Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 393 (DEL)

R. K. SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2003-04-25

A.K.SIKRI

body2003
A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter pertains to elections of the office bearers of All India Chess Federation (hereinafter referred to as Federation, for shot ). This Federation is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is governed by the bye-laws and the rules framed by the Federation. The supreme authority of the Federation is the general body whose power include the power to elect office bearers of the Federation. The annual General Meeting (hereinafter referred to as AGM, for short) of the Federation is to be held every year but not later than 31st september of that year and in this AGM office bearers are also elected. The term of office bearers elected in the AGM is four years. For the purpose of holding the AGM the Secretary has to give a minimum notice of three weeks to all the Members. This Federation has many affiliated units. Rule 14 of the Rules framed by the Federation provides that the affiliated units may nominate, 14 clear days before the date of AGM for election to the Council, names for the post of President, Vice-Presidents (6 nos.), hony. Secretary, Hony. Joint Secretaries (6 nos.) and Hony. Treasurer. As per Rule 15, nominations received by Hony. Secretary shall be circulated to the Associations, and to every persons entitled to receive them, seven clear days before the date of AGM. ( 2 ) ON 3rd August, 2001 the then Hony. Secretary of the Federation circulated a notice no. 130/2001 to confirm minutes of last AGM held on 20th September, 2000. Item no. 15 of the agenda was to elect the office bearers for the year 2001-2005. Nominations which were received pursuant to this notice were circulated by the Secretary to all State associations/affiliated units vide letter dated 20th August, 2001. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of President of the federation. The AGM was held on 1st september, 2001. However, in the said meeting disputes arose as to who were the persons eligible to vote on behalf of the State associations/affiliated units because two sets of nominations had come from various State associations. Although the case of the petitioner is that some persons walked out and permanent Members continued with the agm and elections were held in which the petitioner was elected as the President. Although the case of the petitioner is that some persons walked out and permanent Members continued with the agm and elections were held in which the petitioner was elected as the President. It is not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter as it is not disputed that ultimately meeting held on/1st September, 20201 was treated as terminated. Even the petitioner has proceeded with the case on this premise that AGM could not be held on 1st September, 2001. ( 3 ) WHEN the so called elected office bearers were not allowed to function, the newly elected hony. Secretary filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction before Civil Judge, delhi vide Order dated 1st October, 2001. Interim application filed in the said suit under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil procedure was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs had not been able to show any prima facie case in their favour. In the meantime, Andhra Pradesh Chess Association had filed a writ petition in Kerala High Court seeking to get the AGM of the Federation held expeditiously and the High Court passed order in that writ petition, on the basis of consent of the parties to hold AGM on 13th october, 2001 and elect the office bearers. I shall refer to the orders passed by Civil Judge, delhi and Kerala High Court in detail at the appropriate place. ( 4 ) WHAT is to be noted at this stage is that pursuant to the order passed by Kerala High court, fresh nominations were invited for holding elections in the AGM scheduled for 13th October, 2001. Various persons submitted/filed their nominations. AGM was held on 13th October, 2001 and office bearers were elected. The petitioner had not submitted his fresh nomination. He has challenged these elections by filing the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the then Secretary of the Federation could not call for fresh nominations. The case of the petitioner is that after the nominations were called pursuant to notice dated 3rd August, 2001 and these nominations were circulated vide letter dated 28th August, 2001 election process was set in motion which elections were to take place in AGM scheduled for 1st september, 2001. The case of the petitioner is that after the nominations were called pursuant to notice dated 3rd August, 2001 and these nominations were circulated vide letter dated 28th August, 2001 election process was set in motion which elections were to take place in AGM scheduled for 1st september, 2001. Even if for some reason agm on that date could not be held and the meeting had to be terminated, only course open for the Federation was to fix another date for holding AGM to transact the business which could not be transacted on 1st september, 2001 and hold election on the basis of nominations already received and no fresh nominations could be invited and therefore elections held on 13th October, 2001 are illegal. ( 5 ) IT may be stated at this stage that although in the writ petition the petitioner has also prayed for direction seeking declaration that election held on 1st September, 2001 were in order, this prayer was not pressed at the time of arguments and the relief claimed is that fresh elections be held on the basis of nominations by circular dated 20th August, 2001 after giving proper notice of the same and the respondents 2 and 3 and other office bearers of the Federation should be restrained from functioning as such as their elections in the AGM held on 13th October, 2001 is not proper. ( 6 ) MR. Vikas. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nominations received pursuant to notice dated 13th august, 2001 and Circular dated 20th August, 2001 were valid nominations in all respects. Even if AGM of 1st September, 2001 could not be held and was terminated because of alleged unruly behaviour of certain members, the only option was to call for fresh AGM. But there was no authority with the then secretary of the Federation to call for fresh nominations. Even if AGM of 1st September, 2001 could not be held and was terminated because of alleged unruly behaviour of certain members, the only option was to call for fresh AGM. But there was no authority with the then secretary of the Federation to call for fresh nominations. He submitted that although the writ petition filed in Kerala High Court was a collusive writ petition as neither the petitioner nor the candidates who contested in the agm held on 1st September, 2001 were made parties and the Federation appeared in the matter on that very date and agreed to hold agm on 13th October, 2001 and on the basis of this concession Order was passed, even the Kerala High Court did not order fresh elections and the direction was only to fix the general Body Meeting of the Federation on 13th October, 2001 strictly in compliance with the Rules. Thus, according to the learned counsel, meeting was to be held as per the rules and therefore elections could be held only on the basis of nominations already invited. He also referred to Order dated 1st october, 2001 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi in suit No. 325/2001 wherein the learned Judge had recorded that General Meeting held on 1st September, 2001 was cancelled. In the said Order he referred to the statement made by the Chairman according to whom he had taken the bona fide decision to adjourn the meeting. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel also referred to letter dated 3rd September, 2001 of Executive director (Teams) of Sports Authority of India addressed to Deputy Secretary (Sports), ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports wherein it was mentioned that the President was constrained to announce the "postponement of the meeting and to leave the venue" due to violent behaviour of certain participants. Thus according to him even the stand of the president was that meeting was postponed. This was so stated by the President in his letter dated October 8, 2001 wherein he had stated he had taken bona fide decision to adjourn the meeting. Thus according to him even the stand of the president was that meeting was postponed. This was so stated by the President in his letter dated October 8, 2001 wherein he had stated he had taken bona fide decision to adjourn the meeting. It was further submitted that once nominations were received for AGM which was to be held on 1st September, 2001, it could only be a decision of General body to call for fresh nominations and further that the petitioner and others who had submitted their nominations in the first instance should have been informed about the cancellation and calling of fresh nominations. ( 8 ) MR. Sandip Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-Secretary of the Federation, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petition was-not maintainable as, as per the bye-laws of the Federation, the jurisdiction was only of Kerala High Court. He further submitted that it was misconceived on the part of the petitioner to contend that meeting of 1st September, 2001 was only adjourned. This meeting was terminated because of unruly incidence and violent behaviour of certain members, for all intent and purpose and not simply adjourned. Further after the termination of this meeting when the writ petition was filed in the Kerala High Court, specific prayer in the said writ petition was made for holding fresh election after inviting nominations and complying with procedural formalities and in that context directions were given for holding General Body Meeting on 13th October, 2001 strictly in compliance with the rules. It was in compliance with the said directions of the Kerala High Court that fresh nominations were invited and elections held. He also submitted that reliance by the petitioner on various documents alleging that the meeting of 1st September, 2001 was simply adjourned was totally misconceived and out of context. Mr. Aggarwal contended that the petition filed by the petitioner was mala fide who wanted that he and his family members should continue as office bearers in the Federation. He contended that notice of cancellation of meeting dated 1st September, 2001 was duly given to all including the petitioner. He justified fresh nominations by pointing-out that after 1st September, 2001 and before the next AGM many changes took place in the constitutions of affiliated units for which they were required to send fresh names. He contended that notice of cancellation of meeting dated 1st September, 2001 was duly given to all including the petitioner. He justified fresh nominations by pointing-out that after 1st September, 2001 and before the next AGM many changes took place in the constitutions of affiliated units for which they were required to send fresh names. It was because of this reason that prayer was made before the Kerala High court for fresh nominations which was accepted. He further submitted that the petitioner belonged to Himachal Pradesh unit of the Federation and his unit not only sent fresh nominations but participated in the election process held on 13th October, 2001. He submitted that it cannot be the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of fresh nominations being sought by the Federation and that the fresh elections were being held at Kolkata as per the judgment of the Kerala high Court. The State Association who had earlier filed nominations proposing the names of the petitioner and his relations themselves chose not to repeat the same mistake and proposed different names. In fact, knowingly and intentionally, the petitioner and his associates chose to stay way from the elections. It was because of this reason that they did not respond to the notice of calling fresh nomination and had not even challenged the order of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner therefore, cannot by way of present petition try and overreach the order passed by another High" Court which has already become final. ( 9 ) I have considered the submissions of both the counsel and have also perused the records. At the outset it may be stated that the contention of the petitioner that meeting dated 1st September, 2001 was not terminated and simply adjourned is not correct. Order dated 1st October, 2001of the learned Civil Judge and all the documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner in support of his submissions do not support the case of the petitioner. No doubt in these documents at various places the word "adjourned" has been used. However, reading of these documents in totality clearly reveals that the meeting dated 1st September, 2001 had been terminated. In fact in these very- documents this fact is also specifically stated. No doubt in these documents at various places the word "adjourned" has been used. However, reading of these documents in totality clearly reveals that the meeting dated 1st September, 2001 had been terminated. In fact in these very- documents this fact is also specifically stated. In letter dated September 5, 2001 President informed General Secretary (Sports), government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports about the outcome of the meeting of 1st September, 2001 in the following words:- "under the circumstances, I was left with no option but to terminate the meeting and Mr. Ganeshan also advised me to do the same. I am now reflecting over this unprecedented and totally unexpected incident, and shall in due course, and after a careful and objective deliberation, decide the future course of action, and shall keep your office fully informed. " ( 10 ) IN view of this stand taken by the then president in his letter dated 5th September, 2001 contrary averments made by him in his letter dated 8th October, 2001 would clearly be an after-thought and would be of no consequence. Likewise in the Order dated 1st october, 2001 of learned Civil Judge, Delhi it has been recorded at various places that the meeting was terminated. Following language is used in this behalf. "as the Chairman found that the atmosphere was not conducive for conducting the meeting and it had become unruly and provocative, he took the bonafide decision to adjourn the meeting and consequently the said AGM was adjourned and brought to an end/ terminated by him for that day without taking-up/transacting any business. " ( 11 ) FROM the aforesaid it is clear that although it is stated that meeting was adjourned, the said expression is used loosely with, that is, simultaneously it is conveyed that meeting was brought to an end/terminated because of unruly, provocative behaviour of some members. Same type of language is used at various places. ( 12 ) IN any case not much would turn on the question as to whether the meeting was adjourned or terminated. Fact remains that no business could be transacted in the said meeting and immediately thereafter writ petition was filed in Kerala High Court. Same type of language is used at various places. ( 12 ) IN any case not much would turn on the question as to whether the meeting was adjourned or terminated. Fact remains that no business could be transacted in the said meeting and immediately thereafter writ petition was filed in Kerala High Court. In this writ petition filed by the Secretary of Andhra pradesh Chess Association he sought a direction to conduct election of the office bearers of the second respondent Federation after inviting nomination and complying with all procedural formalities as provided in ext. P. 1. , in a properly constituted and convened Annual General Body meeting. Thus specific prayer was made for conducting elections after inviting fresh nominations and complying with all procedural formalities. Directions given by the court in its judgment dated 19th September, 2001 are to be read in the light of aforesaid prayer. When the direction was given to fix the General Body meeting of the Federation on 13th October, 2001 strictly in compliance with the rules what was meant was that the Federation should comply with all procedural formalities as provided in the rules for which prayer was specifically made. Therefore, directing that meeting be held strictly in compliance with rules was for complying with the procedural formalities as per the rules and not in the context of holding elections on the basis of same nominations as sought to be contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. Once this was the direction given by the Kerala high Court in its Order dated 19th September, 2001 Federation had to comply with this direction and therefore there were nothing wrong in inviting fresh nominations. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 also appears, to be right in his submission that constitution of various affiliated-units were changed and this necessitated change of nominations also. Rule 9,14 and 15 of the Federation Rules are relevant in this context which are quoted below :- 9. General Body : "the Supreme authority of the federation s^all vest in a General Body consisting of two representatives of each affiliated unit so nominated for the purpose by the units, and the president, if he is not representing an affiliated unit. An affiliated unit may change its nominee, provided that due intimation thereof is given in writing to the Honorary Secretary and provided he is not an office bearer. An affiliated unit may change its nominee, provided that due intimation thereof is given in writing to the Honorary Secretary and provided he is not an office bearer. All office bearers except the President cease to be members of the General Body when the item of election of office bearers is taken up at the General Body meeting and, in their places, the affiliated units of the concerned office bearers are entitled to nominate any representative including the outgoing office bearers. "11. Annual General Meeting:- "the Annual General Meeting shall be held not later than 30th September. The Secretary shall give notice of not less than three weeks to all the members and shall circulate with the notice a copy of the Agenda in which the business to be transacted at the meeting shall include inter alia all items under rule no. 10. 01, 10. 02, 10. 03, 10. 04 and 10. 08 and consideration of any recommendation of the Council and/ or any motion, notice whereof is given to the Hon. Secretary by any Association fourteen clear days before the meeting. "14. Nomination :- "an affiliated unit may nominate fourteen clear days before the date of the Annual General Meeting for election to the Council the names of (a) president (b) six Vice Presidents, (c.) an Honorary Secretary, (d) six Honorary joint Secretaries and (e) an Honorary treasurer. An affiliated unit may file nominations for any post of office bearer only from its two representatives to the General Body as specified in Rules 16. 1. 2, 16. 1. 3, 16. 1. 4 and 16. 1. 5. An affiliated unit, may, in addition , nominate a President who need not represent any association vide Rule 17. Each affiliated unit shall nominate one representative on its behalf to the council giving his name and address. Every nomination for an office shall express on the fact of it the consent in writing of the person so nominated to accept such office. 1 5. Circulation : all the nominations received by the honorary Secretary as per rule 14 above and any recommendation and/or motion as per rule 11 shall be circulated to the associations and to the persons entitled to receive them seven clear days before the date of the Annual General Meeting. The Secretary shall send all such notices of meetings under certificate of posting. The Secretary shall send all such notices of meetings under certificate of posting. The Annual meeting however may waive defective notice to any member or members in respect of the aforesaid nominations, recommendations or motions. ( 13 ) WHAT is more important is that all the affiliated units and members, responded to the call for fresh nominations including himachal Pradesh Unit of which the petitioner is the member. They sent fresh nominations and participated in the election process held on 13th October, 2001 as well. When the petitioner s own Association participated in the election process it is not open for the petitioner to challenge^the election (Ref. JT 1998 (5) SC 347 ). In any case, the petitioner seems to be the only person aggrieved by this election when everybody else has accepted the position. Thus even otherwise petition is misconceived and without any merit. ( 14 ) THERE may be some force in the contention of the respondent that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in view of Rule 27 of the Rules of the Federation which stipulates that if any suit is filed or legal action taken against the Federation or any of its office bearers, the same shall be settled only in the court close to the headquarter of the federation and not in other Court and headquarter of the Federation is at None manzil, Nallalam, Calicut, Kerala. However, as the writ petition is dismissed on merits this question is not conclusively answered and is left open. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.