SAMIR KUMAR ROY CHOWDHURY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge dated 5-2-2001 whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and held that there is no invalidity in conduct of the election of Council of Asiatic Society. Learned single Judge has interpreted the Regulation 37 of the Asiatic Society. Learned single Judge has held that stipulation at the bottom of the ballot paper as regards the mode of disenfranchising of the official sponsored candidates cannot be held to be illegal or invalid as this practice has been followed for quite sometime. It is also held that since petitioners have also taken part in the election, therefore, it is not open for them to challenge it now. He has also negatived the contention that the Supervisors have unfairly interfered with in the election process.

(2.) However, for disposal of this Appeal brief facts may be stated. The petitioners are all members of the Asiatic Society and they contested the election for constitution of the Council of Asiatic Society as unofficial candidates. Out of 20 posts there were 15 unofficial candidates and petitioners were amongst them who were defeated in the said election which was held on 15/05/2000 in the 216th Annual General Meeting of the Asiatic Society. These writ petitioners filed the writ petition and prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the Respondents to cancel election of the office-bearers of the Council. A special officer be appointed to take charge of all ballot papers relating to the election of the office-bearers held on 15/05/2000 for the purpose of recounting in accordance with law. The writ petition was contested by the respondents and they denied the allegation. Hence the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) No useful purpose will now be served by examining the validity or invalidity of election which was held on 15/05/2000 because the tenure of this election is going to expire on 14th May, 2001. Therefore, we do not propose to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge so far as the election held on 15/05/2000 is concerned. However, learned counsel for the appellant contended that fresh elections are scheduled to be held shortly and some legal interpretation of Regulation 37 is required to be reconsidered as it is going to affect ensuing election. It was contended that stipulation in the ballot paper for striking the name of official sponsored candidate is not necessary for substitution of new candidate. The stipulation in the ballot paper reads as under :- 'Please strike out any name if not approved of and substituted by name of any eligible member of the society."