EAST BENGAL CLUB Vs. PALTU MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the defendant No.1 in a suit for injunction and other reliefs and is directed against the order dated December 1, 2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship disposed of four different applications filed in the proceedings by setting aside the scheduled election of the appellant/club of the year 2010-11, which was fixed on December 5, 2010, with further direction that the process of election should be conducted under the supervision of a special officer (Gen. Shankar Roychowdhury, (Retired)). His Lordship further directed that the election should be conducted on the basis of photo electoral roll and voters' list of the club prepared on September 20, 2010 and that no fresh nomination would be sought and the candidates already in the fray would contest for the respective posts. The special officer was given liberty to fix the date, time and venue of election. His Lordship made it clear that if the special officer thought it fit, the election might be held at St. Paul's School, Amherst Street, and that the special officer should be responsible for appointing polling agents for the election in consultation with all concerned; however, the special officer's decision in this regard would be final. The special officer was further directed to put such measures as he deemed fit for the scrutiny of the postal ballots and the custody of undelivered postal ballots. The special officer was also directed to set the norms for polling agents to verify the identity of the members intending to cast their votes in the election and was directed to be personally present during the election to decide and resolve the disputes relating thereto on the spot. His Lordship further directed that the 3 entire process including the declaration of the result should be preferably completed by February 15, 2011.

(2.) Being dissatisfied, the defendant No.1, the club, has come up with the present appeal while the plaintiff has filed cross-objection against some of the observations of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the supporting defendants have, however, opposed the aforesaid contentions of the learned advocates for the appellant and they have contended that the learned Single Judge on consideration of the entire materials on record having exercised His Lordship's discretion in favour of appointing a special officer for the purpose of holding a fair election, this Court, as an Appellate Court, should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. According to those learned counsel, this is not a case of an illegal exercise of discretion nor is it a case where the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge can be branded as a perverse one justifying interference at the instance of the Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the respondents, thus, pray for dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge, in the facts of the present case, was justified 5 in passing the order impugned in this appeal by appointing a special officer for the purpose of holding the next election of the club.