B S VERMA Vs. GORDHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by defendants I and 2 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") seeking directions as regards the result declared by the Court Commissioner on 30th March, 1994 and for issuing directions to the Court Commissioner to continue administering the school till fresh elections are held.

(2.) On 14th February, 1994 with consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties Justice Jagdish Chandra, a retired Judge of this Court, was appointed as a Commissioner to conduct the elections of Shaheed Udham Singh Society. He was also empowered to prepare the electoral roll and to decide the objections, if any, made by the parties. The Court Commissioner was also appointed as an Administrator to run the two schools managed by the Society. It is not in dispute that elections were conducted by the Commissioner, but no orders were passed thereafter as regards the handing over of the management of the schools to the elected Managing Committee. In the meanwhile. Justice Jagdish Chandra, through letter dated 17th May, 1994 expressed his inability to continue as an Administrator to manage the schools. With the consent of the parties. Justice Charanjit Talwar, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as an Administrator to run the schools till further orders. On 6th October, 1994, in view of the communication received from Justice Charanjit Talwar, Mr.Vimal Kumar, Deputy Registrar of this Court was appointed as Deputy Administrator to look after the work of the administrator in his absence.

(3.) The prayer which has been made in this application by defendants I and 2 is to hold the declaration of result by the Commissioner as null and void and to direct the Commissioner to continue administering the schools till fresh elections are held. Objection to the declaration of result on behalf of defendants I and 2 are that the voter's list was finalised after deciding objections. 42 members were found to be valid members entitled to participate inelections. On 30th March, 1994, the date of elections, 38 members were present. The precise objection is that the election was conducted by show of hands and the result declared suggest that for the post of Secretary, plaintiff No. I was shown to have secured 20 votes as against defendant No. 1, who is shown to have secured 19 votes. Thus the total votes counted are 39, which obviously goes to indicate that the election process was vitiated due to which declaration of result is invalid and nullity. For the 10 posts of the Executive Members, total number of votes ought to haveeen 380, namely, one vote for each post by each voter but the result shows that the total votes are 387, which also suggest that the counting done was not proper. Due to these errors in the election process, it is stated that election is vitiated and a prayer is made that Court Commissioner may be allowed to continue administering the school till fresh elections are held.