SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 2651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C.V. Bhadang, J.
Goa Kshatriya Maratha Samaj - Appellant
Versus
Pallavi Gajanand Bhosale - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 30 of 2021
Decided On : 17-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
R.Menezes, Advocate, Nigel Fernandes, Advocate, Gina Almeda, Advocate, S.M.Walvaikar, Advocate, S.D.Padiyar, Advocate, Prayash Shirodkar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that consent terms in electoral disputes are binding and that the rejection of nominations must be based on clear and consistent grounds, emphasizing the rights of members in the governance of societies.]

Headnote:

ELECTION DISPUTE - GOA KSHATRIYA MARATHA SAMAJ ELECTIONS - SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860, ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - The court discussed the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, particularly regarding the eligibility of members to contest elections within a registered society. The court emphasized that the consent terms allowing the plaintiffs to contest the elections were binding and acknowledged their membership. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to maintain the status quo regarding the election results, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and the rights of members in society governance.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. Both these Petitions arise out of Judgment and order dtd. 9/12/2020 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.87 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, North Goa at Panaji. As such they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Petitions may be stated thus:- That Goa Kshtriya Maratha Samaj (said Society) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860.

4. The present dispute pertains to the General Elections of the said Society in the year 2018 for Election of the Executive Committee with a tenure of five years. The Respondent Nos.1 to 6 (Original Plaintiffs) had filed nomination papers for contesting the said Election, scheduled to be held on 3/6/2018. The Respondent Nos.7 to 9 (Original Defendant Nos.1 to 3) were the Returning Officers for the said Election. The nomination filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 6 came to be rejected on the ground that they were not members of the said society. The Respondent Nos.1 to 6 (Plaintiffs) along with one Smt.Archana Naik filed Regular Civil Suit No.151/2018/B before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa against the Returning Officers challenging the rejection of the nomination. The Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the ground assigned for rejection of their nomination is invalid and sought a direction for permitting them to contest the Election. An Application for interim relief in similar terms was filed.

5. It appears that the parties arrived at a settlement and Consent Terms were filed, governing the issue at the interim stage. On the basis of the said Consent Terms the RespondentsPlaintiffs contested the Election and were declared successful along with 12 others, comprising of a Managing Committee of 18 Members. The result of the Election was declared on 6/6/2018. The members of the Managing Committee met on 7/6/2018 and the Officer bearers were elected in which Mr.Gajanand Halarnkar was elected as a President.

6. However, the Returning Officers disapproved the said Election and called a meeting on 13/6/2018 for Election of the Officer bearers amongst the members elected of the Managing Committee.

7. According to Plaintiffs the Returning Officers, in collusion with the earlier members of the Managing Committee, had rejected their nomination papers.

8. The Returning Officers who were the only Defendants in the suit contested the same by filing reply to the Application for interim injunction, refuting the allegations of collusion. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs apart from acting to the detriment of the interest of the said society, were also not shown to be members.

9. The learned Trial Court by an order dtd. 30/9/2019 dismissed the Application (below Exhibit-3) seeking temporary injunction. As per the consent terms, this had the effect of the Respondents-Plaintiffs vacating their office.

10. The Respondents-Plaintiffs challenged the order dtd. 30/9/2019 before the learned Principal District Judge at Panaji in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.87 of 2019.

11. During the pendency of the Appeal the learned Principal District Judge passed two orders:- (i) dtd. 9/12/2020 (below Exhibit-9) allowing an Application by the Appellants-Plaintiffs for production of the following documents:-

    (a) Membership Certificate No.98/628 dt. 12/12/1998 of the Appellant No.1, Mrs.Pallavi G. Bhosle with Goa Kshatriya Maratha Samaj.

(b) Membership Certificate No.N-977 dt. 09/02/1998 of the Appellant No.2 Mr.Gajanand B. Bhosle with Goa Kshtriya Maratha Samaj.

(c) Membership Certificate No.98/200 dt. 11/06/1998 of the Appellant No.3, Mr.Santosh E. Ekhadkar with Goa Kshtriya Maratha Samaj.

(d) Membership Certificate No.98/095 dt. 04/04/1998 of the Appellant No.4, Mr.Amar P. Halarnkar with Goa Kshtriya Maratha Samaj."

(ii) Order dtd. 14/1/2020 (below Exhibit-18) allowing an Application for intervention filed by Mr.Mangesh Chodankar claiming to be the President of the said So

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top