O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) It is distressing to note that an illegally constituted Executive Committee, has, with a view to perpetuate or to linger on its continuance for an indefinite period, deliberately and with wholly dishonest and evil intention, been successful in procrastinating the election process. This observation is fortified from the following facts Executive Committee of Aryan Education Trust, 92-A, Meerapur, D.A.V. College Campus, Allahabad is a registered society. It filed a writ petition (No. 15764 of 1996) through its Secretary, Dr. Rudra Prakash Srivastava to challenge the order dated 27.3.1996, Annexure 14 to the writ petition passed by Smt. Sangeeta Singh, Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Chial under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, whereby the election of the petitioner held on 9.5.1993 was found to be illegal. On 3.5.1996, the following order was passed by this Court : "Issue notice to respondents 2 and 3 returnable at an early date. List this case in the week connencing 15th July, 1996. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on granting of interim relief. According to Bye laws of the Society, the duration of the elected body shall be three years. The present body is said to be elected on 9.5.1993. The same is in dispute and the election held on that date has been cancelled by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 27th March, 1996, which is impugned in the present writ petition. In view of the present position, the elected body of the year 1988 is not disputed. It has been provided in the bye-laws that the Executive Committee and the office bearers of the elected body shall continue till the new election is held. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to hold the election of the Society expeditiously. In view of this until further orders of this Court no action shall be taken by any of the authorities concerned in pursuance of the order dated 27th March, 1996." It was expected that in the light of the above order the petitioner shall hold election of the society within a reasonable time but unfortunately, the petitioner, meaning thereby Dr. Rudra Prakash Srivastava whiled away time and till 23.10.1997, i.e. after the expiry of 15 months, no steps for holding the elections appear to have been taken. The respondents moved an application pointing out the contumacy on the part of the petitioner and consequently on 23.10.1997, following order was passed by this Court : "It appears that the compliance of the order dated 3.5.1996 has not been made by the petitioner. List this case on 1.12.1997 on which dated the petitioner shall show the cause as to why order of this Court dated 3.5.96 has not been complied with and as to why this Court may not appoint a person for holding election and looking after the management due to non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. However, it will be open for the petitioner to make compliance with the order of this Court dated 3.5.1996 before the next date of listing of this case. Copy of this order be given to Counsel for the respondents on payment of usual charges Sri S.K. Garg undertakers to serve a copy of this order on the Counsel for the petitioners within a week. Sd/-I.M. Quddusi." It appears that learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, and learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 2, Sri S.K. Garg came to terms and moved a joint application on which this Court passed the following older on 18.12.1997: "With the consent of the parties and their learned Counsel it has been decided that the election process shall be completed and the meeting of the General Body will be held by 15.1.98 and the elections shall be held and process in this regard shall be completed by 15.2.98. The learned Counsel for the parties Sri S.K. Garg and Sri S.M.A. Kazmi have consented to give their advices and extent their valuable time in supervising election etc. In view of the above consensus the contempt petition is disposed of finally and the notices are discharged, subject to liberty to file a fresh petition by the petitioner in case of breach of the above agreement of the parties. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi." After passing of the above order, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Srivastava, a retired judge of this Court was appointed as Returning Officer in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the petitioner trust convened on 2.1.1998. The decision taken in the said meeting came to be ratified in the meeting of the General Body held on 11.1.1998. S/Sri S.M.A. Kazmi and S.K. Garg were also to act as Assistant Returning Officers and Advisors and S/Sri R.P. Gupta and S.C. Lal came to be appointed as observers. In pursuance of the decisions of these two meetings, election process was commenced by publishing and circulating the election agenda contained in election notice dated 23.1.1998 under the signatures of Dr. Rudra Prakash Srivastava. After the various steps in the chain of process of election had taken place, poll was to take place on 1.3.1998 and on the same day, the result was to be declared.
(2.) After the notification of the election, Sri Laxmi Prasad Srivastava, respondent No. 2 and a host of other trustees filed applications before the Returning Officer (for short 'RO') challenging the membership of 93 persons en bloc who were enrolled after 31.3.1993 as well as continuance of membership of some other persons. The petitioner also filed objection against the applications moved by Dakhini Prasad Srivastava and others, on 12.2.1998, RO passed a hand-written order, taking the following decisions : "1. Since this elections is being held under orders of the High Court made in the pending writ petition No. 15764 of 1996 wherein the annulment of the election of 1993 is impugned, this election is in substance the election of 1993. 2. Consequently the voters enlisted upto 31.3.1993 are eligible voters for this election. All voters enlisted subsequent to 31.3.1993 are not eligible to participate in the election." For certain reasons, delivery of detailed reasoned order was deferred and on 16.2.98, a typed detailed reasoned order was delivered. In a meeting held on 18.2.1998, the RO, with the help of S/Sri S.M.A. Kazmi ARO- cum -Advisor, and R.P. Gupta, Observer, took certain decisions. S/Sri S.K. Garg and SC Lal were not present in the meeting as they were out of station. It was decided that the voters enlisted subsequent to 31.3.93 are not eligible to participate in the election as the election, which is going to be held according to the election schedule is, in substance and virtually, is the election of 1993. Sri Kazmi, it appears did not agree by the above conclusion and decision and appended a note with a view to seek clarification of the order dated 18.12.1997 passed by this Court. It appears that certain persons, who were not party to the writ petition in any capacity. Moved an application on which this Court passed the following order on 24.2.1998 : "Sri S.K: Garg is reported to be out of station and after today, this Court will sit on 3.3.98 hence as an interim measure it is. provided that candidature of the person in participating elections to be held on 1.3.98 may be allowed. The persons in whose respect some dispute has arisen to the effect as to whether they are entitled for voting or not will also be allowed to cast their votes, but votes of such persons will be kept in a separate ballot box. Put up this case on 3.3.98 for further orders. The result of the election will not be declared until further orders of this Court. I.M. Quddusi." The RO issued certain directions to implement the order dated 24.2.1998, quoted above, and on 1.3.1998, as per schedule, the voting had taken place. The votes cast by the 93 persons who were enlisted subsequent to 31.3.1993 and were excluded from participation in the election in pursuance of the orders of the RO dated 12.2.1998 and 16.2.1998, have been kept apart in sealed ballot box. The contesting respondent No. 2 has moved an application praying that the interim order dated 24.2.1998 be vacated and a direction be issued for declaration of the result of the election by excluding 93 votes as well as excluding the contestants who were amongst those 93 voters.
(3.) The petitioner, it appears, is labouring under the misconception of fact that the writ petition No. 15764 of 1996 has been finally disposed of in terms of the order dated 18.12.1997, quoted above, and, therefore, the petitioner moved Civil Misc. Application No. 13392 of 1998 on 19.2.98, supported by an affidavit of Dr. Rudra Pratap Srivastava, for seeking guidance and directions of this Court with regard to right of participation in the election proceeding by 93 trustees who have been inducted and duly approved by the Executive Committee in 1994. A counter affidavit, as well as a rejoinder affidavit have also been filed.;