Non-compliance with Electoral Bye Laws and unfair denial of nomination submissions vitiated the election process.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

Appellants seek setting aside of the order dated 11.02.2022 passed by the learned ADJ-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 445 of 2021 whereby their application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed.

2. The dispute relates to elections held in the year 2021 for the governing body of SREE SWAMINATHA SWAMY SEVA SAMAJ REGD i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘Samaj’) which is managing the affairs of Sree Swaminatha Swamy Temple known as “Malai Mandir”.

3. Mr. Garg learned counsel for the appellants has called in question not only the election results but the entire election process by contending that the elections were held in complete disregard to the Electoral Bye Laws, 2011 of the Samaj, and specifically its clause 4 which required that elections be conducted under the superintendence and control of two Election Officers who must be independent and having knowledge of election law and practice. It is contended that the elections were conducted under only one Election Officer as the other Election Officer was not available and Mr. Selvam who assisted the Election Officer was employed as a manager with the Samaj and thus clearly ineligible under clause 4 of the Electoral By laws. Additionally, it is grieved by the appellant that the members were unfairly denied opportunity to submit their nominations as the time to file the same was arbitrarily curtailed. It was next contended that barring one executive and members, all other office bearers were elected unopposed since all the members of the Samaj could not participate and cast their vote as the elections were held in complete disregard to the prohibitive orders dated 13.09.2021 and 14.10.2021 issued by the concerned SDM and Delhi Disaster Management Authority, GNCTD on account of COVID protocol. Lastly, it was contended that after assuming office, the respondents have committed large scale financial irregularities.

4. Mr. G. Umapathy, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. He submitted that on 27.12.2020, an AGM of Samaj was held which was attended by 49 members and in the said meeting, a large number of members expressed concern about mismanagement in the affairs of Samaj in the absence of timely elections. A proposal was given for holding fresh election in the interest of the affairs of the Samaj. Accordingly, a committee headed by Justice K. Ramamoorthy (Retd.) was formed to conduct the elections. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the elections were conducted in a free and fair manner and to the knowledge of all the members. He submitted that after the elections were announced, a total 34 nomination forms were collected by the members including by the appellants No. 1, 3 and 4. While others submitted their nomination forms, appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 failed to submit the same in due time. Replying to the contention that the elections were contested unopposed, learned Senior Counsel submitted that only office bearers were elected unopposed but for the post of members there was a due contest. It was also submitted that Mr. Selvam was appointed to assist the Election Officer. While denying the allegations that the elections were held despite prohibitive orders issued by the concerned authorities, reference was made to the order dated 14.10.2021 issued by the Delhi Disaster Management Authority, GNCTD whereby the religious places were permitted to be opened for visitors/devotees subject to the compliances of the SOP. In this regard, a further reference was made to letter dated 11.10.2021 on which the concerned SDM vide had granted the permission subject to the maintenance of the COVID protocol.

5. While refuting the allegation of financial irregularities, it was stated that all the major financial and administrative decisions taken by