Writ petitions against private individuals in election matters are not maintainable; election disputes must be resolved through statutory remedies.

ORDER :

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/directions/ certiorari or the like ordering the respondents:

(a) To declare that respondent no. 8 and respondent no. 9 are not qualified to contest the election of any post of Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Indore (respondent no. 6).

(b) To declare that respondent no. 7, Harpreet Singh Soodan has lost the authority to continue as Chief Election Commissioner in view of his conduct in the alternative.

(c) To direct the Collector, Indore (respondent no. 5) to himself decide the objections of petitioner against the candidature of respondent nos. 8 and 9.

(d) This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order or orders as it may deem under the facts and circumstances of the case with a view to maintain the sanctity of the historical and other Gurudwaras of Indore.”

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that, despite there being a specific order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 27519/2024 dated 20.09.2024 whereby, the respondents were directed to decide the objections filed by the petitioners and other members of the community, the respondents have not decided the objections.

4. Counsel for the petitioner Shri N.P.S. Ruprah has submitted that despite there being a specific order passed by this Court and the subsequent order passed in W.P. No. 29817/2024 dated 30.09.2024, whereby, the respondent No. 7 had undertaken to decide the objections filed by the petitioners after giving them opportunity of hearing as well as the respondent Nos. 8 and 9, the objections have not been decided and thus, it is submitted that it is a clear case of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court, and in such circumstances, the respondents may be directed to decide the objections and proceed with the elections.

5. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, in which the Supreme Court has emphasized on the assigning of the reasons becoming indispensable component of decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even administrative bodies.

6. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the respondent No. 7, Harpreet Singh Soodan, the Chief Election Officer of Shri Guru Singh Sabha, who is also responsible for the conduct of elections.

7. Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that the petition itself is not maintainable for the simple reason that the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are the private persons, as the respondent No. 6 is a Society registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Adhiniyam of 1973”) and thus, they are not the “State” as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that otherwise also, election program has already been declared hence no interference is made out at this state. It is also submitted that the petitioner No. 6 has enjoyed the post of President for around twelve years, and all these petitions until now have been filed either by him or through some other person to somehow stall the election and to ensure that the respondent No. 8, who is also contesting for the post of President is disqualified even before the elections. It is submitted that the petitioner has efficacious alternative statutory remedy as provided under the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1973 and in such circumstances, no case for interference is made out.

8. In support of his submissions, Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 7 has also relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in the cas