AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dt. 5.8.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5027/2013.
The question for consideration in the appeal is that whether the writ is maintainable against the respondent No. 1.
The appellant No. 2 was elected as President of appellant No. 1 Rotary Club, which is affiliated with Rotary International of District 3050. There was an election of the Club and in the aforesaid election it is alleged that Mr. R.S. Rathi was elected as President by playing fraud. Then a civil suit was filed in regard to election dispute. The trial court granted injunction in favour of appellant No. 2 vide order dt. 26.3.2013. It was vacated subsequently. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal (M.A. No. 446/2003) was filed, it was disposed of with the consent of the parties with the following directions:-
In that view of the matter, now both the parties agree that the aggrieved party of the election may raise its grievance about the election process and committing of any irregularity, before the appropriate forum of the club which may decide the same.
Having considered the submissions put forth by the parties and in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid SLP, this appeal is disposed of with a direction that the aggrieved party shall exercise the right and remedy so available before the higher authorities of the club and after hearing the parties and considering all the objections, if any taken, the authorities shall pass necessary orders in this regard.
Subsequently, some clerical mistake was also corrected in a review petition (Review Petition No. 283/2013). Thereafter, appellant No. 2 submitted a representation to the respondent No. 2 questioning the election of the Rotary Club. Then, respondent No. 1 issued a letter to appellant No. 2. A copy of the letter has been filed as Annexure P/1. By the aforesaid letter, the respondent No. 1 directed appellant No. 2 to withdraw all the election litigations. In the aforesaid letter following directions were issued to the appellant No. 2:-
Accordingly, pursuant to a directive of the RI Board, I am sending you this letter, which serves as notice that, unless RC Birlanagar withdraws or dismisses its election litigation against all defendants within 15 business days, Dr. Deependra Kumar Tamotia will be disqualified from the election in question and from contesting any elected office of RI for five years and R.C. Birlanagar will be deemed as failing to function and will be deemed terminated by the Board immediately upon the expiration of such 15 days period.
Documents establishing that R.C. Birlanagar has withdrawn or dismissed its lawsuit against all defendants may be sent to Prasanta Sahu, Manager Legal, RI South Asia Office at prasanta.sahu@rotary.org.
The appellant No. 2 challenged the aforesaid letter in the writ petition before this court on the ground that the directions issued by the respondent no. 2 are amounting to violation of legal rights of appellant No. 2 and these are contemptuous in nature.
Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the writ is not maintainable.
Learned senior counsel has contended that before the writ court the appellants challenged the order (Annexure P/1) on the ground that by the aforesaid order, legal and constitutional rights to approach the court have been infringed, hence the writ is maintainable because the activities of the respondent No. 1 are in the domain of public law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,
(ii) State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another Vs. Sanjeev @ Bittoo,
(iii) Binny Ltd. and Another Vs. V. Sadasivan and Others,
(iv) Anirudh Dwivedi Vs. The State Chief Commissioner, Bharat Scout and Guide and Another,
(v) M.P. State Co-operative Dairy Federation and Others Vs. Madan Lal Chourasia,
(vi) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. Sumathi and Others,
From the facts stated above in the order, it is clear that before the High Court a compromise was reached and thereafter the appellants submitted representation before the respondent No. 2 questioning the legality and validity of the elections of Rotary Club Birlanagar. It means that after passing the order of the court, the appellants have themselves agreed before the High Court that they would take resort of in house remedy. In such circumstances, it could not be said that the action of Club was within the domain of public law as held by the Nine Judges Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Others Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others,
Learned Single Judge has quoted other judgments also. It is well settled principle of law after the judgment of the Constitutional Bench and Nine Judges Bench of Hon''ble Supreme Court that if the act is in discharge of statutory or public duty, then the writ is maintainable against the authority even if it is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or instrumentality of the State.
In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the learned Writ Court has rightly held that the writ is not maintainable. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability of Writ Petition. However, the appellants are at liberty to pursue other remedy available to them in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, this writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.