JUDGEMENT

I.A. No. 1823/2023

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) Direct the Defendant No.3, 4 & 5 to henceforth stop discharging any function in respect of the position they held on account of illegally winning IOA Elections 2020;

b) Pass any other order(s) that in the fact and circumstances of the present case is/are deemed appropriate by this Hon‟ble Court.”

Background facts :

2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved with the manner in which the elections of the Indian Orthopaedic Association (IOA) were conducted in November, 2020, to elect certain office bearers of the Executive Committee of the IOA.

3. The prayers sought in the suit are a decree of declaration declaring the entire process of election of IOA and its purported result declared on 22nd November, 2020 to be a nullity; a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1-6 from in any manner acting upon the outcome of Elections held between 01.11.2020 to 21.11.2020 and its subsequent declaration of the result on 22.11.2020, and a direction seeking that an investigation be conducted by an independent agency or a retired judge of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as regards alleged malpractices/irregularities in the conduct of the aforesaid elections.

4. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [IA No. 11814/2020] came to be filed by the plaintiffs seeking, inter-alia, an interim prayer to the effect that the defendants be restrained from holding the Executive Committee meeting for declaring the results of the said elections.

5. Vide order dated 10.12.2020, the defendant nos. 3, 4 & 7 were restrained from holding the emergent meeting of the Executive Committee scheduled to be held on 11.12.2020 for declaration of the results of the said elections. However, vide judgment/order dated 16.02.2021, this Court dismissed the said application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC thereby making way for official declaration of the results of the elections held in November, 2020.

6. In the said judgment/order dated 16.02.2021, it was concluded by this Court as under :-

(i) No fault could be found with the decisions of defendant No.3 (who was the then Vice President of the IOA and the election officer for the said election) to engage defendant No.1 as a vendor for the conduct of e-elections.

(ii) Merely because on two previous occasions the election conducted by the defendant No.1 were challenged before the Court/investigating agencies, it could not be held that defendant No.1 has a tainted past so as to be excluded from the zone of consideration for the purpose of conducting the impugned elections.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed (iii) There was no requirement that the elections were required to be conducted by a Government approved vendor. Consequently, the court concluded that “it cannot be held that Nityam Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No.1) was disqualified from hosting the elections of defendant No.7/Association”.

(iv) Further, the Court found that the fact that defendant No.3 exchanged correspondence with defendant No.1 from his own personal email ID (instead of his official email ID) and the fact that defendant No.3 has paid money to defendant No.1 from his own account and not from the Association‟s account, had no bearing on the validity of the election impugned by the plaintiffs.

7. Consequently, this Court dismissed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.

8. An appeal came to be filed against the said judgment dated 16.02.2021 which also came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2022 passed in FAO(OS) 6/2021, as under:-

“1. Mr Manish Kumar and Mr Gaurav Duggal, who appear on behalf of the appellants, say that since the elections have already been held and results have been declared, this appeal can be closed, albeit w