JAMALPUR ARYA SAMAJ Vs. D RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. In this case the petitioner Sri Sukhdeo Choudhary who is Vice-President of the Jamalpur Arya Samaj has moved this Court for issue of a writ in the nature of a 'QUO warranto' against the members of the opposite party calling upon them, to show cause under what authority they held their offices in the Bihar Rajya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. The petitioner has also prayed that a writ should be issued cancelling the election of the Working Committee of the Bihar Rajya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha held on 9-8-1953 and also cancelling the order of supersession of the Jamalpur Arya Samaj by the President of the Bihar Rajya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on 28-7-1903 the President of the State Sabha made an order that the Jamalpur should be superseded for sis months. It appears that the annual convention and the election of office bearers and members of the Working Committee was fixed for 9-8-1953. THE grievance of the petitioner is that the Jamalpur Arya Samaj could not send its representation, at the annual convention or take part in the voting of the election for the members of the Working Committee. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner in the first place that the. order of supersession was passed by the President without giving notice to the Jamalpur branch. It. was contended in the second place that no approval of the Working Committee was previously granted to the President for making the order of supersession. It is said that on this ground also the order of supersession dated 28-7-1953 is an. order without jurisdiction.

(3.) THERE are authorities in support of the view that a writ of certiorari does not lie to domestic tribunals. In -- 'Lee v. The Showmen's Guild of Great Britain', (1952) 2 QB 329 (A), Lord Justice Denning pointed out the distinction with respect to the power of a Court to intervene in the case of a domestic tribunal and in the case of a statutory tribunal. In the case of statutory tribunals, the injured party has a remedy by certiorarj, and also a remedy by declaration and injunction. The remedy by certiorari does not lie to domestic tribunals. At p. 343 Lord Justice Denning states : "Those cases, it is true, concerned statutory tribunals, but I see no reason why the powers of the court to intervene should be any less in the case of domestic tribunals. In each case it is a question of interpretation, in the one of a statute, in the other of the rules, to see whether the tribunal has observed the law. In the case of statutory tribunals, the injured party has a remedy by certiorari, and also a remedy by declaration and injunction. The remedy by certiorari does not lie to domestic tribunals, but the remedy by declaration and injunction does lie, and it can be as effective as, if not more effective than, certiorari. It is, indeed, more effective, because it is not subject to the limitation that the error must appear on the face of the record".