Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 297 (MP)

R N MAHROTRA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009-03-04

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE present intra-court appeal has been filed by the original-petitioner under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal)Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the order dated 7. 11. 2008 passed in MCC No. 2725/2007 whereby the learned single judge has dismissed the application for review. The facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court wherein the following reliefs were prayed for: " (A) For the legal infirmities contained by the impugned orders Dt. 26. 2. 1998 (Annexure P/9) and dt. 6. 11. 1998 (Annexure P/14), they may be ordered to be quashed. (B) The action taken by the non-applicant No. 4 to hand over the charge to the Chairman and the memo of the non-applicant no. 2 Dt. 28. 8. 95 (Annexure P/3) which is contrary to the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 33 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, may also be quashed. The charge may be handed over to the Governing Council, newly elected as per Bye-laws (Old), and as per provision of the Act of 1973. (C) The suo motu enquiry being held by the non-applicant No. 2 as per sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, may be directed to be completed within a frame work of time schedule and the petitioner may be allowed to participate to put the case, on behalf of the old members. (D) To direct the non-applicants to produce all the necessary and relevant record. (E) Any other direction/directions, writ/writs, order/orders, deemed fit and necessary by the honble Court. " The learned single Judge observed that the earlier election was already over and new election had taken place. Under these circumstances, the learned single judge was of the view that the prayer which was made had already rendered infructuous and the earlier petition was already withdrawn as according to the petitioner it rendered infructuous. The reason given by the learned single Judge was that during pendency of the petition elections had already taken place and accordingly the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the order passed on 13. 7. 2006 to dismiss the petition as it was withdrawn, which was sought to be reviewed by the present appellant and the same was dismissed vide order dated 7. 11. 2008 passed in MCC No. 2725/2007. 7. 2006 to dismiss the petition as it was withdrawn, which was sought to be reviewed by the present appellant and the same was dismissed vide order dated 7. 11. 2008 passed in MCC No. 2725/2007. It was contended that the State Government was not justified in passing the order under Section 33 of the M. P. Society Registration Adhiniyam, 1973. In this reference, it is to be seen that thereafter it was the claim of the petitioner itself that there had been election of the society in accordance with the old bye-laws. Once the election had already taken place it is for the petitioner to challenge the election. We do not find that the learned single Judge has committed any error of law by dismissing the earlier petition which was registered as w. P. No. 1621/1999, as it rendered infructuous. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any case to interfere with the order passed by the learned single judge. However, we may observe that in case the appellant has any grievance against the subsequent election, he has remedy under the M. P. Society registration Adhiniyam, 1973 by moving the Registrar or to the State Government to resolve the dispute. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.