JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is at the instance of the defendant No.1 in a suit for
injunction and other reliefs and is directed against the order dated December 1,
2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship
disposed of four different applications filed in the proceedings by setting aside the
scheduled election of the appellant/club of the year 2010-11, which was fixed on
December 5, 2010, with further direction that the process of election should be
conducted under the supervision of a special officer (Gen. Shankar
Roychowdhury, (Retired)). His Lordship further directed that the election should
be conducted on the basis of photo electoral roll and voters' list of the club
prepared on September 20, 2010 and that no fresh nomination would be sought
and the candidates already in the fray would contest for the respective posts. The
special officer was given liberty to fix the date, time and venue of election. His
Lordship made it clear that if the special officer thought it fit, the election might
be held at St. Paul's School, Amherst Street, and that the special officer should
be responsible for appointing polling agents for the election in consultation with
all concerned; however, the special officer's decision in this regard would be final.
The special officer was further directed to put such measures as he deemed fit for
the scrutiny of the postal ballots and the custody of undelivered postal ballots.
The special officer was also directed to set the norms for polling agents to verify
the identity of the members intending to cast their votes in the election and was
directed to be personally present during the election to decide and resolve the
disputes relating thereto on the spot. His Lordship further directed that the 3
entire process including the declaration of the result should be preferably
completed by February 15, 2011.
(2.)Being dissatisfied, the defendant No.1, the club, has come up with the
present appeal while the plaintiff has filed cross-objection against some of the
observations of the learned Single Judge.
Mr. Sen and Mr. Chattterjee, the learned senior advocates appearing on
behalf of the appellant, have strenuously criticized the order passed by His
Lordship on the ground that as there was no illegality committed by the
management in charge of the administration of the club in following the Rules of
election, His Lordship erred in law in passing a direction for appointment of a
special officer for the purpose of conducting the election. Those learned counsel
submit that a Civil Court should not interfere with the management of election of
a club unless there are gross irregularities established against the clubadministration. They contend that the existence of the selfsame address of
various outstation-members of the club cast a doubt in the mind of His Lordship
about the fair process of election and that is the real reason for passing such an
order. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that such addresses were
given by the members themselves and as such, the club authority had nothing to
do in the matter. Similarly, the induction of five thousand new members
including six hundred outstation-members during the last term of the present
committee cannot be a ground for passing a direction of holding the election
under the supervision of a special officer when the eligibility of those persons to 4
become a member of the club is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the previous direction for preparation for photo identity
voters' list have been substantially complied with and the same could not be fully
complied with because in spite of specific advertisements given in the
newspapers asking those members to supply their photographs, they decided not
to comply with such request. The learned advocates for the appellant, thus, pray
for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and for direction of
holding the election under the supervision of the election board as prescribed in
the Rules of the club.
(3.)The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the
supporting defendants have, however, opposed the aforesaid contentions of the
learned advocates for the appellant and they have contended that the learned
Single Judge on consideration of the entire materials on record having exercised
His Lordship's discretion in favour of appointing a special officer for the purpose
of holding a fair election, this Court, as an Appellate Court, should not interfere
with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. According to those
learned counsel, this is not a case of an illegal exercise of discretion nor is it a
case where the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge can be branded
as a perverse one justifying interference at the instance of the Appellate Court.
The learned counsel for the respondents, thus, pray for dismissal of the appeal.
Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is
whether the learned Single Judge, in the facts of the present case, was justified 5
in passing the order impugned in this appeal by appointing a special officer for
the purpose of holding the next election of the club.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.