Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) PARKASH Chand has filed this appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.) ON the admitted facts, the only contention raised before us by Mr. Sawhney, Learned Counsel for the appellant, was that the co -option having been held illegal, the election of the President and Vice President should also have been declared void. Reliance in support of his contention was placed by the Learned Counsel on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Onkar Singh v. State of Haryana : (1972) 74 PLR 378. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter I find that in the circumstances of this case, there is no merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel and that no case for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been made out. Milkhi Ram and Som Nath respondents were elected President and Vice President. They secured 0 votes each as against their opponents who secured only 7 votes each. Before an election could be set aside, it was incumbent on the petitioner to have proceed that by the reception of any vote which was void, the result of the election has been materially affected. The contention of Mr. Sawhney is that two ladies who were co -opted could not attend the meeting and caste votes in favour of the respondents WHO have been elected President and Vice -President respectively. This contention of the Learned Counsel is unfounded as on this record it has not been proved that the two co -opted ladies had voted for respondents Nos. 6 and 7 who have been declared elected as President and Vice -President respectively. However, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the two co -opted ladies voted for the said respondents, then also after taking out these two votes, respondents Nos. 6 and 7 have secured 8 votes each which are more than those of the defeated candidates. Thus viewed from any angle, the point agitated before us has no merit.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid finding there would have been no difficulty for me to dismiss the appeal, but I find that Onkar Singh's case (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, lends support to his contention as is apparent from the following observations: - The second around of attack is common to the election of Chairman and Vice -Chairman; namely, that a non member participated in the meeting which elected the Chairman and Vice -Chairman On this matter also the legal position is well settled. If a non member is merely present in a meeting of a body but does not participate in the proceedings his presence will cot vitiate the proceedings of that body. But if he participates in the proceedings then the entire proceedings will be vitiated. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of North, J. in Lane v. Norma, (1989) 66 L.T. 83. The learned Judge observed as follows: - ......because another gentleman was present who ought not to have been. He took part in the discussion, and of course it is impossible to say what effect his views may have had upon the minds of the other persons who were present with these observations North, J. held the entire proceedings of that meeting to be vitiated. The decision of North, J. was followed by Megarry, J. in Leary v. National Union of Vehicle Builder's,, 1970 All. E.L.R. 713. No decision taking contrary view has been died. For the reasons recorded above, we uphold the second contention of the Learned Counsel.;