RAVI DUTT JUGLAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH no reason, far less sufficient reason has been furnished in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, still then we allow the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal only for the reason that unless we interfere in the matter, it appears that the appellant may suffer. Admit. With consent of the parties, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THERE is a contention that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. However, even without going into that question, we are not in a position to assist the appellant. According to the appellant, he wanted to become a life member. According to him, he has not been made life member. According to him, in order to become a life member, he is required to give ` 5,100/- (`five thousand one hundred) or an amount more than that or a property to the Institute. THERE is nothing on record as to how much money the appellant gave to the Institute, if in fact, he has given any. The fact remains that he was not made a member of the Institute and, accordingly, was not competent to question election of the Institute, which he purported to do and which was put forward by him in the writ petition.