All India Customs And Central Excise Group ‘C’ Officers Association Sikkim & Andaman Nicobar Kolkata Zone And Other vs Union Of India And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The present writ petition has been preferred by the All India Customs and Central Excise Group 'C' Officers Association, represented by the alleged General Secretary and the President of the said organization.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are at the helm of affairs, being the elected body at least up to March 31, 2020. However, behind the back of the petitioners, a notice was issued and pasted at conspicous spaces of the concerned office, as annexed at pages 42 onwards of the writ petition, declaring that the election of the Kolkata Zone of the petitioner no.1 would be held today, that is January 22, 2020. The same was signed by the respondent no.7, as the returning officer of such election.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the returning officer was appointed by the Union of India through its instrumentalities, being the respondent-authorities, behind the back of the petitioners, who are the only body entitled to represent the association and, as such, the said notice itself and the election process following the same, are vitiated, being do hors the law.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities, by placing reliance on the CCS (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, in particular on O.M. No.2/5/94-JCA dated July 28, 1994, submits that, the procedure for holding election provided in clause

(ii) therein stipulates that the Government Department should not in any manner associate with the process of election, which is to be conducted by the associations themselves. However, if so requested by the association, an official may at best be deputed to function as an observer, having nothing to do with the actual conduct of the elections, as per clause (ii).

In view of such provisions, it is argued by the respondent-authorities that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, since the respondent-authorities have no role to play in the election process. It is further submitted that the respondent-authorities could not and did not appoint the respondent no.7 as the returning officer in the impugned election.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6, who is alleged by the petitioners to be a suspended member of the association, denies such suspension and submits that he validly submitted his nomination papers in the election process and that the election process is already underway and might have already been over.

Since it is submitted by the respondent-authorities themselves that they have no role to play in the election process and the respondent no.7 was not appointed as returning officer by the respondent-authorities, there is no question of entertaining the present writ petition, since none of the private respondents come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, not being 'State' or its instrumentalities within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter and in view of submissions made on behalf of the parties, W.P. 1083(W) of 2020 is dismissed as not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

However, this order shall not preclude the private parties herein from challenging the election process or seeking declaration of its veracity in any competent court of law.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.