1. Challenge to removal of Election Officer and consequential election of a sports association. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 448
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA, JJ.
Pawan Kumar Agarwal S/o Mani Ram Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
District Cricket Association Hanumangarh – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 975 of 2024
Decided On : 16-03-2026
Important Points
A court cannot quash concluded elections and create serious civil consequences for elected members without impleading them. Subsequent events must be specifically pleaded/amended, and courts should generally avoid interfering in the election process once it has commenced, directing parties to statutory election remedies.
Subject
Civil Law - Administrative Law / Election Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 - Section 8 - Tenure of elected body - Conduct of elections - Challenge to the replacement of Election Officer - Quashing of election results resulting from subsequent proceedings during the pendency of a writ petition.
(B) Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem - Where an order entails serious civil consequences for third parties, such as elected office bearers, the court cannot pass an order affecting their rights without impleading them as necessary parties and affording them an opportunity of hearing. (Paras 14, 17)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Subsequent events - When subsequent events occur during the pendency of proceedings that create third-party rights, these developments must be specifically brought on record and challenged through appropriate amendments to the pleadings. A general prayer for quashing "consequential proceedings" cannot be construed to invalidate a concluded election without specific challenge or amendment. (Paras 14, 17, 18, 19)
(D) Election Disputes - Non-interference - Once the election process has commenced, courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with the process, as the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party is to resort to the mechanism provided under the specific election law. (Paras 17, 20)
Facts of the case:
An association registered under the Act of 2005 conducted elections after the tenure of its previous body expired. After the appointment of an Election Officer, the competent authority replaced said officer following complaints. This replacement order was challenged in a writ petition. During the pendency of the petition, the substituted Election Officer conducted elections, and a new executive body was elected and issued certificates. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashing the replacement order and all consequential proceedings, including the election results, without impleading the newly elected members.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the elected members, whose rights were directly affected and who had assumed office, were necessary and proper parties. The failure to implead them and the lack of specific amendments to the pleadings to challenge the completed election process rendered the Single Judge's decision a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the Single Judge was justified in quashing the election results without impleading the elected candidates and whether a general prayer for quashing consequential proceedings is sufficient to set aside a concluded election.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of audi alteram partem requires that parties facing serious civil consequences be heard. Subsequent events creating third-party rights must be specifically challenged via amended pleadings. Furthermore, the judiciary should generally avoid interfering in the election process once it has commenced, directing aggrieved parties to statutory election remedies rather than writ jurisdiction.
Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order dated 19.09.2024 quashed and set aside; Writ Petition dismissed.
(B) Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem - Where an order entails serious civil consequences for third parties, such as elected office bearers, the court cannot pass an order affecting their rights without impleading them as necessary parties and affording them an opportunity of hearing. (Paras 14, 17)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Subsequent events - When subsequent events occur during the pendency of proceedings that create third-party rights, these developments must be specifically brought on record and challenged through appropriate amendments to the pleadings. A general prayer for quashing "consequential proceedings" cannot be construed to invalidate a concluded election without specific challenge or amendment. (Paras 14, 17, 18, 19)
(D) Election Disputes - Non-interference - Once the election process has commenced, courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with the process, as the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved party is to resort to the mechanism provided under the specific election law. (Paras 17, 20)
Facts of the case:
An association registered under the Act of 2005 conducted elections after the tenure of its previous body expired. After the appointment of an Election Officer, the competent authority replaced said officer following complaints. This replacement order was challenged in a writ petition. During the pendency of the petition, the substituted Election Officer conducted elections, and a new executive body was elected and issued certificates. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashing the replacement order and all consequential proceedings, including the election results, without impleading the newly elected members.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the elected members, whose rights were directly affected and who had assumed office, were necessary and proper parties. The failure to implead them and the lack of specific amendments to the pleadings to challenge the completed election process rendered the Single Judge's decision a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the Single Judge was justified in quashing the election results without impleading the elected candidates and whether a general prayer for quashing consequential proceedings is sufficient to set aside a concluded election.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of audi alteram partem requires that parties facing serious civil consequences be heard. Subsequent events creating third-party rights must be specifically challenged via amended pleadings. Furthermore, the judiciary should generally avoid interfering in the election process once it has commenced, directing aggrieved parties to statutory election remedies rather than writ jurisdiction.
Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order dated 19.09.2024 quashed and set aside; Writ Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Venkat Poonia
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. V.D. Vaishnav, Mr. Digvijay Singh Bhati Mr. Arpit Samaria(AAAG) for Mr. N.S. Rathore, AAG, Mr. Deepak Sharma
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Venkat Poonia
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. V.D. Vaishnav, Mr. Digvijay Singh Bhati Mr. Arpit Samaria(AAAG) for Mr. N.S. Rathore, AAG, Mr. Deepak Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Appellants: election process concluded, no interference without hearing elected members. Respondents: gross illegality, general prayer covers consequential proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Subsequent events not brought on record, elected members not impleaded, writ court quashed election despite acknowledging election dispute. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Elected members must be heard before election is quashed; general prayer cannot invalidate a concluded election without specific challenge. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Appeal allowed, impugned judgment quashed, and writ petition dismissed. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. What is the requirement before a court can set aside a concluded election?
The elected members must be impleaded as parties and given an opportunity of hearing, as the decision has civil consequences for them. (Para 17 )
7. Can a general prayer for setting aside consequential proceedings invalidate a concluded election?
No, a general prayer cannot have the sweeping effect of invalidating a concluded election when subsequent events were not specifically challenged or brought on record by amendment. (Para 18 , 19 )
8. Should courts interfere with an election process after it has commenced?
As per settled law, courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with the election process once it has commenced, as disputes should be dealt with after the election. (Para 9 , 20 )
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present special appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9390/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came to be allowed.
3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 is an association duly registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005”) and is affiliated with the Rajasthan Cricket Association. The tenure of its elected body for the term 2020–2024 expired in the year 2024 in terms of Section 8 of the Act of 2005, which prescribes a tenure of four years. On 04.05.2024, Shri Surja Ram Bishnoi was appointed as the Election Officer for conducting elections for the subsequent term i.e. 2024–2028. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 2, being the Secretary of the District Cricket Association, Hanumangarh, issued an election notification and published the voter list, fixing the date of election as 01.06.2024. Objections to the voter list were invited and submitted within the prescribed time, i.e. up to 14.05.2024. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies-cum-Registrar, Institutions, Hanumangarh Junction initiated an inquiry under Sections 23(1)(c) and 23(2) of the Act of 2005 against the District Cricket Association, Hanumangarh, to which the respondent-Association submitted its reply. The said inquiry proceedings were challenged before this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8529/2024, wherein this Court, vide order dated 21.05.2024, stayed the inquiry proceedings initiated against the District Cricket Association, Hanumangarh. It is further borne out from the record that on 24.05.2024, a fresh complaint was submitted by Shri Indrajeet, President of Jambeshwar Cricket Club, and Shri Gaurav Jain, Secretary of Golden Club, Hanumangarh. Acting upon the said complaint, the Deputy Registrar passed an order dated 24.05.2024, whereby Shri Surja Ram Bishnoi was removed from the post of Election Officer with immediate effect and Smt. Manju Saharan, Inspector Executive in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hanumangarh Junction, was appointed as the new Election Officer. The aforesaid order dated 24.05.2024 was challenged by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by way of a writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Bench, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 19.09.2024 and quashed the order dated 24.05.2024. Consequentially, the elections conducted during the intervening period, wherein the present appellants were elected as office bearers, were also set aside. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appellants preferred a leave to appeal, which was granted by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2024. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajesh Joshi for the appellants vehemently submits that the scope of the writ petition before the learned Single Bench was confined only to the challenge to the order dated 24.05.2024, whereby the Election Officer was substituted. It was submitted that subsequent to the said order, further developments took place, including the issuance of an order dated 25.05.2024 by the newly appointed Election Officer, whereby a fresh voter list was published and the venue of the election was fixed in a Private Hotel. Thereafter, on 27.05.2024, another voter list comprising 14 clubs was issued. He further submits that in pursuance of the election programme already notified, and with the election date fixed as 01.06.2024, the elections were duly conducted, and the present appellants were elected as office bearers of the District Cricket Association, Hanumangarh. Election certificates were issued in their favour by the Election Officer and were duly countersigned by the compe
