Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1433
High Court of Delhi
JAYANT NATH, J.
Rajinder Kumar Gupta
Versus
Brig (Retd) S.S. Patwal
CS(OS) No. 2263 of 2010
Decided on : 30-10-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiff:Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocate.
For the Defendant:Virendra Rawat, Advocate.
The interpretation of the rules and regulations governing the eligibility of candidates and the conduct of elections in sports federations, and the application of such rules in determining the legality of an election.
Headnote:
Election Dispute - Winter Games Federation of India - Article 20(d)(vi), Article 20(e) of the Rules and Regulations of WGFI - The court discussed the interpretation of Article 20(d)(vi) and Article 20(e) of the Rules and Regulations of WGFI, and the eligibility of Winter Games Association of Uttarakhand and Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. to exercise their vote in the election held on 18th August, 2010. The court found that the disqualification as stipulated under Article 20(d)(vi) was not attracted and held that the election of the defendant was not illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute related to the election of the President of Winter Games Federation of India (WGFI) held on 18.08.2010. The plaintiff contested the election and filed a suit seeking a declaration that the election of the defendant as President of WGFI was null and void, and declaring the plaintiff as elected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disqualification as stipulated under Article 20(d)(vi) of the Rules and Regulations of WGFI was not attracted and held that the election of the defendant in the elections held on 18.8.2010 was not illegal. The court also held that the suit was not barred by estoppel and was not bad for misjoinder of parties.
Issues: 1. Whether Winter Games Association of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. were not eligible to exercise their vote in the election held on 18th August, 2010? 2. Whether the suit is barred by estoppel, as alleged in the written statement? 3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? 4. Whether the election of the defendant in the elections held on 18th August, 2010 is illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Article 20(d)(vi) of the Rules and Regulations of WGFI and found that the disqualification was not attracted, leading to the conclusion that the election of the defendant was not illegal. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the suit was barred by estoppel and was bad for misjoinder of parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the present suit, finding it without merit.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. The present dispute relates to the post of President of Winter Games Federation of India (WGFI) which is stated to be a sports federation registered under the Societies Act 1860. The plaintiff was stated to be elected as the Secretary of the WGFI in 2002 and 2006. On 18.08.2010 elections took place for the post of office-bearers including, the post of President of WGFI. These elections were conducted at D.S.O.I. Club, New Delhi and were also attended by the representative of Indian Olympic Association (I.O.A.) as an Observer. The units which are affiliated to WGFI have voting rights and have a right to vote at every general assembly meeting. Each State and Union Territory Winter Games Association and All-India association with voting rights have a right to vote. Each institutional member and ice-skating club/association with voting rights has one vote. It is stated that for the post of President, there were only two candidates, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff was representing, the Ski Association of Delhi being its Secretary and the defendant was representing Winter Games Association of Uttrakhand (WGAU).
2. Reliance is placed on Article 20(d) (vi) of the Rules and Regulations of WGFI to claim that the defendant could not a candidate for the election of the office bearer. The relevant portion of the said Rule reads as follows:-
“No office-bearer of a unit shall be eligible to be office-bearer simultaneously of any other unit excepting the WGFI, otherwise those units will not have voting rights.”
3. It is sated that the two affiliated units of WGFI, namely, WGAU and Garwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited (GMVN Ltd.) were not eligible to exercise their votes because Sh. Pradeep Rawat who was the Secretary of WGAU was also the Senior Manager (Skiing) of GMVN Ltd. simultaneously. Accordingly, in terms of Article 20 (d) (vi) of the Rules of Regulations of WGFI he was ineligible being an office bearer of two units. Hence, both the units did not have any voting right as per above stated clause 20(d) (vi).
4. It is further stated that the plaintiff at the beginning of the election process raised the above objections. It is further stated that the Returning Officer and the Observer deputed by the Indian Olympic Association agreed with the said proposition of the plaintiff and disqualified Mr. Pradeep Rawat for voting in the elections as a representative of GMVN. However, the defendant was stated to have been allowed illegally to vote on behalf of WGFU in violation of Article 20(d) (vi) of the Rules and Regulations.
5. Reliance is also placed on Article 20 (e) of the Rules and Regulations of WGFI which reads as follows:-
“The General Assembly shall elect its office-bearers and members of the Executive Council only among the members, having voting rights present in that meeting.”
Accordingly, it is stated that as WGAU was not eligible to vote, the defendant could not have been a candidate for the elections of office bearer of the WGFI in terms of the above rules i.e. Article 20(e). Hence it is submitted that despite not being eligible, defendant was allowed to contest for the post of the President.
6. Elections were held on scheduled date i.e. 18.08.2010. The defendant secured 11 votes as against the 7 votes secured by the plaintiff. There were only two candidates for the post of President. Accordingly, the Returning Officer despite objections from the plaintiff declared the defendant as elected to the post of President of WGFI. Hence the present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of declaration that election of the defendant as President of WGFI held on 18.8.2010 are null and void and consequently declaring the plaintiff as elected.
7. The defendant has filed his written statement. The defendant has pointed out that his unit WGAU was not disqualified. Mr. Pradeep Rawat is the Secretary of WGAU. However, he is stated to be a salaried employee of GMVN Ltd. and not an office beare
