HYDER ALL KHAN Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus setting aside the election of Respondents 2,3,5,6, as Members-Stewards and R-8 as Chairman to the Hyderabad Race Club at its 29th Annual General Body Meeting held on 27-9-2000 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and void.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioner that Hyderabad Race Club, Hyderabad (for short "the Club") is incorporated as a Company under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") as per certificate of Incorporation No. 1403 of 1971-72 issued by the first respondent. For the election of four Stewards at 29th Annual General Meeting of the HRC, the 7th respondent-Secretary of the Club issued a notice under Section 257 (1-A) of the Act to the effect that six nominations have been received by enclosing the procedure indicated for the conduct of the said election as per Art. 26 of the Articles of Association of the Club which governs the election of Board of Stewards. Section 26 (d) to (h) of the Articles of Association of the Club clearly indicates that a Member who receives a voting paper shall be entitled to vote for four members by marking a cross mark against the names of members in whose favour he wishes to record his vote and shall deposit the voting paper in a ballot box to be kept at the place of meeting for the said purpose. According to the petitioner, there shall be one ballot box and each member has to vote for four members by marking a cross mark against the names of the candidates. The 7th respondent adopted peculiar and unimaginable procedure while printing the ballot papers of six candidates who are contesting the election in two rows i.e., 1 to 3 in one row and 4 to 6 in another row. Besides the same, the 7th respondent got printed the official seal on the face of the ballot papers covering the names of the contesting candidates, which in fact should be on the reverse side of the ballot paper as per Rule 38 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 framed under Representation of the People Act, 1951 which prohibits the printing of the official seal on the face of the ballot paper but it envisages that the official seal has to be printed on the back of the ballot paper. Therefore, the whole election is not conducted according to the Articles of Association of the Club and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Apart from the same, instead of one ballot box, the 7th respondent kept eight ballot boxes for the convenience of the voters to vote their votes. It is the further case of the petitioner that only 327 voters out of 490 voters turned up and they have to vote for four candidates which comes to 1308 votes but the total votes polled is 1054 that means about 254 votes were wasted which is in violation of the mandatory provision of Art. 26 of the Articles of Association of the Club. The Club authorities without permission from the concerned Government Department provided intoxicating drinks like White and Mickey Scotch Whisky bottled in India and King Fisher Strong Beer to the voters after the meeting and many voters in intoxicated condition participated in the voting which amounts to corrupt practice. It is the further case of the petitioner that the voting took place between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. on 27-9-2000, counting took place on the same day and the Returning Officer declared four Stewards as elected and they gathered and elected 8th respondent as Chairman, therefore, the 8th respondent is not competent to function as Chairman of the Club. Therefore, the election conducted is not fair and the same should be declared as illegal and prayed for setting aside the whole election.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by 7th respondent on behalf of respondents 2,3,5,6, and 8 raising preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable on two grounds, namely, (1) The club which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act has not been made a party to the writ petition; (2) The Club is a Public Limited company and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.