AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners, who are office-bearers elect and members-elect of the Karyakarini Samithi and Nidhi Palak Samithi of the 2nd respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Kerala, in the elections held in the year 2014, have filed this writ petition seeking to direct respondents 1 and 3 to allow the petitioners and other office bearers elected, to assume charge of the respective offices to which they have been validly elected. In the alternate, the petitioners prayed that the 1st respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai may be directed to immediately call for fresh elections to the Karyakarini Samithi of the 2nd respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Kerala based on final voters list published by the earlier Returning Officer on 20.06.2014.
The petitioners state that the 1st respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Chennai was established in the year 1918. In the year 1964, the Sabha was declared as an institution of national importance as per Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act 1964. The 2nd respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Kerala was established as the Kerala Branch of the 1st respondent-Sabha. The 2nd respondent-Sabha has its Governing Body named 'Vyavasthapika Samathi', Executive Committee named 'Karyakarini Samithi' and Board of Trustees named 'Nidhi Palak Samithi'.
When the petitioners who were elected as office-bearers approached the Special Officer on 06.11.2014, he refused to allow the petitioners to assume office. The Special Officer acted purportedly on the basis of the judgment of this Court in RSA No.333/2011 dated 04.11.2014. The petitioners would contend that the said judgment has no bearing on their election. According to the petitioners, the judgment in RSA No.333/2011 will not in any manner relate to or impact or influence the elections that were conducted as per Ext.P2 notification and schedule. The petitioners therefore prayed that they may be permitted to assume office.
The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that in the year 2007, the Constitution of the Kerala Sabha was amended. The amendments were challenged in OS No.1380/2007 of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The Munsiff's Court held that the amendments effected on 04.11.2007 are null and void. The District Court, Ernakulam in AS No.93/2009 reversed the judgment of the Munsiff's Court. The judgment of the District Court was challenged in RSA No.333/2011 before this Court. This Court upheld the judgment of the trial court. In effect, the amendments made in the year 2007 became ineffective. Elections were conducted on the basis of amended by-laws, which amendments were nullified by Court. In view of the judgment of this Court in the RSA, the assumption of office by the petitioners was postponed.
Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit. Respondents 2 and 3 stated that the amendments which were made to the Constitution in 2007 have a direct bearing on the elections. Respondents 2 and 3 are not in a position to permit the petitioners to assume office in view of the judgment of this Court in the RSA.
The 4th respondent in the writ petition also filed a counter affidavit. The 4th respondent submitted that fresh elections will have to be conducted based on final voters list to be prepared.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
The petitioners were elected on the basis of an election held in the year 2014. The elections were conducted on the basis of amendments made to the by-laws in the year 2007. In RSA No.333/2011, this Court held that the amendments to the by-laws are null and void. Therefore, the elections conducted in the year 2014 also will have to be held null and void. The petitioners have a case that the judgment in RSA No.333/2011 has no bearing on the elections held in the year 2014. I find that there is no necessity to adjudicate on the said issue because the petitioners admittedly did not assume office and the term of the committee to which the petitioners were elected, stands expired. Therefore, adjudication of the said issue will only be an academic exercise.
However, fact remains that there is no elected body governing the 2nd respondent-Sabha since the year 2014. Respondents 1 and 2 are statutory bodies, functioning under a central statute.
Taking into account the facts emerging from the pleadings and arguments of the counsel on either side, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to conduct elections to the 2nd respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Kerala, expeditiously and in a time bound manner. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to prepare a provisional voters list within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Election to the Vyavasthapika Samithi of the 2nd respondent-Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Kerala should be conducted within a period of six months thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of with the afore directions.