Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Achlaram - Appellant
Versus
Sen Kul Chorasi Purbia Piao, And Bagechi Sansthan - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1398 of 2019
Decided On : 01-07-2019
Important Points
Subject
Election Law - INJUNCTION IN ELECTION DISPUTES
Act Referred
Headnote
SOCIETY ELECTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - IRREGULARITIES - MEMBERSHIP - FAIR PLAY - ARBITRARINESS - ELECTION PROCESS - DEMOCRACY - COURT'S DISCRETION - INJUNCTION IN ELECTION DISPUTES - ELECTION PETITIONS - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT - SOCIETY'S CONSTITUTION - POWER TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS - INTERIM ORDERS - EXTENSION OF TERM - LIMITATION IN ELECTION CASES - QUASHING OF ELECTION - FRESH ELECTIONS - DEMOCRATIC FUNCTIONING - TIME BOUND PROGRAM - PRIMA FACIE CASE - FAIRNESS - REPRESENTATIVE SUIT - INHERENT POWER - SECTION 151 OF THE CODE - CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES - FUTURE AND PRESENT OF THE SOCIETY - LIMBO - STULTIFY OR CHOKE THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SOCIETY - CONSENT OF THE PARTIES - EXPEDIENT DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT - TRIAL COURT TO DECIDE THE SUIT WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, representing the Purabia Sen Community, filed a suit against the defendant Sen Sanstha, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1958, alleging irregularities in the election process of the Executive Committee. The plaintiffs claimed that they were denied membership despite repeated requests and that the defendants had not published a proper notice inviting applications for membership. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had acted against the interest of the Society and that the suit was not maintainable. The Trial Court rejected the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction, holding that no injunction could be granted once the election process had commenced.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. The Court held that the principle that no injunction can be granted in election disputes is not absolute and that the Courts cannot sit tight-lipped when there are fundamental flaws or irregularities in the conduct of an election. The Court found that there was prima facie evidence of irregularities in the election process, including the publication of a deceptive notice and the denial of membership to eligible persons. The Court also found that the Trial Court had failed to consider the merits of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction? 2. Whether the principle that no injunction can be granted in election disputes is absolute? 3. Whether the Courts can sit tight-lipped when there are fundamental flaws or irregularities in the conduct of an election? 4. Whether there was prima facie evidence of irregularities in the election process? 5. Whether the Trial Court failed to consider the merits of the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. The Court held that the principle that no injunction can be granted in election disputes is not absolute and that the Courts cannot sit tight-lipped when there are fundamental flaws or irregularities in the conduct of an election. The Court found that there was prima facie evidence of irregularities in the election process, including the publication of a deceptive notice and the denial of membership to eligible persons. The Court also found that the Trial Court had failed to consider the merits of the case. 2. The High Court held that the principle that no injunction can be granted in election disputes is not absolute. The Court held that in cases where the Constitution of the Society or the Statute does not provide any remedy, and when the plaintiff alleges that there are fundamental flaws or irregularities in the conduct of election, and when it hits at the root of very existence of democracy, the Courts cannot and should not sit tight-lipped.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and directed the Trial Court to decide the suit in question with utmost promptitude, preferably within a period of six months.
Om Mehta, Adv., Ranjeet Joshi, Adv., Sunil Joshi, Adv., J.K. Bhaiya, Adv., Shyam Paliwal, Adv.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.05.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'), vide which application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the appellant has been rejected.
Succinctly stated the facts appertain to the present appeal are that:
(1.1) The appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit in the representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for and on behalf of general members of Purabia Sen Community. The plaintiffs' raised a grievance against the alleged irregularity in the election process of the Executive Committee of ¼Jh lsu dqy pkSjklh iqjfc;k I;km o cxsph laLFkk (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sanstha or the Society'), which is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1958, with aims and objects of watching and guarding the interest of Sen Samaj and other objects enshrined in its Constitution. The plaintiffs asserted that as per the Constitution of the defendant Sen Sanstha, they being part of the Sen Community were entitled to become a member, but despite their persistent requests to the defendants, they were not inducted as members. It was contended that whenever the plaintiffs and other persons, contacted the defendants for membership, they adopted dilly-dellying tactics and said that the membership will be opened at the time of the election and intimation to this effect will be published in the newspaper. The defendants stated that once the notice is published, desirous persons can obtain form and become member after payment of requisite fee and recommendation of the Executive Committee.
(1.2) The plaintiffs contended that the respondents got a notice dated 26.04.2019 published in the daily newspaper Dainik Navjyoti and requiring the members to pay an annual membership fee.
(1.3) After going through such publication, the plaintiffs claim to be startled, as it contained a stipulation that the date for submitting application form and membership fee is extended till 02.05.2019, whereas no such notice inviting application for membership had ever been published.
(1.4) It was asserted by the plaintiffs that on 30.04.2019, when other people including them contacted the defendants for becoming members, they got a response that the last date for furnishing the application form has since passed. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendants have intentionally not inducted the plaintiffs and hundreds of persons from the community who intend to become members and that the defendant society was in control of a handful of people.
(1.5) With the above assertions, plaintiffs approached the Court by way of filing suit for declaration and permanent mandatory injunction for the following reliefs:-
(1.6) Along with the suit so filed, the plaintiffs had also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code and prayed as under:-
(1.7) Reply to the temporary injunction application came to be filed by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 (President and Secretary of the defendant Sanstha) inter alia contending that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not bonafide and plaintiffs and their relatives had acted against the interest of the Society and that the suit filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code was not maintainable, as the same was filed for personal vendetta and gains. It was also contended that detailed procedure has been provided in the Constitution of the Sanstha for induction of new members according to which certain members have been inducted and the last date of becoming member (02.05.2019) has already passed; electoral has been prepared; and the process of election has begun. The defendants denied all the allegations and averments made in the plaint in a mechanical manner.
(1.8) The learned Trial Court, after hearing and considering the arguments of the concerned parties, rejected the
