Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: -1-
9 CS SCJ 1645/24 RC MALHOTRA Vs. HANUMAN MANDIR
PRABHANDHAK Committee (REGD)
The court is being conducted physically as well as virtually.
30.05.2025
Present: Plaintiff in person with counsels Shri Rajesh Tiwari
and Sh. G. P. Sharma.
Sh. Rishabha Sharma and Sh. Prashant Kumar, Ld.
Counsels for defendant no.1 & 2.
Sh. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Ld. Counsel for defendant
no.3 along with Sh. Vishal Bhan, Data Entry
Operator on behalf of Registrar of Societies, District
Central.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of defendant no.1
& 2. Taken on record.
Arguments heard on application filed on behalf of
plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
The brief facts of the present case are that the
plaintiffs are the members of defendant no.1/ Shri Hanuman
Mandir Prabandhak Committee. By way of the present suit,
plaintiffs are challenging the functioning of the aforesaid
Committee including extension of the term of its office bearers/
Governing Body. It is the case of the plaintiff that as per the
Constitution of the Committee, its office bearers are elected for a
period of 3 years. That, last elections were conducted in May,
2019. Therefore, the tenure of its office bearers including that of
its President/defendant no.2 has already expired in May, 2022.
-- 1 of 6 --
-2-
That, despite expiry of the term of the office bearers, they are
still holding office without any authority. Therefore, the present
case came to be filed seeking dissolution of the Governing Body
as well as Sub Committee of Shri Hanuman Mandir Prabandhak
Committee and to hold fair elections of the Governing body.
Along with the present suit, an application under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed on behalf of plaintiffs seeking
restraint upon the defendant no.2 from participating in the
functioning of the Mandir Committee. During the pendency of
this application, another urgent application was filed on behalf of
plaintiffs seeking a stay on the elections of the Governing Body,
proposed to be scheduled on 01.06.2025.
It is argued on behalf of plaintiffs that defendant no.2 is
illegally trying to hold elections of the Mandir Committee in
violation of the rules and regulations of the Committee. That,
after the last date of hearing i.e. 22.04.2025, defendant no.1 in
connivance with other office bearers, pasted a back dated notice
of 10.04.2025 on the notice board of the Mandir, calling for
elections of the Governing Body on 01.06.2025. It is argued that
defendant no.2 has done so with a malafide intention to hold
unfair elections and defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. It is also
argued that if elections were already declared on 10.04.2025,
defendants would have brought the same to the notice of this
court on 22.04.2025, however, nothing of that sort was done.
It is also alleged that defendant no.2 has illegally
terminated membership of several members of the Committee in
order to get undue advantage in the elections. That, at the time of
previous elections, the Committee had a total of 184 members,
out of which 112 members have been terminated arbitrarily. That
-- 2 of 6 --
-3-
the mandate of giving an intimation to the members regarding
their termination was not even followed by defendant no.2. Not
only this, defendant no.2 also added 44 favorable votes as new
members of the Committee. It is also alleged that a Sub
Committee was also formulated to conduct elections of the
Mandir Committee. That, one of the members of the sub
Committee namely Sh. Ravi Pathak himself is contesting the
elections for the post of General Secretary, clearly showing the
malpractices being adopted by defendant no.2 in holding the
elections. It is therefore requested that the elections of the
Committee are not being held in a fair and impartial manner and
therefore, elections should be stayed, failing which plaintiffs will
suffer irreparable loss and the present suit will become
infructuous.
All the aforesaid contentions have been vehemently
opposed by counsel for defendant no.1 & 2. It is argued by
counsel for the defendants that the decision for conducting
elections was made in accordance with the Constitution of the
Committee by calling a meeting of the General Body on
15.03.2025. That accordingly, the proposed schedule of the
elections was notified at the notice board of the Mandir on
10.04.2025. That, all the rules and regulations are being followed
in conducting the elections of the Governing Body of the
Committee. That, plaintiffs are trying to obstruct the process of
fair elections due to their personal grudges. That, another suit is
filed by plaintiffs seeking similar relief before the court of Mr.
Sahil Gupta, Ld. Civil Judge. That, plaintiffs have no merit in
their case and all they are trying to do is forum hunting.
-- 3 of 6 --
-4-
It is also denied on behalf of defendant no.1 & 2 that
they have arbitrarily terminated the membership of 112 members
in order to gain undue advantage in the elections.
It is also argued by counsel for defendants that it is a
well settled law that once an election process has commenced, it
must be concluded expeditiously as per its schedule and any legal
challenge to the election must await the conclusion of the
election. In this regard, counsel for defendants has relied upon
two authorities:-
(i). The Yachting Association of India Vs. Boardsailing
Association of India AIR Del.R 145, passed by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
(ii). Supreme Court Bar Associations & Ors. Vs. B.D.
Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774, passed by Hon’ble Apex
Court.
Submissions heard. Record perused.
Before going into the merits of the case, this court
finds its expedient to discuss the authorities cited by counsel for
defendants as the same go to the root of the matter i.e. whether
election process once commenced can be interdicted or not.
In the judgment of the
Yachting Association of
India Vs. Boardsailing Association of India ( supra), it is
observed in para no. 21 by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that
‘once an elections process has commenced, it must be concluded
expeditiously as per its schedule and any legal challenge to the
elections must await the conclusion of the elections. The courts
would normally pass orders only to assist completion of the
elections and not to interdict the same’.
-- 4 of 6 --
-5-
A similar observations was made by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of
Election Commission of India Through
Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar(2000) 8 SCC 216. It was held therein
‘if an election (the term election being widely interpreted so as to
include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the
date of notification of election till the date of declaration of
result) is to be called in question and which questioning may
have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the
elections proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial
remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of
proceedings in elections’.
Similarly, in the case of
Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan
Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha
Vs. State of Maharashtra (2001) 8 SCC 509, Hon’ble Apex Court
declined to intervene in the election process
stating that election
process having been set in motion, should not be stayed even
though there may be alleged illegality or breach of rules.
In the instant case, plaintiffs are challenging the
election process including the date of notification of elections as
well as preparation of electoral roll, both of them being the
intermediate stage in the process of elections.
In view of the judicial pronouncements as discussed
above, this court is afraid to say that it does not have much
choice or scope to go into the legality of the election process
being adopted by defendants. Admittedly, in the situation at
hand, election process has already been initiated and the same
cannot be stayed even if there are alleged illegalities in the same.
The
-- 5 of 6 --
-6-
only recourse available to the aggrieved is to challenge the
election once it has concluded.
Having said that, this court is compelled to dismiss
the present application.
Application stands disposed off.
Put up for further proceedings on date already fixed
i.e. 11.07.2025.
(SANA KHAN)
Civil Judge-05/Central/THC
30.05.2025
-- 6 of 6 --