AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Thakur, J.—Three different factions each claiming to be the real Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 have locked their horns in litigation. Each one of them claims to have held and intends to have hold elections for appointment of the office bearers of the Sabha. Confusion is the inevitable result of such infighting and factionalism. What makes it worst confounded is that a proposal to hold elections for the Sabha and its office bearers to elect the officer bearers and the Managing Committee of the Sabha under the supervision of three court- appointed commissioners has been spurned by one of the factions caused anguish to the bench earlier hearing the appeal. The following passage from the court''s order dated 28th May, 2008 speaks for itself:
However, when the matter was taken up today for passing orders, Shri Vimal Wadhawan, Respondent No. 6 as well as Shri Bansal, learned Senior counsel insisted that the elections cannot be held in the absence of an Administrator being appointed by this Court. They further insisted Swami Sumedanandji Saraswati should be appointed as the Administrator of SAPS for that purpose. This Court is unable to accede to this request since the appointment of an Administrator was never in contemplation and definitely not within the scope of this appeal. This Court finds it unfortunate that after having agreed at the earlier hearing to the elections being conducted under the control and supervision of the court appointed Commissioners, the Respondent No. 6 is now resiling from the said agreement, thus frustrating the efforts at finding an amicable solution.
The above leaves no option for this Court but to dispose of the appeal on its merits, no matter the same may lead to further litigation and resultant bitterness between the warring groups. Time now to state a few facts:
Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 way back in January, 1951. The Sabha claims to be a global body of Arya Samaj establishing to propogate the teachings and the philosophy of Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati and the Vaidic Dharma. One of the objects underlying the Sabha was to co-ordinate between different provincial Arya Pratinidhi Sabhas in the country and to exercise control over the Arya Samajis within India and abroad. The Sabha claims to have provided special and effective representation, leadership and guidance to millions of Arya Samajists and thousands of Arya Samajis and numerous Arya Pratinidhi Sabhas throughout the world. It has a large membership within and outside the country and owns extensive properties apart from running various schools and other educational institutions which the Sabha controls either directly or indirectly through different provincial Sabhas.
Elections of office bearers of the Sabha which includes the President, one or more Vice-president, a Secretary one or more Assistant Secretaries, Treasurers and Librarian are held every three years in a general meeting of the Sabha. The General House also elects Members of Antarang Sabha, taking the total number of office bearers and Members to 35, for a period of three years.
Elections to the office bearers and the Antarang Sabha were held on 3rd November, 2001 whose term was to expire on 2nd November, 2004 Antarang Sabha, however, appears to have authorized the President of the Sabha to hold the elections even before the aforementioned date of expiry of the term for which the elections were earlier held. Antarang Sabha, accordingly, fixed the elections for 18th July, 2004 An effort to prevent elections by a judicial order was made in Suit No. 129/2002 pending before the Civil Judge Delhi. The application seeking injunction against the holding of the election was, however, dismissed after hearing both the parties. Even the suit was eventually dismissed on 31st August, 2004 and so was another Suit No. 735/2004 filed by two members from the State of Haryana seeking inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls. Decks having thus been cleared for an election the same was held on 18th July, 2004 in which Capt. Devaratan Arya was elected as President of Sh. Vimal Wadhawan, respondent No. 6 in this appeal as Secretary apart from other office bearers and Antarang Sabha Members in all taking the total of those elected to 35. The term of those elected was to expire on 17th July, 2007. An intimation regarding the newly elected officer bearers and Antarang Sabha was sent even to the Registrar of Societies and the news about the election carried by the Media.
Barely two months after the holding of the above election a news item appeared in Punjab Kesari''s issue dated 13th September, 2004 stating that the Triennial General Session of Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha had been held and office bearers and Antarang members elected in the same. Alleging that no such election held on 18th July, 2004 was validly held and the office bearers duly elected, the Sabha acting through its Secretary Sh. Vimal Wadhawan filed CS(OS) No. 1146/2004 on the original side of this Court against defendants 1 to 5 who are alleged to have been elected in the subsequent elections held on 13th September, 2004 Sh. Vimal Wadhawan was himself plaintiff No. 2 in the said suit in which the plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs:
Declaration that there is only one Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, i.e. plaintiff Sabha, having presently its registered and head office in 3/5, Maharishi Dayanand Bhawan, Ram Lela Maidan, Asif Ali Road, Delhi, bearing registration No. S-11, registered with the officer of Registrar Societies, Delhi, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and none else.
Declaration that the claim of the defendants and their associates having been elected as office bearers of Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha or its Antarang Sabha, as appearing in the news in the newspaper Daily Punjab Kesari, Delhi Edition dt. 13.9.2004 or elsewhere is nonest, baseless and being so wrong, illegal, unlawful and unauthorised, and further declaration that none other than the plaintiff Sabha is entitled to use the name of Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha;
Mandatory injunction, directing the defendants and their associates to publish in news papers showing conspicuously that the News concerning Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha already published in the newspaper Daily Punjab Kesari, Delhi Edition dt. 13.9.2004 or elsewhere, is false.
Permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and, their associates, from using the name of the plaintiff Sabha for any purpose, whatsoever, and without prejudice to the generality of ''any purpose whatsoever'', from claiming to be the office bearers or elected or nominated representatives of Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha i.e.; the plaintiff Sabha.
Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from interfering in the peaceful working, activities, programmes and peaceful possession and use of the properties and the assets possessed by the plaintiff Sabha and its constituent bodies. Such other and further order/orders be passed and relief/reliefs granted as the Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper.
CM 6968/2004 was also filed by the plaintiffs in the said suit for an ad interim in injunction against the defendants. This application was heard on 18th October, 2005 by B.N. Chaturvedi, J and orders on the same reserved for pronouncement. The matter was, however, released on 13th September, 2005 and came up again for hearing before A.K. Sikri,J who heard the matter and reserved orders on the application on 17th April, 2006. While the matter was still reserved for orders, plaintiff No. 1 Sabha filed I.A. No. 8291/2006 on 13th July, 2006 seeking substitution of Sh. Prakash Arya in place of Mr. Wadhawan. The application alleged that Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha having withdrawn the nomination of Sh. Vimal Wadhawan as a member of Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and the said withdrawal having been accepted by appellant No. 1 Sabha on 2nd July, 2006, Capt. Deva Ratan Arya, the President was authorized to nominate another Secretary in place of Sh. Wadhawan. It was further alleged that Sh. Prakash Arya had been nominated as Secretary on 9th October, 2006 by the President pursuant to the said authorization which entitled him to be substituted in place of Sh. Wadhawan.
Notice of this application was given by the Court to the non-applicants on 28th July, 2006 but no reply was filed to the same neither any order on the application one way or the other made by the Court trying the Suit. In the meantime, defendants 1 to 5 also filed CM 7935/2006 in which they sought permission to bring on record documents to show wrangling between the two factions in the Sabha. That application was pending even on the date the Suit was dismissed by S.K. Kaul, J in terms of the impugned order holding that the same had become infructuous. The present appeal assails the correctness of the said order.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record. The Suit filed by the Sabha, as noticed earlier, inter alia sought a declaration to the effect that the report regarding an election of the office bearers of the Sabha having taken place on 13th September, 2004 was baseless, illegal and unauthorized and that no one other than the plaintiff Sabha was entitled to use its name. It also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from claiming themselves to be office bearers elected or nominated representatives of the Sabha apart from an injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful working, activities, programmes and possession and use of properties and assets owned by the plaintiff Sabha or its constituent bodies. Its evident from the prayer part of the plaint that the plaintiff-Sabha not only asserted the validity of the elections held on 18th July, 2004 but also questioned the holding of any election on 13th September, 2004 Since, the tenure of the elected team was limited to three years, any one elected in July, 2004 or even September, 2004 would cease to hold the office upon expiry of the said period and a fresh election would become inevitable. To that extent there was no dispute before us. What was, however, argued by Mr. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the appellant that after the expiry of period of three years reckoned from 18th July, 2004 no election had been held. Even defendants 1 to 5 who happened to be the rival faction did not claim to have held any election upon expiry of the period of three years from the date they were allegedly elected in September, 2004 If the matter rested there both the factions namely the one represented by Mr. Chaudhary comprising the outgoing President, Capt. Dev Ratan Arya and Sh. Prakash Arya, Secretary and the other represented by Mr. Raman Kapur, comprising defendants 1 to 5 could be persuaded and were indeed agreeable to holding of an election to the Sabha under the supervision of court-appointed commissioners. Insofar as these two factions were concerned, there was total unanimity that upon expiry of the period of their election reckoned from July, 2004 as claimed by Mr. Kapur''s client, no fresh elections had been held. What, however, gave a new twist and dimension to the entire controversy was a statement by Mr. R.P. Bansal appearing for Mr. Wadhawa respondent No. 6 in this appeal that upon expiry of the period of three years reckoned from July, 2004 a fresh election had been held. This implies that there was a split even in the plaintiff''s faction in which while Capt. Dev Ratan Arya and others continued to stick to their guns and insist that the suit filed by them must be taken to its logical conclusion and fresh elections if any held under the supervision of the Court, the break-away group of Sh. Wadhawan who was, according to Mr. Chaudhary removed from the post of Secretary of the Sabha upon the withdrawal of his nomination insist that a fresh election had indeed been held. The learned single Judge has, when confronted with this dichotomy of versions in the plaintiff''s group, gone by the version given by the break-away group of Sh. Wadhawan. The order passed by the learned Single Judge gives an impression as though the statement made by Mr. Bansal who appeared for Mr. Wadhawan that elections had indeed been held was the admitted position in the case. That, however, is not the true position, for Mr. Chaudhary appearing for Capt. Dev Ratan Arya, President of the Sabha and other office bearers vehemently argued that no elections had been held after the expiry of three years period in July, 2007. Mr. Chaudhary was also agreeable to the elections being held under the supervision of the Commissioner appointed by the Court. Suffice it to say that if the plaintiff''s faction broke up in the course of the pendency of the suit the question as to who represented the Sabha so as to take a definite stand on its behalf had to be answered. That answer could be conveniently given while disposing of CM 8291/2006 filed by the plaintiff''s Sabha for substituting Sh. Prakash Arya in place of Sh. Vimal Wadhawan. It is common ground that the said application was never heard or disposed of. In the absence of a proper hearing and disposal of the application which would provide an answer to the question as to who had the authority to represent the Sabha and make a statement on its behalf, the Court was, in our view, not justified in dismissing the Suit as infructuous by accepting the version of what was a break-away group led by Sh. Wadhawan.
Sh. R.P. Bansal, however, strenuously argued that since the Single Judge had held that fresh elections had been conducted, the Suit had been rightly dismissed as infructuous. According to Mr. Bansal, any one aggrieved of the said fresh election can challenge the same in separate proceedings. We do not find any merit in that contention. We say so for two reasons. Firstly, because the learned Single Judge has not adjudicated upon the issue whether or not any fresh election had been held. He has proceeded on the basis of the statement made before him by Sh. Bansal. That statement, however, cannot be taken as the version of the Sabha unless the Court also recorded a finding that the Sabha is represented only by Sh. Vimal Wadhawan and by nobody else. At any rate, the holding of a fresh election could render the Suit infructuous only if all the three factions agree to hold an election under a common umbrella of court-appointed commissioners and not otherwise. That suggestion, as already mentioned earlier, had been turned down by M/s Bansal and Wadhawan who were not prepared to accept the suggestion except to the extent that Swami Sumedanandji Saraswati could be appointed as an administrator of the Sabha and elections held under his supervision. That suggestion was examined and turned down by this Court in its order dated 28th September, 2008. The result, therefore, is that in the context of the reliefs prayed for in the Suit so long as an adjudication does not take place which resolves the conflict between the three factions or so long as all the three factions do not agree to go for elections under the supervision of someone acceptable to all the three, the controversy would continue to rage. Suffice it to say that the learned Single Judge ought to have disposed of CMs 8291/2006 and 7935/2006 before passing any order in the Suit one way or the other or proceeding with the same. Inasmuch as the Suit was dismissed as infructuous even without adverting to those applications and identifying the persons who would be entitled to make a statement on behalf of the Sabha, the learned Single Judge fell in error which renders the order impugned unsustainable.
In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge who is requested now to hear and dispose of the Suit and the pending applications in accordance with law keeping in view the observation made hereinabove.
No costs.