Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 4684
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA, J
DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR – Respondent
CW / 9390 / 2024
Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Vishan Das Vaishnav, Mr. B.S. Sandhu, Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General, Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ravindra Jala, AGC
The court held that the Deputy Registrar's order removing the Election Officer was arbitrary, lacked jurisdiction, and violated natural justice principles, necessitating a fresh election process.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulations of Association) Act, 2005 - Sections 13, 23, 26, and 35 - Writ petition challenging the order of Deputy Registrar removing the Election Officer and appointing a new one - The court found the impugned order to be arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as it was based on a misinterpretation of the applicable rules and lacked adherence to principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the Registrar's powers under rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 were transitory and not applicable to subsequent elections under section 13 of the Act. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the reinstatement of the original Election Officer to conduct fresh elections. (Paras 24, 35, 60, 120, 130)
(B) Natural Justice - The court held that the failure to issue notice to the affected parties before passing the order violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 69, 70)
(C) Jurisdiction - The court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by removing the Election Officer without proper grounds. (Paras 72, 117)
(D) Legislative Lacuna - The court recognized a legislative gap in the rules governing subsequent elections and invoked the doctrine of 'casus omissus' to fill this gap. (Paras 79, 100)
CAV JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT:
1. The instant writ petition impugns the order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Hanumangarh, whereby the respondent no.3 – Ms. Manju Saharan, officiating Inspector has been appointed as Election Officer and the Election Officer namely Surja Ram Bishnoi, who was appointed by the petitioner no.2 on 09.05.2024 has been removed.
2. Before making submissions about the correctness, legality and propriety of the order impugned, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners laid the factual canvass as infra:-
2.1 The petitioner no. 1 – District Cricket Association, Hanumangarh is duly registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulations of Association) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2005’) and Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulations of Association) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2004’).
2.2 The elections of the petitioner – Association were held in the year 2020, in which the petitioner no.2 was elected as Secretary.
2.3 Since, the term of an elected body, as per Section 8 of the Act of 2005 is 4 years, the Executive Committee of the petitioner no.1 passed a resolution on 04.05.2024 and decided to hold elections while appointing Surja Ram Bishnoi as an Election Officer.
2.4 An election notice dated 09.05.2024 was issued by the petitioner no.2 – Secretary of the Association and all concerned were informed that the elections will be held on Saturday, June 1st 2024 from 9:30 a.m. onwards and Surja Ram Bishnoi shall be the Election Officer. Alongwith election notice aforesaid, a list of eligible office bearers of the clubs so also voters list were also published.
2.5 On 10.05.2024, the Election Officer issued an election programme giving the date-wise schedule of each stage of election. A separate notice of even date was also issued by the Election Officer in which address of his residence (House No. 7/40, RHB Colony, Hanumangarh Junction) was given for the purpose of correspondence and submission of objections/nomination papers.
2.6 Before the election could take place, the respondent no.2 initiated inquiry under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 by way of notice dated 16.05.2024.
2.7 Alleging the said inquiry to be arbitrary and vindictive, petitioners preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8529/2024, in which a co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to issue notices to the respondents and pass an interim order (dated 21.05.2024) to the effect that the elections of the petitioner-Association pursuant to election programme dated 10.05.2024 shall remain subject to outcome of the writ petition.
2.8 The respondent no.2 was informed about the issuance of notice and the interim order vide letter/e-mail dated 23.05.2024.
2.9 Immediately on the next date i.e. on 24.05.2024, the respondent no.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order in purported exercise of rule 11(3),11(6),11(7) and 11(8) of the Rules of 2004.
3. Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel at the outset branded the order impugned to be vindictive and arbitrary, alleging the same to have been passed in order to overreach the process and to render the petitioners’ earlier writ petition redundant.
4. He contended that the order impugned deserves to be quashed on a number of grounds - being mala-fide; being void and without jurisdiction (as rule 11 of the Rules of 2004 is applicable only for the purpose of elections held under section 26 of the Act of 2005); being violative of principles of natural justice (as no notice was issued to the petitioners) and also being factually incorrect – as the requisite facts were absent.
5. In order to establish that the proceedings are mala-fide, learned Senior Counsel argued that the order makes reference of a letter purportedly written by three persons (Indrajeet, Gaurav Jain etc.) on 24.05.2024, who pointed out three irregularities viz.:
(i) The elect
