- (1.) The above three applications being C.P.A.N. No. 492 of 2007, CAN No. 6178 of 2008 and CAN No. 8901 of 2008 were filed by the applicant being the respondent No. 1 in the above appeal which stood disposed of long before. THE matter was ultimately resolved by the Apex Court vide order dated July 15, 2005. THE Apex Court therein observed as follows: "THE only grievance urged on behalf of the petitioners is that no directions have been issued by the High Court for audit of the account of the club. Without in any manner interfering with the directions given by the High Court for conducting the elections and the time schedule within which the same should be held, we are of the view that the High Court shall issue appropriate directions for the audit of the accounts of the club. We are, however, no linking the audit with the conduct of the elections and the audit would be conducted expeditiously under the overall supervision of the High Court."
(2.) In ordinary course, in a disposed of appeal, we have hardly any power to deal with any application in absence of a lis pending before us. However, these three applications came to be filed as an offshoot on the allegation that the order of the Apex Court was performed in breach by some of the parties. By the observation quoted , the Apex Court was of the view that the High Court should issue appropriate direction for audit of the accounts. In terms of such direction the Division Bench in CAN No. 6560 of 2005 passed an order dated August 18, 2006. M/s. Lovelock & Lewes Chartered Accountant was entrusted the job of audit. The relevant part of the said order quoted below: "The senior partner of M/s. Lovelock & Lewes & Company is personally present in Court and is being represented by the Senior Counsel Mr. Hirak Mitra. It is needless to mention that the club accounts have to be audited as per the direction of the Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that since the year 1980 when the present Executive Committee came into power, club accounts have not yet been audited. It further appears in course of hearing that the club accounts have also not been audited since after 1983. We, therefore, pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court direct that the club accounts shall be audited by M/s. Lovelock & Lewes & Company for all those years for which there has been no audit at all. Since, we are not very sure about the possible difficulties that may be faced by the auditor in auditing club accounts for all those years, we requested the Senior partner of M/s. Lovelock & Lewes & Company to be present in Court, so that upon hearing him necessary direction could be made upon the respective parties for facilitating the auditing of the club accounts for all these years. Since, it is not in dispute that the club accounts have not yet been audited since 1990 and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants who are the existing President and the General Secretary of the club and in particular the General Secretary of the club is a Chartered Accountant by profession and further it has been submitted on his behalf in course of hearing that the internal accounting has already been completed for all these years since 1990, we direct the General Secretary of the club, namely, Mr. Anjan Mitra to produce before the auditor all Books of Accounts and all other necessary documents and papers in support of such internal accounting of the club accounts for all these years 1990 to the competent person that may be nominated by the Auditor namely M/s. Lovelock & Lewes & Company. For the above purpose, the General Secretary of the club will give prior intimation in writing to Lovelock & Lewes & Company by fixing a date for the presence of the nominated person of the Auditor in the club office. It is made clear that such part of the function shall in any event be completed within a period of four weeks from date. It is also made clear that such club accounts since the year 1990 shall be produced by arranging documents since 1990 year wise and by making proper index for each year. It is needless to mention that unless club accounts since the year 1982- 83 are audited auditing of the Club's Accounts since 1990 cannot be properly and effectively made. We, therefore, direct the General Secretary of the club to similarly produce the club accounts for all those years since 1982-83 till before 1990 within the same period by arranging the same year wise and by making index for the same in respect of each year separately. M/s. Lovelock & Lewes Company upon scrutiny of all such papers and accounts of the club, will be at liverty to seek further orders and directions, if necessary, in this regard." Analysis of the said order dated August 18, 2005 reveals that the Division Bench noted the fact that the club accounts had not been audited since 1983. 'The Division Bench also noted that there might be unforeseen difficulties in auditing the accounts. The Division Bench in a later part of the order observed that the audit was not done since 1990, although the club was being run by the General Secretary who happened to be a Chartered Accountant.
(3.) After observing as above, the Division Bench gave the following directions: i) Club accounts since 1990 shall be produced by arranging documents since 1990 year wise and by making proper index for each year. ii) Club accounts for the years since 1982-83 till before 1990 to be produced. iii) Lovelock & Lewes upon scrutiny of all such papers would be at liberty to seek further orders and/or directions, if necessary. According to the club authority, as we find from the affidavit of Shri Anjan Kumar Mitra the General Secretary, the auditing process was on as on October 3, 2008 when he filed the affidavit. All the accounts for the year 2005-06 onwards had already been audited and had been passed by the members in the respective Annual General Meetings. With regard to the backlog Mr. Mitra contended in his affidavit that he complied with the direction of the High Court and sent all documents by arranging those year wise through a forwarding letter dated September 30, 2005. He also requested M/s. Lovelock & Lewes to depute and/or nominate representative for inspection of the records. According to him, these applications were nothing but an attempt to forestall the election process.;