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

1981 Supreme(Del) 83

High Court Of Delhi
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DHARAM SINGH - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 216 of 1980
Decided On : 03/03/1981

Advocates Appeared:
J.K.SETH, L.U.Singhavi, O.P.SAXENA, SHEBA GUPTA

The court should be slow in denying the elected representative (and also the electorate) from discharging the functions in a democratic manner.

Headnote:

ELECTION - WORKMAN-MEMBER - TRUSTEE - EMPLOYEES BENEFIT FUND TRUST - INTERIM INJUNCTION - RESTRAINING ELECTED CANDIDATE FROM TAKING OVER OFFICE - DEMOCRATIC PROCESS - COURT'S INTERFERENCE - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C. P. C.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the order of the appellate court which set aside the trial court's order permitting the declaration of election results for the office of a Trustee of the Employees Benefit Fund Trust. The petitioner argued that interference in the democratic process of elections should be sparing and the elected representative should be allowed to perform his duties.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellate court erred in allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial court's order. It observed that the trial court had considered the relevant applications and that the amendment application and the application for continuance of stay were superfluous. The court further held that restraining the elected candidate from taking over would unreasonably deny him an opportunity to work on the Trust.

Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in setting aside the trial court's order permitting the declaration of election results.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that interference in the democratic process of elections should be sparing and that the elected representative should be allowed to perform his duties. It also considered the fact that the period of the elected candidate's office was only two years and that an early hearing of the suit should be considered.

Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the elected candidate to take over and act as a trustee.

S. B. Wad

( 1 ) THIS petition concerns with election of a workman- member to the office of a Trustee of the Employees Benefit Fund Trust. This fund is established by the D. C. M. Through the impugned order dated 17. 11. 1980 senior Subjudge (B. N. Chaturvedi) set aside the order of the trial court. The learned Judge also restrained the petitioner from giving effect to the result of the election declared on 25. 10. 1980 and restraining Shri Harphool Singh the elected workman to take over and to act as the Trustee till the disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) INTERFERENCE in the democratic process of elections, particularly at the interim stages, should be spairing. The democratic process should not be stopped in between, because the final result can always be challenged. It is also well established that where the election is challenged, the elected repre- sentative should be allowed to perform his duties. If he is restrained in between the General Body of Electorate, would be deprived of their elected representative to look after the general interest of the Electorate. The elections took place on 9. 10. 1980 and the results were declared on 25. 10. 1980. Out of 1293 eligible voters 1 145 cast their votes. Harphool Singh secure 758 votes. Respondent, Dharampal Singh secured 363 votes. 24 votes were declared invalid. Harphool Singh was thus declared elected by almost 2/3rds of the total electorate.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT, Dharampal Singh filed Suit No. 351 of 1980 for permanent injunction against the D. C. M. , the present petitioner. This suit was filed for restraining the D. C. M. from holding the elections scheduled on 9. 10. 1980. The suit was filed a day earlier i. e. on 8. 10. 1980, although the election programme was announced much earlier. He also moved an appli- cation for temporary injunction under order 39 Rule I and 2 read with section 151c. P. G. The learned Sub Judge heard the application. He. found that the application, with all the allegations containing it, could not be disposed of within one day, as even the replies of the defendants were not before the court. The court observed "it would cause inconvenience if the elections scheduled to be held are stayed, arrangements for which have already been made". The learned Judge, therefore, permitted the elections to be held on 9th, as scheduled, on a condition. The condition was "results of the elections would not be declared till further orders till the application of the plaintiff is not filed and heard and disposed of. . . . . . . . . ". The learnedjudge then fixed 21. 10. 1980 as the next date of hearing and for filing written statement etc. Thereafter the elections were held. The application for ad-interim injunction was heard on merits on 24. 10. 1930. On 25. 10. 1980 the learned judge vacated the condition imposed in the earlier order and permitted the results to be declared. On that date the results were declared. It was found that Dharampal had not secured even half the number of the votes of the elected candidate. Dharampal, thereafter filed an application for the stay of the operation of the order dated 31. 10. 1980. On this application the trial court passed an order directing that the decision not to give the charge of the office to the elected candidate, Harphool Sin^h.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the earlier order of the trial court permitting the petitioner to declare the results, Dharampal preferred an appeal to the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Delhi (Shri Chaturvedi ). This appeal was allowed on 17. 11. 1980. The learned Senior Subjudge directed the D. C. M. not to give charge of office to the elected candidate. This writ petition is filed against the said appellate order dated 17. 1. 1980.

( 5 ) AS I observed earlier the court should be very slow in denying the elected representative (and also the electorate) from discharging the functions in a democratic manner.

( 6 ) THE order vacating stay was issued by the trial court on the application of the D. C. M. The heari




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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