Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1 (GAU)

Ngurangkaha v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.

2011-01-01

A.C.UPADHYAY

body2011
A. C. Upadhyay, J.: - The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has challenged the rejection of the nomination paper filed by him to contest the post of President of All Arunachal Pradesh Abotani Nibu (Priest) Welfare Association (hereinafter referred in short as AAPANWA). The nomination paper filed by the petitioner was rejected at the time of scrutiny by the Returning Officer i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Naharlagun. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to conduct a fresh election for the post of President of All Arunachal Abutani Nibu (Priest) Welfare Association (AAPANWA). 2. I have heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. M. Batt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Mr. S. Tapin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5. 3. The facts, leading to the filing of this writ petition, may be summarized, as follows: The petitioner is one of the registered members of All Arunachal Pradesh Abotani Nibu (Priest) Welfare Association (AAPANWA). In terms of Article 27 of the Bye-Laws of the association, only registered members of the association are eligible to get nominated or elected to the post of executive members of the association. 4. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioner that in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 17.03.2009, passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 346 (AP) of 2008, and subsequent order dated 12.06.2009 passed in MC [WP(Q] No. 65 of 2009 in WP(C) No. 346 (Arunachal Pradesh) of 2008, the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Naharlagun, initiated steps for holding fresh election of the association after consultation and with due notice to all the members of the association. 5. Accordingly, 20th January, 2010 was fixed for filing nomination papers, 21.01.2010 was fixed for scrutiny and 30.01.2010 was fixed for election of the members of the association and for declaration of the result, respectively. 6. The petitioner, being a member of the association, filed his nomination papers on 20.01.2010 to contest the post of President of the aforesaid association. Similarly, Sri Hari Taro, respondent No. 5 also filed his nomination paper to contest the post of the President of the Association. 6. The petitioner, being a member of the association, filed his nomination papers on 20.01.2010 to contest the post of President of the aforesaid association. Similarly, Sri Hari Taro, respondent No. 5 also filed his nomination paper to contest the post of the President of the Association. The petitioner alleged that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Naharlagun, who was acting as a Returning Officer, as per direction of this Court passed in WP (C) No. 346 (AP) of 2009, rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner most arbitrarily without assigning any reasons and without giving any opportunity of hearing. 7. The petitioner further alleged that the respondent authority accepted the nomination papers submitted by the respondent No. 5, Sri Hari Taro despite the fact that the private respondent No. 5 was neither a registered member of the association nor his name appeared in the list of registered members. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the date fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers, i.e. on 21.01.2010, the respondent No. 4, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Naharlagun, rejected the nomination paper filed by the petitioner with an oblique motive to accommodate private respondent No. 5, in order to declare him (respondent No. 5) uncontested President of the aforesaid society. 9. After rejection of the nomination paper, the petitioner submitted representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Naharlagun on 21.01.2010 for inclusion of his name as per the recommended membership submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned districts to allow the petitioner to contest the election. However, the representation, so submitted by the petitioner, was rejected by the respondent authority. 10. Mr. M. Bart, learned counsel, who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 4, i.e., the Additional Deputy Commissioner in Capital Complex, Naharlagun has submitted that the respondent No. 4 was entrusted to conduct and carry out the election of the petitioners' Association. By filing affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No. 4 depicted the reasons for rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper. Para 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the respondent No. 4 reads as follows: "7. That with regard to the statement made in Paragraph-6 of the Writ Petition the deponent states that the Petitioner and the Private Respondent No. 5 filed their respective nomination papers on 20.01.2010 for the post of President, All Arunachal Pradesh Abotani Nibu (Priest) Welfare Association. Para 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the respondent No. 4 reads as follows: "7. That with regard to the statement made in Paragraph-6 of the Writ Petition the deponent states that the Petitioner and the Private Respondent No. 5 filed their respective nomination papers on 20.01.2010 for the post of President, All Arunachal Pradesh Abotani Nibu (Priest) Welfare Association. The scrutiny of the nomination papers of the Petitioner, the private Respondent No. 5 and other nomination papers for different post was taken up by the Election Committee as per Bye-Law of the Association. At the time of scrutiny of all the nomination papers, the Election 'Committee headed by the deponent being the Returning Officer of the said Election Committee found that, the nomination papers of the Petitioner and 12 (twelve) other members were not complied the terms and conditions of the Bye-Law of the Association by annexing/producing the documents like Identity Card or Membership Certificate along with Bio-data before the Election Committee which are mandatory as per provision of the Article-27(e)(j) of the Bye-Law of the Association. The deponent who is Returning Officer in exercise of the power conferred under Article-27(h) of the Bye Law of Association rejected the nomination of the Petitioner and 12 (twelve) other nominations and recorded the grounds of rejection that, no Identity Card or no DACO Certificate has been produced by the Petitioner and other candidates. Therefore, the deponent has never rejected the nomination of the Petitioner arbitrarily with an oblique motive to accommodate the private Respondent No. 5 as alleged by the Petitioner, however the nominations of the Petitioner and 12 (twelve) other members were rejected for non fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the Bye-Law of the Association. It is further submits that, as per list of registered members submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, vide office letter No. PPAC-34/2003/326 dated 24.08.09 the name of the respondent No. 5 appeared in Serial No. 1, therefore the respondent No. 5 is eligible and qualified to contest the post of the President of the aforesaid Association. The deponent craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to produce the rejection of nomination papers of the other members and relevant records at the time of hearing." 11. The deponent craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to produce the rejection of nomination papers of the other members and relevant records at the time of hearing." 11. The respondent No. 4, in his affidavit-in-opposition, denying the statement made by the petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition stated that the private respondent No. 5 is a member of the petitioner's association and the petitioner made a false statement in this regard by making a statement that the private respondent No. 5 is not a member of the association in order to mislead the Court. The respondent No. 4 further clarified that the name of the respondent No. 5 appeared in SI. No. 1 of the list of registered members submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Yupia vide office letter No. PPAC-34/2003/326. The respondent No. 4 further clarified in the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by him that the petitioner failed to attach/produce the identity card or his membership certificate along with his bio-data before the Election Committee as per Article 27(e) and (j) of the Bye-Laws of the Association. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the respondent authority failed to take into consideration the reasons for failure of the petitioner in producing the identity card or membership certificate. The petitioner submitted that since the association was non-functional from its inception, he was not included as a member of the association and further in view of the dispute with regards to the office bearers of the association, there was no duly elected president and in such circumstances, for all practical purposes, the association became defunct and inactive. 13. On perusal of the directions issued by this Court in WP(C) No. 346 (AP) of 2008, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Papum Pare District, Yupia, was directed to make necessary arrangement for holding the fresh election of the petitioner association namely All Arunachal Pradesh Nibu (Priest) Welfare Association (AAPNWA), after consultation and with due notice to all the members of the petitioner association. 14. On careful perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 4 in terms of Article 27(e), (j) and (h) of the Bye Laws of the Association. It may be pertinent to reproduce the procedure of holding election as laid in the Bye-Laws of the Association, which reads as follows: ARTICLE NO. 27. It may be pertinent to reproduce the procedure of holding election as laid in the Bye-Laws of the Association, which reads as follows: ARTICLE NO. 27. ELECTION PROCEDURE "a... b… c… (d) The nomination papers must be submitted to the returning officer and the election committee within the above given date. (e) During nomination file, the candidate must produce all the Association's documents like Identity Card and Membership Certificate along with his Bio/Data before the election Committee. (f) Those members who have been terminated or suspended from the Association and having bad record will not be allowed to contest or vote in the election. (g) If the suspended members have completed the required year of 6(six) years as punishment, then they may contest or vote in the Election. (h) Those candidate who fail to produce all the documents required for his candidature in the election, shall be cancelled by the Returning officer and election committee members. (i) Voting shall eligible or right only to those who possess the required documents issued by the Association authority of East/West of Arunachal Pradesh like Identity Card, Membership Certificate etc. (j) Those members who have not possessed Identity Card and Membership Certificate shall not be right to stand as Candidature or cast their vote. 15. On plain reading of Article 27 above, the nomination of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the returning officer under Article 27(h), for the failure of the petitioner to comply with the provision of Article 27(e) and Article 27(j) of the Bye-laws of the Association. 16. Fact of the petitioner being member of the petitioner's association is disputed. The association of the petitioner is a private association. Every fact asserted by the petitioner which has material bearing in disposing of this writ petition has been disputed by the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the election to the post of the President of the petitioner's association by filing this writ petition. Although as per the direction of this Court the election of the petitioner's association was held under the direct supervision of the District Administration, Naharlagun, Itanagar, however, in order to decide the disputes raised in this writ petition many other disputed question of facts will have to be answered. Although as per the direction of this Court the election of the petitioner's association was held under the direct supervision of the District Administration, Naharlagun, Itanagar, however, in order to decide the disputes raised in this writ petition many other disputed question of facts will have to be answered. Though, there is no law denying or debarring the High Court from entering into a disputed question of fact, however, such disputed questions are required to be decided depending upon the fact situation of each issue in the case. If such disputed question can be decided on the basis of documents/affidavit, there may not be occasion to refuse to decide such question of facts. However, when the entire process of holding election including rejection of nomination papers of the petitioner is under challenge, wherein several disputed question of facts are required to be answered by recording evidence in appropriate proceeding, it would neither be appropriate nor possible for a writ Court to decide such issues. 17. The facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of which the writ petition has been filed and the relief claimed are all disputed question of facts. In order to decide the question as to whether the respondent No. 5 is a member of the association or not and also to decide whether the petitioner was in fact a registered member of the association or not would require examination of witnesses and production of documents in an appropriate proceeding. 18. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the relief claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition cannot be granted by this Court. Accordingly, the petition submitted by the petitioner is dismissed. However, I pass no order as to costs.