Appellant Allowed to Withdraw LPA, Seek Review from Single Judge in Divine Life Society Election Case: Punjab & Haryana HC - 2025-04-08

Punjab & Haryana HC Allows Withdrawal of Appeal in Society Election Dispute, Grants Liberty to Seek Review from Single Judge

Chandigarh : The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 1096 / 2025), recently permitted an appellant to withdraw his appeal challenging a Single Judge's order concerning the elections of the Divine Life Society, General Federation of Haryana. The Bench, comprising Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Sudeep Sharma , granted liberty to the appellant, Sibananda Pradhan , to approach the Single Judge with an appropriate application for modification, review, or recall of the contested order, armed with additional documents and clarifications. The judgment was delivered on April 9, 2023.

Case Background: Disputed Society Elections

The appeal filed by Sibananda Pradhan stemmed from an earlier writ petition (CWP-8720-2023). This petition was initiated by S.K. Srivastava (arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the LPA), who had challenged several aspects of the election process for office bearers of the Divine Life Society, General Federation of Haryana.

The original writ petition sought multiple reliefs, including: * Quashing of an election notice dated April 1, 2023, and subsequent notices. * Challenging various orders issued in early April 2023 as arbitrary and unconstitutional. * Quashing an Executive Committee Meeting dated April 7, 2023, alleging it lacked quorum and legal authority. * A stay on the election schedule announced for April 9, 2023. * The appointment of a retired Judge or Court Counsel as an observer/returning officer for the elections.

The Single Judge had disposed of this writ petition based on a statement made by the counsel for the Federation (respondent No. 4 in the original writ), who assured adherence to the election process notified via a letter dated April 2, 2023, for elections scheduled on April 12, 2023.

Appellant's Arguments in the LPA

Sibananda Pradhan , the appellant in the LPA, raised several grievances against the Single Judge's order and the proceedings leading to it. His counsel argued that: * The original writ petition (CWP-8720-2023) was filed in alleged collusion between the petitioner ( S.K. Srivastava ) and the Divine Life Society (respondent No. 4). * Despite being a necessary party and arrayed as respondent No. 00 in the writ petition, the appellant (Pradhan) was not served with an advance copy of the petition. * Crucial facts, the "true and actual position," and documents with a "decisive bearing on the matter" were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. * The letters dated April 1, April 3, and April 8, 2023, issued by the appellant himself, which were also assailed in the writ petition, were not properly considered in their full context. * The respondents were allegedly misconstruing the Single Judge's order and judgment to the detriment of the appellant, severely impacting his rights and interests.

Court's Decision: Liberty to Approach Single Judge

After hearing arguments, the counsel for the appellant, Sibananda Pradhan , "fairly" submitted that it would be more "expedient" for the appellant to withdraw the current LPA. This withdrawal would enable him to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge who passed the original order. The purpose would be to seek modification, review, or recall of the said order.

The appellant's counsel assured the Court that all necessary documents would be placed before the Writ Court (the Single Judge) and, given the time-sensitive nature of the election dispute, the application would be moved on the same day (April 9, 2023).

Accepting this submission, the Division Bench stated: > "In the wake of the above, and in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn with the liberty as indicated above."

The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Implications of the Order

This decision allows Sibananda Pradhan a fresh opportunity to present his case and supporting documents comprehensively before the Single Judge. It underscores the procedural avenue available to litigants who believe that crucial information was not considered or that they were not adequately heard in the initial proceedings. The dispute over the Divine Life Society's elections will now be re-examined by the Single Judge, potentially with new material and arguments being brought to light, ensuring a fuller consideration of the issues at hand.