JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri B.K. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 3 and Sri Anoop Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling for a counter-affidavit.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has raised preliminary objections as under :

(I) Writ petition for the relief sought is not maintainable and the proper remedy, if any, is to file a civil suit.

(ii) Petitioners being ex office bearers and members of the respondent No. 4 trade union has no locus standi to file the present writ petition.

4. Petitioners have filed this writ petition, praying for the following reliefs :

(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure 25 to the writ petition), pertaining to process of election which is contrary to clause 36 of approved byelaws.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the petitioners’ objection/ representation dated 1.11.2014 and 29.11.2014 (Annexure 15 and 26) respectively to the writ petition vide reasoned and speaking order, within reasonable time to be specified by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent No. 3 to make enquiry to the serious complaint/objection and if the same are found to be correct, to ensure the election of Noida Employees Association through secret ballot as per byelaws, within reasonable time, specified by this Hon’ble Court.

(Iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(v) Award the cost of present writ petition in favour of the petitioners.

5. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the respondent No. 4 is a registered Trade Union under the provisions of Section 8 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) bearing Registration No. 7244/1989. The said registration was duly renewed from time to time and lastly it was renewed on 28.7.2012 for a period of five years. The said trade union has its own byelaws. In paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition it is stated that petitioner No. 1 is the Ex-president and the petitioner No. 2 is the Ex-Secretary. Both are members of the respondent No. 4 Trade Union.

6. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners’ right and interest to contest and participate in the election has been directly and substantially affected by the process of election adopted by the respondent No. 4 which is in contravention of Clause 36 of the approved byelaws.

7. It appears that the election of respondent No. 4 trade union was notified and the date of holding election was fixed as 31st October, 2014. After notification of the election as aforementioned, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 57030 of 2014 praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 29.9.2014 and to direct the Registrar, Trade Union to hold the election of the Committee of Management of the petitioners within specified period. On 28th October, 2014, petitioners withdrew the said writ petition and as as such it was dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 28th October, 2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 57030/2014 is reproduced below :

“After the matter was argued at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a fresh after impleading the necessary party.

The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.”

8. Thereafter, the petitioners raised no objection and allowed