in an organisation, society, trust or any other body for

electing the governing body or a executive committee or a management

committee as the case may be, the elections have to be convened in a

most democratic manner as it could be. When we use the term

"democratic", it implies that the elections have to be conducted in

transparent manner. In the absence of fairness so also in the absence of

transparency, no elections can be declared democratic.

27. In the instant case, admittedly the Court below at the first

instance had granted ad interim injunction on 04.04.2022 which

continued till the impugned order was passed. Almost a year later, on

02.03.2023 when the instant Civil Revision Petition was filed, this Court

again has granted interim protection vide order dated 13.10.2023.

Admittedly, the O.O.P.No.15 of 2022 is still pending consideration before

the Court below. The parties would be leading evidence in respect of

their respective contentions with the relevant documentary proofs and

evidence available to either side. Thus, the Court below would be in

better position to reach to a conclusion whether the so-called election

results which were declared on 21.03.2022 wherein respondent Nos.7

and 9 to 15 were unanimously elected as the executive committee ::12::

members without even waiting for the General Assembly that was

convened on 03.04.2022 was properly legal, justified or not.

28. Undoubtedly, from 04.04.2022, when the ad interim injunction

was granted till the impugned order was passed on 02.03.2023, the

original O.P. was proceeded with. Therefore, at that stage there was no

such situation that arose particularly in the teeth of the aforegiven

factual matrix. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the election was

not convened in a democratic manner and on that ground itself the

balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and if executive

committee which is elected in an undemocratic manner is permitted to

discharge the duties, the same would definitely bring irreparable loss to

respondent No.1 Society.

29. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the firm view that the

impugned order to the aforesaid extent of vacating ad interim injunction

and also in the course of dismissing the I.A. under Order XXXIX Rule 1

and 2 i.e., I.A.No.710 of 2022 is bad in law and arbitrary. The same as a

consequence, therefore is set-aside / quashed and the ad interim

injunction granted on 04.04.2022 is affirmed and made absolute.