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

2023 Supreme(Del) 2495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Sajal Mitra – Appellant
Versus
The Institution of Engineers (India) Delhi State Centre – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14692 of 2021 and CM APPLs. 46261 of 2021, 5213 of 2022, 28908 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vijay Joshi, Mr. Gurjas Singh Narula and Mr. Shubham Chaturvedi, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Mr. Anoop George and Mr. Aditya Singhania, Advocates for R-4 to 8.

The election dispute with respect to office-bearers of a society may not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it is not in discharge of a public duty.

Headnote:

Election Dispute - Institution of Engineers (India) - [Article 226, Election Dispute, Cybercrime, Assessment, Illegalities] - The court discussed the election dispute of the Delhi State Centre of The Institute of Engineers (India) and the alleged illegalities and anomalies in conducting the election. The petitioners sought directions to restrain the respondents from declaring the election result without conducting a re-assessment by the cybercrime team. The court analyzed the role and duties of the institution, the election process, and the allegations of malpractice. The court found that the election dispute with respect to office-bearers of the society is not in discharge of a public duty and, therefore, such an action cannot be held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed along with pending applications.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the election of the Delhi State Centre of The Institute of Engineers (India) for vacancies arising in the Delhi State Council and the Delhi State Committee, alleging various illegalities and anomalies in conducting the election.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the election dispute with respect to office-bearers of the society is not in discharge of a public duty and, therefore, such an action cannot be held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The main issue was whether the election dispute with respect to office-bearers of the society is amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the election dispute with respect to office-bearers of the society is not in discharge of a public duty and, therefore, such an action cannot be held to be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed along with pending applications.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking inter alia directions to restrain the respondents from declaring the election result of the Delhi State Council and the Delhi State Committee of the respondent no. 1 without conducting a re-assessment by the cyber crime team. The relief claimed is reproduced as under:

    "a) Restrain the Respondents from declaring the election result of Delhi State Council and Delhi State Committee without conducting the reassessment by the cybercrime team and maintain status quo till the disposal of present petition;

    b) declare the election result of Delhi State Council and Delhi State Committee as void and set aside the same;

    c) direct the Respondents to conduct the inquiry and to initiate strict action against the wrongdoers;

    d) issue a direction for complete assessment of the election process either by the Police Officials or by an independent software company;

    e) award the cost of this Election Petition from Respondents; and

    f) pass such further order or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."

2. The petitioners are essentially challenging the election of the Delhi State Centre of The Institute of Engineers (India) (hereinafter referred to as `IEI')- respondent nos.1 to 3 for vacancies arising in the Delhi State Council and the Delhi State Committee. The petitioners and others have contested the election of the Delhi State Committee held between 28.09.2021 to 27.10.2021. As per the election schedule, the last date for submission of nomination forms was 11.08.2021 till 5:00 PM and the commencement of the online election date was 28.09.2021. The closing date of the online election was 27.10.2021 and the counting and publishing of the result was to take place on 28.10.2021. The petitioners alleged various illegalities and anomalies in conducting the election. The petitioner no.1 on 03.11.2021, made a representation to the President of Board of Scrutiny (in short BOS), requesting therein, that on account of unfair and illegal practices, the entire election be cancelled.

3. According to him, pursuant to the representation submitted by petitioners, the Chairman, the Delhi State Committee of the IEI preferred to assign the investigation to a software company, namely AMIGO, for assessment of the voting pattern. The said software company has submitted a report wherein, the apprehensions and allegations made by the petitioners were found to be proved. According to the petitioners, the reports submitted by AMIGO clearly indicate that there has been a leakage of data from the website which was an important aspect that required immediate attention. He, therefore, states that the analysis made by AMIGO was based on their preliminary assessment; however, if AMIGO is provided with a full server access, a detailed analysis can be conducted. He has placed reliance on a copy of the assessment report submitted by AMIGO dated 25.11.2021. According to him, even after the receipt of the report, no action was taken by the respondents, therefore, the petitioners were left with no option except to approach this court.

4. Shri Vijay Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on various documents, namely, the opinion of Mr. M. C. Setalvad, the then Attorney General of India, with respect to the Royal Charter as granted to the IEI in the year 1935, the Regulations of Institutions of Engineers (India), the MoU between Centre for Innovations in Public Systems (CIPS) and the IEI dated 21.02.2019, the 35th Indian Engineering Congress held during 18th to 20th December 2020, e-mail dated 04.05.2022 regarding re-elections at IEI Odisha State Centre, and details of the IEI with regard to the Delhi State Centre. He further states that under the same circumstances when the election was conducted with respect to Odisha State Centr

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