Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Ranjan Dhingra – Appellant
Versus
Rotary International & Ors. – Respondents
CS(OS) 705 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2023
Mr. S.K. Dubey, Senior Advocate with Ms. Niharika Dubey, Mr. Venus Anand, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. J.P.Sengh, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.L.Sinha, Mr.Siddharth Dutta, Advocates for D-1.
Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Mr. Shravan Niranjan, Advocates, for the Defendant-2.
The Bylaws of the defendant no.1 organization recognize only the Clubs for nomination, voting, and challenging the election process, and an individual does not have the right to contest the election or challenge the result. The court's decision was based on the principles of limited jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of internal management of associations and the exclusive election review procedure provided in the Bylaws.
Headnote:
CPC - Election Dispute - Articles 3.020.6, 11.020, 13.030.4, 13.030.5, 5.030 - The court dismissed the application for an interim injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the election result for the post of RI Director, Zone-4 (2023-25) of the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff's claim of irregularities in the election process, including allowing terminated and reinstated clubs to vote, was rejected by the Election Review Committee. The court held that the plaintiff, as an individual, lacked the locus standi to challenge the election result, as per the Bylaws of the defendant no.1 organization. The court also emphasized that the Bylaws recognize only the Clubs for nomination, voting, and challenging the election process, and an individual does not have the right to contest the election or challenge the result. The court's decision was based on the principles of limited jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of internal management of associations and the exclusive election review procedure provided in the Bylaws.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff challenged the Election Result for the post of RI Director, Zone-4 (2023-25) and the Rotary International (RI) Board Decision rejecting the challenge. The plaintiff claimed irregularities in the election process, including allowing terminated and reinstated clubs to vote. The defendant no.1 organization and defendant no.2 challenged the plaintiff's locus standi to file the suit and questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application for an interim injunction, stating that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to challenge the election result as an individual, as per the Bylaws of the defendant no.1 organization. The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of internal management of associations and the exclusive election review procedure provided in the Bylaws. The court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction.
Issues: 1. Locus standi of the plaintiff to challenge the election result. 2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court. 3. Irregularities in the election process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of limited jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of internal management of associations and the exclusive election review procedure provided in the Bylaws. The court emphasized that the Bylaws recognize only the Clubs for nomination, voting, and challenging the election process, and an individual does not have the right to contest the election or challenge the result.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for an interim injunction, stating that the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to challenge the election result as an individual, as per the Bylaws of the defendant no.1 organization. The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of civil courts in matters of internal management of associations and the exclusive election review procedure provided in the Bylaws. The court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction.
JUDGMENT
I.A.18736/2022
1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the `CPC') praying for the following reliefs:
"a) pass an ad-interim ex-parte order/direction restraining the Defendant nos. 1 & 2 from dealing with the affairs of the RI directors zone-4 (2023-25);
b) pass an ad-interim ex-parte direction, directing Defendant No.1 not to permit the Defendant No.2 for using the designation of elected RI Director, Zone-4 (2023-25), during the pendency of the present suit.
c) pass an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 from permitting the Defendant No.2 in participating various programs of training etc. or in any manner in the capacity of elected RI Director for Zone-4 (2023-25), during the pendency of the present suit."
I. Case of the Plaintiff:
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit challenging the Election Result dated 04.03.2022 for the post of RI Director, Zone-4 (2023-25) of the defendant no. 1, declaring the defendant no.2 to be the Director for Zone-4. The plaintiff further challenges the Rotary International (in short `RI') Board Decision dated 17.08.2022, communicated to the plaintiff vide email dated 20.08.2022, rejecting the challenge of the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 to the said Election.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1, through its Director, vide email dated 01.07.2021, informed that the Nominating Committee for Zone-4 will meet on 02.10.2021 to nominate the next RI Director for the Zone-4 who would serve on the RI Board for the period from 2023-2025. It was further stated that the intending Clubs may submit a qualified Rotarian for consideration of the Nominating Committee for Director in the said Zone not later than 01.09.2021. The defendant no.3 submitted the name of the plaintiff for selection as the RI Director for Zone-4, to serve from 2023-2025. The Nominating Committee selected the plaintiff as the RI Director for Zone-4.
4. Vide an email dated 12.10.2021, and in terms of RI Bylaws 11.020.19, the District Governor and the Club Presidents in the Zone-4 were informed of the decision of the Nominating Committee and were further informed that unless another qualified Rotarian has been duly proposed as a challenging candidate before 1st December, 2021, the plaintiff shall be declared as the Director-nominee for Zone-4. The email further stated that if a valid challenge is received, the Secretariat will prepare and distribute the electronic ballot by 31st December, 2021, listing the choice of Zone's Nominating Committee and any challenging candidate who was endorsed by a majority of the Clubs in the district.
5. Vide a subsequent email dated 07.12.2021, all Club Presidents in the Zone-4 were informed that the RI General Secretary has received a challenge to the Director-nominee selected by the Zone 4 Director Nominating Committee, that is, the plaintiff herein, and as a result thereof, there will be a voting amongst Clubs to choose the Director-nominee. The voting was to be conducted electronically, and the various Clubs had to cast their votes electronically between 29.12.2021 to 01.03.2022.
6. The voting accordingly took place, and on 04.03.2022, the result of the final round of voting was announced, as under:
| Candidate | Total Weighted and Distributed Vote |
| T.N. (Raju) Subramanian | 821 |
| Ranjan Dhingra | 809 |
7. On the next day, however, another email was issued with a modification in the total number of votes obtained by the defendant no.2, as under:
| Candidate | Total Weighted and Distributed Vote |
| T.N. (Raju) Subramanian | 823 |
| Ranjan Dhingra | 809 |
8. The plaintiff vide email dated 14.03.2022, relying upon the provision of Article 11 of the Bylaws of Rotary International (hereinafter referred to as "Bylaws") requested the Chair of Ballot Committee, Zone-4, Director Election, General Secretary Rotary International, inter alia, for permission to inspect the ballots and p
