IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Virendra Sharma, S/o. Shri Mohanlal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Udaipur and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2589 Of 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Election Dispute - Constitution of Trust - Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, Section 10(2) and 10(3)(3) - The court discussed the validity of the election process, the appointment of the Election Officer, and the powers of the Sanrakshan Mandal under the Constitution of the Trust. The court highlighted the importance of following the procedures outlined in the Constitution of the Trust and upheld the authority of the Sanrakshan Mandal in setting aside decisions against the interest of the Trust.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as President of the Trust, sought permission to conduct elections and extend the tenure of the Managing Committee due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite objections and the setting aside of the appointment of the Election Officer by the Sanrakshan Mandal, the petitioner proceeded with the election process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election process conducted by the petitioner was in violation of the Constitution of the Trust and the powers of the Sanrakshan Mandal. The court upheld the order setting aside the election and directed the commencement of a fresh election process.
Issues: Validity of election process, Appointment of Election Officer, Powers of Sanrakshan Mandal, Compliance with Constitution of the Trust
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in the Constitution of the Trust and upheld the authority of the Sanrakshan Mandal in setting aside decisions against the interest of the Trust.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the order setting aside the election was upheld. The court directed the commencement of a fresh election process.
Please provide the content of the legal document (inside
ORDER :
1. Though the matter was listed in the fresh category however, on the joint request of the counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard today itself.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:
Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”
3. The petitioner is a member of the Akhil Bharatvarsh Shree Maharshi Gautam Education and Charitable Trust (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Trust’) established in 2009 and registered in 2010 at Jodhpur. The petitioner was elected as the President of the Trust in 2015 and his tenure was up till 10.10.2020. As per the Constitution of the Trust (Annexure-1) of the Trust, the tenure of the petitioner’s election was for a period of 5 years and Section 10 of the Constitution of the Trust provides for constitution of the Managing Committee and the President under Section 10 (3) (4) of the Constitution of the Trust is empowered for appointment of the Election Officer for conducting of the elections.
4. Furthermore, the petitioner sought permission from the Police Commissioner, Jodhpur vide a communication dated 07.07.2020 (Annexure-2) for conducting of the elections and to call a meeting of the Managing Committee during the COVID-19 pandemic which was denied by the Deputy Commissioner (East) due to widespread of COVID-19 vide order dated 20.07.2020 (Annexure-3).
5. Thereafter the petitioner wrote a letter dated 21.07.2020 (Annexure-4) to the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan Department, Jodhpur seeking directions that the tenure of the Managing Committee and the President will come to an end soon and due to the COVID-19 pandemic the election process cannot be conducted and, therefore, the existing Managing Committee as well as the President shall be permitted to carry on the tenure for one more year.
6. Thereafter, vide communication dated 26.07.2020 (Annexure-5) the petitioner wrote to the Managing Committee as well as to all the office bearers of the Trust proposing for appointment of Election Officer under Section 10 (3)(4) of the Constitution of the Trust and the name of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma was proposed for appointment as an Election Officer. Furthermore the petitioner vide communication dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure- 6) also sought permission from Deputy Commissioner (East) Police to conduct the meeting of Trust on 29.10.2020 which was rejected vide order dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure- 7) on the ground of pandemic COVID-19.
7. Thereafter vide communication dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure-8) the petitioner appointed the proposed Election Officer Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma as the Election Officer for conducting the election of the Trust in the compliance of Section 10 (3) (4) of the Constitution of the Trust and the Election Officer vide acceptance letter (Annexure-9) gave his confirmation and acceptance to conduct the elections of the Trust.
8. The petitioner vide communication dated 08.10.2020 (Annexure-10) informed the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan Department, Jodhpur regarding the appointment of the Election Officer for conducting the elections of the Trust. Furthermore the Election Officer issued the election Notification on 03.11.2020 (Annexure-11), wherein the date for publication of the voters’ list was decided as 12.11.2020
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the procedures outlined in the Constitution of the Trust and upholding the authority of the Sanrakshan Mandal in dec....
The key legal principle established is that the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were specific to the 2018 election and did not apply to the upcoming elections, and the court has the po....
Point of Law : Preliminary object as raised by the respondent required to be upheld inasmuch as the petitions challenging the decision of the Election Officer of the petitioner trust would not be ame....
Judicial officers must be allowed to act independently; dissatisfaction with decisions does not constitute grounds for alleging impropriety without substantial evidence.
Judicial officers must act independently; mere errors in judgment do not constitute grounds for disciplinary action unless misconduct is evident.
The court emphasized the impermissibility of conducting a quasi-judicial enquiry under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, while also highlighting the availability of alternate remedies ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.