Charanjit Singh Rai vs State of Punjab

Ritu Bahri, J.—The petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the elections conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer-respondent No. 4 on 04.06.2012 for electing ordinary trusties of Montgomery Guru Nanak Educational Trust-respondent No. 5 ( Annexure P-5) and meeting/resolution dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure P-6), whereby other office bearers of respondent No. 5 were elected.

The petitioner is one of the founder trustees as well as life trustee of respondent No. 5 and has been the Chairman of the trust for the last 15 years. Prior to this, father of the petitioner S. Gian Singh Rai was the founder trustee/Chairman till 1981. The Constitution of this trust was adopted from Montgomery Singh Sabha on 10.03.1974 and thereafter, it was registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 vide certificate No. 25 dated 14.05.1974. Thereafter, the Constitution of the trust was amended and the amended Constitution was registered (Annexure P-1). As per the guidelines/regulations of CBSE, the registered trust should a non-proprietary character and its constitution be such that it does not vest control in a single individual or members of a family. Complaint (Annexure P-2) against respondent No. 6 was made to the CBSE by Manoj Sarin of Jalandhar with regard to the irregularities, mismanagement and misappropriation of public fund in connivance with Principals of various institutions run by the trust. Similar complaints (Annexures P-3 and P-4) were also made by the petitioner. However, the allegations in the complaints have not been looked into by the department of education. The appointment of the auditors are being made in violation of Clause 13 of the Constitution of the Trust. The institutions run by the trust are getting grant-in-aid from the Government. The extra income is generated to meet contributory deficit of 5%. The institutes have been collecting funds from the students under different categories, amounting to more than Rs. 35 lacs every year. For this amount, no formal audit is carried out. The said funds are being intentionally concealed from the State Government while submitting the mandatory audit report of grant-in-aid. According to the provisions of the trust, all the relatives of the trusties are prohibited from holding positions in the trust. The Secretary of the Society namely Jarnail Singh Pasricha has been conducting the proceedings and convening meetings without consulting the Chairman of the trust.

Apart from the above irregularities committed by the aforesaid Secretary, the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner, in which the elections have been conducted for constitution of the trust. As per Clause 5 of the Constitution of the Trust, the trust will be constituted as under:-

5: The Board of Trustees:-

(a) It shall consist of Seven Trustees i all. The members of the Trust will be of two types as under:-

(i) Founder-Trustees:- The President of the Sabha by virtue of his office shall become the founder Chairman of the Trust. Besides the Chairman the members of the Sabha will elect other office bearers viz Chairman and Secretary and two trustees out of the members of the Sabha by majority vote. These Five Trustees including the office bearers will be known as Founder Trustees.

(ii) Ordinary Trustees:- The founder trustees shall meet afterwards to elect and add two more trustees to the Board of Trustees under single transferable vote.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the above said Constitution of the Trust, has argued that the elections of the ordinary trustees has to be conducted under Single Transferable Vote. The Single Transferable Vote cannot be divided into fraction. Hence, the election conducted by five founder trustees on 04.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) to elect six ordinary trustees is as per the provisions of the Constitution prior to 2005 and is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWP No. 3888 of 2011. In that petition, the petitioner had sought directions that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the Secretary, Higher Education, should take steps to check the misuse/abuse and misappropriation of funds by the Secretary of the trust in connivance with the Principals of the institutes run by the trust. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2012 (Annexure P-8) on the basis of a consensus order. It was agreed by both the parties that fresh election of the Managing Committee would be held in time bound frame by an independent agency like Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner stated that he has no objection if the election of the Managing Committee be held on the basis of the Constitution, registered prior to 27.06.2005. It was agreed that audit of the accounts shall be done by the new Managing Committee again. While disposing of the said petition, a direction was given to the Deputy Commissioner to hold fresh election on the basis of the Constitution, which was registered prior to 27.06.2005. In compliance with the aforesaid orders, the election process was initiated and the District Collector appointed the SDM-respondent No. 4 as Returning Officer and the election was held on 04.06.2012 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, resolution (Annexure P-6) was passed on 04.06.2012.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the elections, which were held on 04.06.2012 on the following grounds:-

(i) Despite the consensus given for conducting the elections as per the Constitution, duly registered prior to 27.06.2005, the present elections were held on the basis of unregistered Constitution.

(ii) Vide judgment dated 24.12.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, in case titled as Major Charanjit Singh Vs. Montgomery Guru Nanak Educational Trust & others, the trust constituted on 28.06.2005 was declared as null & void and unconstitutional. Hence, the election concluded on the basis of the amended resolutions dated 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005, is liable to be set aside.

(iii) As per the single transferable voting system, which was adopted by the Returning Officer, five voters i.e. founder trustees could not elect more than two ordinary trustees. The Returning Officer did not follow the details of the voter system and chose to devise his own system in order to help J.S. Pasricha and his family, so that they could control the work of the trust.

On notice, written statement has been filed by respondent No. 5, stating that vide order dated 27.03.2012 (Annexure P-8), CWP No. 3888 of 2011, filed by the present petitioner, was disposed of on a consensus that the election of the Managing Committee would be held as per the constitution of the society prior to 2005, which provided for five founder trustees and six ordinary trustees. At that time, the petitioner did not raise any objection. Hence, he is estopped from raising any dispute at this stage. He has further stated that the election, after following necessary formalities, was held on 04.06.2012. The petitioner was present throughout the election process since morning and never raised any objection. At the pre-election meeting, a consensus was arrived for electing six ordinary trustees. The election of six ordinary trustees was conducted in the post lunch session. The petitioner, willfully, abstained himself from the said election and tried to halt the entire election process. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court (in the aforesaid writ petition), after the completion of the election, accounts of the trust were re-audited by M/s. A.K. Randeva and Co., C.A., whose appointment was consented by the petitioner as per Annexure R-5/1. As per the said audit, no unreported or unaccounted income was discover. The trust and the institutions were run in a transparent manner as far as the financial aspect was concerned. The petitioner remained Chairman of the trust for 15 years. Under his Chairmanship, two elections were conducted as per the 1999 Constitution, which provided for five founder trustees and six ordinary trustees, which were to be elected by the process of single transferable vote. The petitioner had attended all the meetings at the time of previous elections in the year 2009 (Annexure R-5/2). The previous election was also conducted as per the Constitution prior to the year 2005, which provided for the term of three years for the ordinary trustees. The said term expired in 2012 and therefore, fresh election was conducted for electing the ordinary trustees. In the written statement, reference has been made to a complaint (Annexure R-5/4) made by one Manoj Sarin. Said Manoj Sarin was a friend of the petitioner and owned a petrol pump adjoining the farmhouse of the petitioner. A letter was received from the office of CBSE, which was duly replied vide Annexure R-5/5, which revealed that all the allegations levelled by Manoj Sarin were denied being false, vexatious and baseless. He was served with legal notice (Annexure R-5/6), to which he tendered his apology (Annexure R-5/7). A complaint u/s 499 read with Section 500 IPC has been filed against Manoj Sarin before the Illaqa Magistrate, which is still pending. The very fact that the complainant (Manoj Sarin) had given his apology, goes to show that the petitioner has been making complaints through his friend in order to tarnish the image of the society, especially when the elections were conducted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 3888 of 2011 (Annexure P-8), which was filed by the petitioner himself. Moreover, as per the petition, after completion of the elections dated 04.06.2012, the petitioner has been taking part in all the meetings of the trust. The petitioner has been taking part in the interviews for the post of Principal, MGN Public School, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar, conducted on 06.01.2013 to 10.03.2013 (Annexure R-5/8).

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it has been stated that in compliance with the orders dated 27.03.2012 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3888 of 2011, the elections were conducted on 04.06.2012 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar-respondent No. 4. Moreover, with regard to the allegations levelled by the petitioner (as per Annexure P-3) regarding misuse misappropriation of the funds by the Secretary of the trust, the Government appointed Circle Education Officer, Faridkot, as enquiry officer vide order dated 18.12.2013. As per enquiry report dated 09.01.2014 (Annexure R-1), the allegations with regard to misappropriation have not been proved. As per the said enquiry report, none of the relatives of the trustees were working as school Principals/Heads. They were working as teachers and there were no violations of the rules of the trusts for their appointment. As per the audit report, the rates of the material, purchased by the trust from the firms, which were directly or indirectly related to its trustees, were lesser than that of the other firms (which are into the supply of similar items). The auditors have okayed such action of the trust under the Finance Act, 1966. Hence, there was no violation of the rules of the trust in purchases of the material.

Finally, the written statement filed by the Returning Officer-cum Sub divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar-respondent No. 4, explains in detail the process of election, which was conducted on 04.06.2012. Total 14 nominations were received for the election of six ordinary trustees, out of which, 2 nomination papers were rejected/withdrawn. Finally, there were 12 contesting candidates. The election was held under ''single transferable voter (STV) system'' by adopting formula known as ''weighed inclusive Gregory (WIGM) method for reallocating surplus votes''. A copy of the proceedings of the votes polled, resulting in election of six ordinary trustees is annexed as Annexure R/3. The petitioner was present at the time of election. The founder trustees were also informed that as per Article 5(ii) of the Constitution, the founder trustees can elect six more ordinary trustees to the board of trustees under the Single Transferable Vote. On an objection being raised by the petitioner, he was informed by the Returning Officer that the formula under ''Single Transferable Voter (STV)'' was available on the website and as per the said formula, the quota for election was fixed as under:-

(Number of Votes)/(Number of Seats + 1)" rounded up to two decimal places. At each stage of the count, if more than one candidate has surplus votes, the largest surplus will be transferred first. All ties are broken randomly."

Keeping in view, the quota to elect an ordinary trustee, was fixed as under:-

(5)/(6+1) = 0.72

All the members were informed that after the voting is over, all the ballot papers will be counted by using the online STV counter/Calculator. Each elector was asked to give his preference on the ballot paper as "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6" ad so on, against the name of the candidate of his choice. After scrutinizing the nomination papers, the voting was conducted. All the five founder trustees cast their votes, whereas one trustee Mrs. Raminder Kaur was give assistance of Ms. Raksa, resident of C-180, Defense Colony, New Delhi, to record her vote, as she was physically infirm. The votes were finally calculated after following the ''STV'' formula given on the website and six candidates were declared elected. After the result was declared, the process of election of office bearers was to be conducted in the post lunch session. At that stage, two founder trustees namely Major (Retd.) Charajit Singh Rai-petitioner ad Col. D.S. Anand raised objection and abstained themselves from participating in the election. Thereafter, the election was conducted for office bearers, in which, Gurinder Singh Narula was elected as Chairman, Sohan Singh Saini was elected as Vice chairman and Jarnail Singh Pasricha was elected as Secretary of the Trust vide Annexure R-5. The final result of the election was submitted by the Returning Officer-respondent No. 4 to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar (Annexures R-3 and R-6.

After going through the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner had give his consent for conducting the election of New Managing Committee as per the order dated 27.03.2012 (Annexure P-8) passed by this Court CWP No. 3888 of 2011. Thereafter, the Returning Officer was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, who as per the Constitution of the trust prior to 2005, adopted the procedure of ''STV''. Thereafter, the elections were held and as per the detailed report (Annexure R-3), the votes were cast by five permanent members of the trust and they were explained in detail, as to how preference to each of the candidates was to be given. Thereafter, calculation of the votes was done and result was declared. Now the petitioner cannot take the plea that the election was not held as per the Constitution prior to 2005, as he had already consented when the order dated 27.03.2012 (Annexure P-8) was passed by this Court.

Moreover, with regard to the allegations of misusing of funds of the trust, a detailed enquiry (Annexure R-1) has been conducted by the Enquiry Officer-cum-Circular Education Officer, Faridkot on a complain made by the petitioner. In this enquiry report, it was found that none of the relatives of the trustees, has been appointed as Principal/Head of any institute. Relatives, who have been appointed as teachers. One of the relatives, is working as lecturer. There was no violation of the rules under the Finance Act, 1966.

After the election in question was conducted, the auditor was appointed with the consent of the petitioner, who gave his audit report and held that there was no violation. Moreover, the election was conducted under the supervision of the Returning Officer, who gave his report to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar (Annexure R-6). The Returning Officer conducted the election as per the proceedings (Annexure R-3) by explaining the process of casting of votes to each of the five trustees in detail.

Moreover, as per the written statement, filed by respondent No. 5, a legal notice was issued to the complainant-Manoj Sarin, to which, he gave is apology (Annexure R-5/7) and is facing trial under Sections 499/500 IPC before the Illaqa Magistrate. Hence, necessary enquirie(s) have been conducted by the authorities on the complaint(s)

made by the petitioner, as is evident from the enquiry report (Annexure R-1). This is a case, where the petitioner has been the Chairman of the Trust for the last 15 years and his grievance is ill-founded as the enquiry report (Annexure R-1) and the election process conducted by the returning officer (Annexure R-3), which is in accordance with the rules.

In the light of the above discussion, no ground is made out to quash the election dated 04.06.2012, as sought for by the petitioner.

Dismissed.