Pondicherry Basketball Association v. Union of India & Ors.

TELANGANA BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MR.

NORMAN SWAROOP ISAAC H NO. 10-3-67, TEACHERS COLONY, EAST MARREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH 500026......PETITIONER NO. 14 MR.

NORMAN SWAROOP ISAAC H NO. 10-3-67, TEACHERS COLONY, EAST MARREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD, HYDERABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH 500026......PETITIONER NO. 15 MADHYA PRADESH BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION MR.

KULVINDER SINGH GILL 501A, GULMARG VELLY GULMOHAR, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH, 452018......PETITIONER NO.16 MR.

KULVINDER SINGH GILL 501A, GULMARG VELLY GULMOHAR, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH, 452018......PETITIONER NO.17

MEGHALAYA BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MR.

DONALD STEVEN WAHLANG LUMBHALANG, HILLY COTTAGE, - 8 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 NONGTHYMMAI LAWJYNRIEW, EAST KHASI HILLS, NONGTHYMMAI, MEGHALAYA 793014......PETITIONER NO.18

DONALD STEVEN WAHLANG LUMBHALANG, HILLY COTTAGE, NONGTHYMMAI LAWJYNRIEW, EAST KHASI HILLS, NONGTHYMMAI, MEGHALAYA 793014......PETITIONER NO.19 MR.

RALIN DE SOUZA H NO. 559, UBBO-DANDO, BEHIND DEMPO HOUSE, TISWADI, SANTA CRUZ, GOA 403005......PETITIONER NO.20

PRADIP KUMAR AUDDY 58, DHIREN DHAR SARANI, HIND CINIMA, BOWBAZAR, KOKATA, WEST BENGAL 700012......PETITIONER NO.21 (Through: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocates along with Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr.

AND BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA, DR.

K. GOVINDARAJ, MLC, NEW DELHI 110001.... RESPONDENT NO. 1 UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF YOUTH AND SPORTS AFFAIRS ROOM NO. 401, C-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI 110001..... RESPONDENT NO. 2 MR. MALLESHAPPA, RETURNING OFFICER, BASKETBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA ELECTIONS, - 9 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 NEW DELHI 110001.... RESPONDENT NO. 3 (Through: Mr.Jayant Mehta, Sr.Advocate along with Mr. Darpan Kumar and Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw and Ms.Ayushi Kumar, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Nizam Pasha, Advocate for R-3. Dr.Menaka Guruswamy, Sr.Advocate along with Ms.Amrita Sharma, Mr.Utkarsh Pratap, Ms.Mukta Halbe and Mr.Lavkesh Bhambani, Advocates for R-4, 6 - 10 and 13. Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Ayush Puri and Mr.Umang Tyagi, Advocates for R-6. Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocate for R-5. Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG and Mr. Anil Soni, CGSC with Mr. Sahaj, G.P. along with Mr. Devvrat Yadav and Mr. Prateek Rana, Advocates for UOI.) % Pronounced on: 02.05.2023 JUDGMENT

1. This batch of three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relates to the election of the office bearers and members of the Executive Committee of Basketball Federation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‗BFI‘) for the term 2023-2027. Since common issues are involved, therefore, the same are being decided by this common order.

2. The first petition being W.P.(C)1731/2023 was filed by the Pondicherry Basketball Association, seeking directions against respondent No.1 i.e. Union of India (in short 'UOI'), inter alia, to appoint any retired judge of this court or of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to supervise and monitor the conduct of election of respondent - 10 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 No.2-BFI in a fair, impartial and transparent manner which was scheduled to be conducted on 18.02.2023.

3. It is stated in the petition, that respondent No.2-BFI was formed in the year 1950 and was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act 1860, having its registered office at National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‗NCTD‘). The provisions of the National Sports Development Code of India, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‗Sports Code‘) issued by UOI are applicable to all the National Sports Federation (hereinafter referred to as ‗NSF‘) including respondent No.2-BFI. The NSFs are bound to follow the Sports Code and, the Model Election Guidelines (‗MEG‘) which are the part of the Sports Code.

4. It is stated that the incumbent President of respondent No.2-BFI who is from the State of Karnataka vide his letter dated 30.01.2023, informed that one Mr. Malleshappa, former District Judge, has been appointed as the Returning Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‗RO‘), impleaded as respondent No. 3 herein. It is stated that there was no address available of the RO. It is alleged that such an appointment has been made with an object to ensure that the entire election remains under the control of the incumbent President.

5. On 04.02.2023, respondent No.2-BFI released the calendar of events for the election signed by respondent No.3-RO. It is alleged that the incumbent President of respondent No.2-BFI is a politically influential person and is currently serving as the Deputy Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Council and is highly capable of conducting the elections in his favour and influencing the result thereto. Therefore, the RO has been appointed from the State of Karnataka itself and the venue for conducting the election has also - 11 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 been deliberately chosen as Karnataka, despite the fact that the Head Office of respondent No.2-BFI is situated in New Delhi. Various other averments have been made to indicate the importance of respondent No.2-BFI and the role of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.

6. For the sake of clarity, prayer clauses in W.P.(C)1731/2023- ‗Pondicherry Basketball Association vs. Union of India and Ors.‟ are reproduced as under:- "That in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to pass a Writ Order or direction in the nature of mandamus and thereby directing, a) Respondent No.1 to appoint any retired Judge from this Hon‟ble Court or Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India to supervise and monitor the conduct of the Election of Basketball Federation of India (BFI) in a fair, impartial and transparent manner, which is scheduled to be held on 18.02.2023; OR b) Appointment of any retired Judge from this Hon‟ble Court or Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India by this Hon‟ble Court to conduct the Election of Basketball Federation of India in a fair, impartial and transparent manner, which is scheduled to be held on 18.02.2023; c) Direct the observer/ Returning officer appointed by this Hon‟ble Court to approve and announce the results of the Election under his own signatures; d) Respondent No.1 to make facilities to record each and every proceedings of the Election of Respondent No.2, which is scheduled on 18.02.2023 to ensure free and fair elections; e) Pass any other or such further orders as may be deemed fit and expedient in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case." - 12 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993

7. On 10.02.2023, this matter was taken up for hearing and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-BFI was directed to take instructions and assist this court on the appointment of an independent observer. The matter was, thereafter, taken up from time to time and in the meantime, two more writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C)1915/2023 and W.P.(C)1982/2023 came to be filed. On 16.02.2023, in the present writ petition it was directed that the same be listed on 01.03.2023 along with the other two writ petitions and in the meantime, the parties were granted liberty to file their response/pleadings. The matter was, thereafter, taken up for hearing along with the other writ petitions. Respondent No.2-BFI through its President, namely Dr. K. Govindraj filed a counter-affidavit denying all the allegations. It is stated that the instant petition has been rendered infructuous, as the election stood concluded on 13.02.2023. On merits also, in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, the following averments have been made: It is submitted that the following emanates from the above factual matrix the following: a) The Respondent No. 2 has strictly followed the Sports Code, 2011 and the Model Election Guidelines in setting forth the agenda for the Annual General Council meeting on 18.02.2023. The Petitioner has not been able to set out anything which demonstrates violation of the Model Election Guidelines. b) It is rather curious that the Petitioner was duly informed about the appointment of Respondent No. 3/Returning Officer by the president which was done in adherence of Clause 5 of the Model Election Guidelines on 30.01.2023. At that juncture, the Petitioner association did not raise any issue about the same and they accepted it without any demur. On the contrary, the Petitioner actively participated in the process. Hence after participating in the process, accepting the appointment of the Returning Officer/Respondent No.3 without any demur, now the Petitioner is estopped form finding fault with the appointment of the Respondent No. 3 - 13 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 c) It is further submitted that the last elections were also conducted in Bengaluru and some previous elections were conducted at different places. There is no provision, clause, or rule whatsoever either in the Sports Code, 2011 or the Model Election Guidelines, which sets out the venue for elections. Thus by conducting the elections in Bengaluru, the Model Election Guidelines have not been violated in any manner neither did the Petitioner or any other person/association raise any objection while the same was informed to everyone on 28.01.2023.

8. The second petition being W.P.(C)1915/2023 titled as „Kulvinder Singh Gill & Ors. Vs. Basketball Federation of India & Ors.‘ is filed by 15 petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 13 alleged their illegal ousting from contesting the elections and petitioner Nos. 14 and 15 were supporting the candidature of the other petitioners. All the petitioners are essentially aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2023, whereby the nominations of the contesting petitioners were rejected by respondent No.3-RO. Various pleadings have been submitted to argue that en-bloc rejection of the nomination forms of the petitioners is illegal and improper and the same has resulted in the exclusion of the contesting candidates from the election process. The reason for rejection is then argued to be immaterial. Learned counsel submits that the forms submitted by the petitioners contained all the essential requirements and therefore, on a hyper-technical ground, the nomination forms should not have been rejected. The prayer clauses in W.P.(C)1915/2023 are reproduced as under:- "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. Pass a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ/Order/Direction of like nature setting aside the Impugned Letter dated 10.02.2023 whereby the Petitioners nomination have been rejected by Returning Officer- Respondent No.3 and direct the Returning Officer to accept - 14 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 the said nomination forms of the Petitioners by rectifying the list of validly nominated candidates in Form 4/Form 6 by including the names of the Petitioners; ii. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order/Direction of like nature directing the Respondent No. 3 to allow the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 13 to contest the elections for the respective posts of Respondent No.1 on 18.02.2023; iii. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Respondent No.1 to appoint any retired Judge from this Hon‟ble Court or Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India to supervise and monitor the conduct of the Election of the Respondent No. 1, the Basketball Federation of India (BFI) in a fair, impartial and transparent manner, which is scheduled to be held on 18.02.2023; iv. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order/Direction of like nature directing the appointment of any retired Judge from this Hon‟ble Court or Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India by this Hon‟ble Court to conduct the Election of Basketball Federation of India in a fair, impartial and transparent manner, which is scheduled to be held on 18.02.2023; v. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order/Direction of like nature directing the observer appointed by this Hon‟ble Court to approve and announce the results of the Election under his own signatures; vi. Pass a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ/Order/Direction of like nature directing the deletion of the name of Mr. Ajeet Singh Rathore from the List of Validly Elected Nominations for the posts of Vice- President, Treasurer and Secretary-General being in violation of Rule 6(3) of the Model Elections Guidelines; vii. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Respondent No. 3 to open the ballot boxes in the presence of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 13 and to conduct the election and to declare the results immediately after the counting of votes while video recording the entire election process on 18.02.2023; - 15 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 viii. Pass any such further Order(s) that this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

9. The third petition being W.P.(C)1982/2023 titled as „Aadhav Arjuna & Ors. Vs. Basketball Federation of India & Ors.‟ is filed by 21 petitioners challenging the declaration of result by respondent No.3-RO on 13.02.2023 alleging the same being without holding any election. It is averred in this petition that between 06.02.2023 to 07.02.2023, nomination forms by various petitioners were submitted to respondent No.3-RO. On 09.02.2023, respondent No.3-RO published the list of nominations received in Form No. 3 and on 10.02.2023, the RO rejected the nomination forms of some of the petitioners and other candidates.

10. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.3-RO on 13.02.2023, declared that the names of the contesting candidates finding place in Form No.6 are in the same number commensurate to the posts, therefore, they all are deemed to be declared as duly elected unopposed to the post mentioned in Form No. 6. It has been held that in terms of Clause 9(1) of the Sports Code, there was no necessity to conduct a poll. The petitioners in this petition, therefore, challenged the letter dated 13.02.2023, setting aside the declaration in Form No.6 and alternatively, various other prayers have been made therein. The prayers made in W.P.(C) 1982/2023 are reproduced as under:- " In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: i. Pass a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ/Order/Direction of like nature setting aside the Form 6 along with its Impugned Letter dated 13.02.2023 whereby the Respondent No.3 in violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and in violation of Rule 9 - 16 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 (1) of Model Election Guidelines issued by Respondent No.2, in a hasty manner has declared the results of election of office bearers of Respondent No.1 thereby deliberately depriving the petitioners of their fundamental and democratic right of participation and voting in the said election that has been illegally concluded; ii. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Respondent No. 1 to hold free and fair elections of the Office Bearers of Respondent No.1 through an Observer who is over and above the designation of the returning officer as may be appointed to monitor the proceedings of the returning officer and to conduct and announce the results of the election on the scheduled date., i.e., on 18.02.2023 or on any other date as may be fixed by this Honourable Court after directing the Respondent No. 3 to approve the names of the contestants including the petitioners to be notified in Form 4 to enable them to stand for the elections in a free and fair democratic manner; OR iii. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order/Direction of like nature directing the appointment of a retired Hon‟ble Judge of this Hon‟ble Court or retired Judge of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India to freshly conduct and complete the election process of the Respondent No.1 within 30 days from the date of such direction in the presence of observer[s] appointed by this Honourable Court in a fair and transparent manner as per the Model election Guidelines issued by Respondent No. 2 at New Delhi being the registered office of Respondent No.1; iv. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Respondent No. 3 or the retired Judge of this Hon‟ble Court or retired Judge of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India as may be appointed to conduct the elections as the case may be to open the ballot boxes in the presence of the contestants including the Petitioners and to declare the results immediately after the counting of votes while video recording the entire election process; - 17 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 v. Pass a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ/Order/Direction of like nature directing the illegally declared candidates in Form 6 dated 13.02.2023 of the Respondent No. 1 not to operate their official responsibilities until the conduct and completion of election as aforesaid; vi. Pass any such further Order(s) that this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. "

11. All the three petitions were listed on 15.02.2023 and the arguments by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties were heard at length on the question of interim relief. The matters were, thereafter, posted for orders on the question of interim relief on 16.02.2023. On 16.02.2023, a common interim order was passed in W.P.(C)1915/2023 and W.P.(C)1982/2023. This court while recording prima facie finding, in favour of the petitioner stayed the operation of impugned letter dated 10.02.2023 in W.P.(C)1915/2023 and the impugned letter dated 13.02.2023 in W.P.(C)1982/2023 and directed that the existing office bearers of respondent No.2-BFI, whose term was expiring on 18.02.2023, are restrained from taking any policy decision after 18.02.2023 except with the leave of this court. The parties were directed to complete their pleadings and elected candidates were also directed to be impleaded as parties.

12. Respondent No.2-BFI preferred L.P.A No. 130/2023 and L.P.A No. 131/2023 before the Division Bench of this court against the interim order dated 16.02.2023 passed by this court. On 21.02.2023, respondent No.2-BFI sought liberty to withdraw the LPAs with further liberty to request this court to decide the matters on an early date. The Hon'ble Division Bench while granting the liberty to BFI, requested this court to decide the writ petitions at an early date. The LPAs were, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. - 18 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993

13. The matters thereafter, were taken up for hearing on 01.03.2023, when the parties were directed to file their written submissions, including the objections with respect to the maintainability of the writ petitions. On 07.03.2023, the arguments on behalf of the petitioners were heard and the matter was fixed for hearing on 17.03.2023 for arguments on behalf of the respondents. Thereafter, the parties were heard at length on various dates.

14. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners state that on 28.01.2023, respondent No.2-BFI wrote to all its member states, informing them that the Annual General Council Meeting, including the election of office bearers of respondent No.2-BFI, will be held on 18.02.2023 at the Chancery Pavilion Hotel, No. 135, Residency Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka as per the attached agenda therein. On the same day, respondent No. 2-BFI also issued a letter to all affiliated units i.e. all its member states, requesting them to intimate to respondent No.2- BFI, the names of two representatives who are duly elected members of the Executive Committee of each member state for forming the electoral roll. On 04.02.2023, respondent No.2-BFI issued a letter publishing the electoral roll for the elections to be conducted on 18.02.2023. In the electoral roll, there are 23 State Basketball Associations with 46 votes. Kerala Basketball Association was excluded from participating in the elections, however, this court in writ petition filed by Kerala Basketball Association vide order dated 10.02.2023, allowed it to participate in the election subject to the outcome of the writ petition, therefore, including 2 votes of Kerala Basketball Association, the total number of votes came to be 48.

15. As per the election schedule, between 06.02.2023 and 07.02.2023, various candidates including some of the petitioners filed - 19 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 their nomination forms for their respective posts. It is stated that on 07.02.2023, a written complaint was made by Mr. Aadhav Arjuna (one of the petitioners) as regards the presence of office bearers of BFI in the same room as the respondent No.3-RO, who was discharging his electoral responsibilities as the RO. On 09.02.2023, respondent No.3- RO published the list of nomination received in Form No. 3. For the post of President, two nominations were submitted by Shri K. Govindraj (Present President) and Shri Aadhav Arjuna. Nine nomination forms were received for the post of Vice-President, one nomination form was received for the post of Lady Vice-President, two nomination forms were received for the post of Secretary General, three nomination forms were received for the post of Treasurer, seven nomination forms were received for the post of Joint Secretary and five nomination forms were received for the post of Executive Member.

16. It is alleged that all nomination forms of groups opposite to, or other than, the present incumbent president have been deliberately rejected to ensure that the present incumbent president along with his supported candidates win the election. It is also submitted that the respondent No.3-RO has violated Rule 6(2) of the MEG and the Government of India in its counter-affidavit, dated 24.02.2023, has stated that the ground for the rejection of nominations by the RO is unacceptable as the nomination forms do not lack any of the relevant information which was required to have been submitted in Form No. 2 relied upon by the RO. It is stated that the Government of India in its counter-affidavit has also explained that there was no substantial departure. It is stated that fourteen candidates from the petitioners side filed their nomination forms supported by fourteen proposers and fourteen seconders, therefore, all essential conditions for standing in - 20 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 the elections under Clause 6(2) of the MEG are fulfilled. Once the essential requirement was substantially complied with, respondent NO. 3-RO was barred from rejecting the nomination form merely on the ground that the same was not in the format prescribed by the Government of India. According to the learned senior counsel there is no difference between the format prescribed and the form filed by the contesting candidates. They also stated that while receiving the nomination form, the RO could have pointed out, if at all that was the case, that there was technical non-compliance, and could have further directed or requested that the same be cured. The RO never gave any chance to the contesting candidates to correct the alleged wrong forms. It is also submitted that even some of the returned candidates, namely, Shri Ajay K. Sud, Shri Munish Sharma and Shri Surya Singh in their respective affidavits, filed in these proceedings, admitted that the elections were not fairly held and the same should be held with a full contest. According to them, the facts of the case clearly show that the rejection based on non-existent grounds is illegal and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. It is argued that this court in its interim order, elaborately considered the facts and legal position involved therein and unless the same is shown to be otherwise, the opinion expressed in the interim order, deserves confirmation.

17. Learned senior counsel places reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shambhu Prasad Sharma v. Charandas Mahant and Others[1], Ramesh Rout v. Rabindra Nath Rout[2] and Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh[3], Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal (Kotah) & Anr.4, M.V. Venkataramana Bhat v.

AIR 1955 SC 425 - 21 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 Returning Officer & Tahsildar & Ors.5, Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.6, Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh[7] and Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India & Anr.8. The decisions of High Court of Bombay in the cases of Pandurang Hindurao Patil v. State of Maharashtra[9], Chandrakant Mahadev Patole & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.10 and Shamrao R. Khangal v. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik & Ors.11 have also been relied upon. They also submit that an objection with respect to maintainability is not sustainable in view of various decisions such as Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.12, ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guaranteed Corporation of India Ltd.13, All India Football Federation v. Rahul Mehra & Ors.14, Rahul Mehra v. Union of India & Ors.15, BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar and Others16, BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar17 and the decision of this court in the case of Manika Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India18.

18. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the RO argues that the election in the instant case, stands concluded on 13.02.2023 and, therefore, in a concluded election, an appropriate remedy for any aggrieved parties is to take recourse to the remedy prescribed under the statute or to file a civil suit but in no case, a writ petition would be maintainable. He submits that there is no jurisdiction

- 22 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 to entertain a dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution of India emanating from a election dispute.

19. According to him, the RO is bound by the scheme of the MEG which is statutory in nature and he is not left with any discretion to dilute any of the conditions mandated under the MEG. According to him, there is no scope for any discretion to adjudge nomination form on the touchstone of substantial compliance. Such discretion would lead to various malpractices which cannot be anticipated at this stage. He, therefore, states that the nomination of a candidate, wanting to be elected as an officer bearer of the Managing Committee, once is prescribed to be submitted in a particular manner i.e. Form 2, the same has to be submitted in Form 2 alone and not otherwise. According to him, in the instant case, the nomination forms submitted by the petitioners are not in Form 2 and, therefore, the rejection of nomination forms cannot be called in question in a writ petition.

20. To substantiate his submissions, he has placed reliance on various provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short ‗the RP Act‘). According to him, whether a poll is conducted or not is irrelevant for any election. He has submitted that Section 53 of the RP Act recognises the aforesaid position and it is stated that if the number of contesting candidates is more than the number of seats to be filled, a poll shall be conducted and if the number of such candidates is equal to the number of seats that are to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats. He, therefore, states that as per Section 67A of the RP Act, the date on which a candidate is declared by the Returning Officer under the provisions of Section 53 or Section 66 to be elected to the House of Parliament or the Legislature of a State shall be the date of election of that candidate. It is submitted that the provision of the RP - 23 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 Act mirrors the scheme of MEG under the Sports Code. He cites various clauses of MEG to indicate that the declaration of result under Clause 12 is only for the candidates when the poll takes place.

21. While reverting back to the submissions made by the petitioners with respect to declaration of Form 15 in case of unopposed election for the term 2015 to 2019, learned senior counsel has stated that the same would not operate as an estoppel against the rules and the understanding of the then RO would not be the determining factor in deciding upon the correct interpretation of the MEG. While referring to his written submissions, he summarises his arguments under the following heads: (a) Un-substantiated and baseless aspersions have been made against the Returning Officer which are disputed questions of fact which need to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. (b) Election process stands completed and under Rule 9(1) of the MEG, the returned candidates are deemed to be duly elected.

(c) Once the election process stands concluded, the only permissible challenge is by way of a election petition.

(d) The writ courts‘ opinion on the supposed widespread nature of the irregularities or the merits of the grounds for rejection of nomination forms would not render a concluded election a case of no election and clothe the writ court with the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the aforesaid aspect. (e) Elections of the BSI are governed by MEG prescribed under the Sports Code which are mandatory. (f) The role of the RO has been in full compliance with the relevant statute, rules/by-laws and the election has been conducted in a free, fair and completely unbiased manner. - 24 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 (g) The defects of the nomination forms are of a substantial character.

22. Mr. Sibal, the learned senior counsel also distinguished all authorities cited by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and according to him, in none of the cases cited by the petitioners, a completed election was the subject matter in the writ jurisdiction and more importantly in none of the cases, the High Courts or the Supreme Court has set aside the election once the same is concluded.

23. To substantiate his submissions, he has placed reliance on various decisions such as Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee19, Umesh Shivappa Ambi v. Angadi Shekara Basappa20, Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath21, N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency22, Arghya Kumar Nath v. Prof. D.S. Rawat & Ors.23, Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana24, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. v. Union of India25, BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar26, Mahipal Singh v. Union of India & Ors.27, Rahul Mehra v. Union of India and Others, Rattan Anmol Singh v. Ch. Atma Ram29, Prahladdas Khandelwal v. Narendra Kumar Salave30, The Yachting Association of India v. Boardsailing Association of India31, Chandrabhan s/o Dasrath Bagade v. Nitin s/o Jayramji Gadkari32, Samadhan Swimming Club

Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 2018 SCCOnLine Del 10284 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2438 (1955) 1 SCR 481

- 25 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 v. Union of India33, Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam34, Brijendralal Gupta and Anr. v. Jwalaprasad and Ors.35, Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh 36, Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal37, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia v. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu38, Arun Kumar Bose v. Mohd. Furkan Ansari 39, W.B. State Election Commission v. Communist Party of India (Marxist)40, Shambhu Prasad Sharma v. Charandas Mahant41, Ramesh Rout v. Rabindra Nath Rout 42, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd.43 and C. Govindasamy v. The Election Commissioner, Chennai44.

24. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General (‗ASG‘) who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 i.e. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Union of India stated that BFI is a national level sports body having been recognized as a National Sports Federation (‗NSF‘) for the promotion and development of the sport of Basketball in the country. He stated that the Government has issued the Sports Code containing several instructions/ guidelines for grant of Government recognition to NSFs. He also stated that the recognition of NSFs by the concerned Ministry is regulated in terms of the provisions of the Sports Code which are binding on every national sports body recognized thereunder. He also stated that the BFI is required to follow proper, democratic and healthy management practices which provide for greater accountability and transparency at all levels to ensure that it continues to enjoy the recognition and reap the benefit including financial assistance etc. According to him, the 2018 SCCOnLine Del 10782

1960 SCR (3) 650 1954 SCR 892

W.A. No. 1506-1508/2010 - 26 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 objective of the election guidelines is that the election of NSFs must be held in a free, fair, transparent, and equitable manner ensuring that the democratic system in the functioning of NSF is followed in true spirit.

25. While referring to his counter affidavit, he stated that the BFI did not intimate the Ministry about its election well in advance and did not make any request to the Ministry for appointment of a government observer for election. According to him, the Ministry received a letter dated 08.02.2023 from the Secretary General of BFI for the scheduled meeting dated 18.02.2023. He, therefore, took a stand that the letter was sent only after the filing of the writ petition. He criticized the en bloc rejection of the nomination on technical grounds, resulting in a one sided contest, casting doubt on the entire election process. For the sake of clarity, the stand taken by respondent No.2 in paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 read as under:-

30. Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of respondent No.5, while taking this court through the order of rejection of the nomination form has stated that the RO himself has analyzed the Handbook for Returning Officers published by the Election Commission of India. The submission then made is that in the absence of any guidelines with respect to the process of election in the Sports Code or under the Constitution of BFI, he is bound to follow the laws applicable to the elections conducted by the Election Commission of India. Therefore, the RO has erred in rejecting the nomination form on a hyper-technical ground as the provisions of the RP Act do not contemplate such a consequence. - 30 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993

31. According to him, there is no substantial defect in the nomination form. He has also stated that only two nomination forms are acceptable on behalf of any candidate as per Clause 6.[3] of the Sports Code, whereas, in the case of Ajeet Singh Rathore, three nomination forms were accepted, and they were found to be valid by the RO. He has also stated that the manner in which the entire election has been conducted, cannot be said to be fair and transparent. He has therefore contended that 27 eligible voters, including some of the contesting candidates are in favour of free and fair election which clearly shows that the majority is against the manner in which the present unfair election has been conducted. He has presented the names of 27 eligible voters out of the 48 eligible voters to indicate that the majority of eligible voters are before this court either by way of filing of writ petitions or by supporting the case of the petitioners which itself demonstrates that the rejection of nomination by the RO on hyper-technical ground requires interference by this court.

32. Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 are represented by Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Pratham Mehrotra and Mr. Rohan Mandal, Advocates.

33. Respondent No. 11 in his counter affidavit has stated that if the governing body of BFI is allowed to function without a contested election and without the confidence of the members of the said association, it would lead to unnecessary disputes in the functioning of BFI. He has further prayed that this court should direct a full-fledged contested election to be held and that he is ready to sacrifice his post of Joint Secretary which he has come to hold as an outcome of an uncontested election. Paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 of his affidavit read as under:- - 31 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993

34. Respondent No. 12 has also taken an almost similar stand as has been taken by respondent No.11. Paragraph Nos. 5 to 8 of his counter-affidavit read as under:-

35. Mr. Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel who appeared on behalf of BFI supported the submissions made by the RO and in addition, he stated that the very nature of the relief sought for in the instant writ petitions is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to him, there is no application of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in matters of election and he has stated that the violation of the Sports Code is a question of fact and the same cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction.

36. He has also stated that the instant writ petitions are not maintainable. He has further stated that the rejection of nomination forms cannot be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the courts cannot interfere after the commencement of the process of election. In the instant case, once the process has already culminated into a deemed declaration of some of the contested candidates as elected, therefore, no interference is called for. According to him, the BFI is bound by the Sports Code and the rejection of nominations by the RO has been done keeping in view the fact that the scheme prescribed by MEG in the Sports Code has not been complied with. He has supported the order passed by the RO and distinguished the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and by the learned ASG.

37. That apart, he has specifically placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of W.B. State Election Commission (supra), Samadhan Swimming Club (supra), BCCI (supra), The Yachting Association of India (supra), Avtar Singh Hit (supra), Rahul Mehra (supra), - 33 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 Mahipal Singh v. Union of India46, CCE (supra), Manda Jaganath (supra) and C. Govindasamy v. The Election Commissioner, Chennai47.

38. Respondent Nos.[6] to 10 and 13 are represented by Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, learned senior counsel. She has supported the decision of the RO and has stated that the election process was in consonance with the Sports Code and MEG. She has further explained that the election of NSFs is governed by the will of the State Association as opposed to individual members of the Electoral College, and therefore, the requirement of Form 2 has to be necessarily fulfilled. She has also stated that Form 2 providing and mandating the proposers and seconders to propose and second the name of the candidates is a reflection of the will of the State Association which cannot be substituted by the will of the individual candidate, and therefore, there is a laudable objective in the structuring of Form 2 and in no case, can such structuring of a form be diluted or changed. She has also explained that disputed questions of fact cannot be ordinarily entertained in a writ petition.

39. According to her, if there is any departure from the Sports Code, the concerned NSF may have to suffer drastic consequences including losing recognition of the NSF. She has explained the scheme of MEG while taking this court through various clauses of MEG to emphasize that it is essential and mandatory that Form 2 be strictly complied with. She has also relied on the decisions which have been relied upon by the RO and BFI to support her stance.

40. In rejoinder submissions, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further explained that 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10284 W.A. No.1506-1508/2010 - 34 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 the writ petition for challenging the election result is maintainable if there is an apparent violation of the Sports Code and there is no remedy provided under the Sports Code or under the MEG. He has further explained that in the present case, BFI and the RO have acted in a one-sided, mala fide and arbitrary manner in total disregard of the applicable Sports Code. Therefore, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised to remedy the injustice caused to the petitioners.

41. He emphasized that there are no elections and when this court finds that the rejection of the nomination forms is on flimsy and arbitrary grounds, this court is not powerless to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has further stated that even under the provisions of the RP Act, Section 36(5) requires that an opportunity of hearing be provided in case of any objection to the nomination form either by any person or by the RO. According to him, in the instant case, even if the RO was of the view that the nomination form was defective, an opportunity to rectify the same should have been granted. Since the decision of the RO is in violation of the principles of natural justice and no disputed facts are required to be adjudicated by this court, in view of the stand taken by majority of the eligible voters, this court can exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

42. While explaining the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, he has presented a chart in a tabular form to indicate that there is no constitutional bar to entertain a writ petition if the petition is for furtherance of the election and not for interdiction. He has also placed reliance on a decision of - 35 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) v. Secretary, Governors Secretariat and Ors48.

43. Mr. Kamat, learned senior counsel who also appeared on behalf of the RO and Mr. Darpan, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of BFI, however, distinguished the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel in his rejoinder submissions. Thereafter, they explained that none of the decisions relied upon by the petitioners will have application under the facts of the instant case.

44. According to Mr. Kamat, learned senior counsel, the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) which has been relied upon in the case of DMK (supra) is the one where the election process had not finished, however, in the present case, the election is completed.

45. Mr. Darpan, learned counsel specifically points out that with respect to the earlier election of the same federation, certain grievances were raised by J&K Basketball Federation and those grievances were considered in Civil Suit No. 854/2015 and the said civil suit was entertained and, therefore, the remedy for the petitioners in the instant case is also to file a civil suit and in no case, the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would lie.

46. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

47. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) has considered the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with respect to the election process. The matter had arisen out of an interim order passed by the High Court of Kerala staying the notification issued by the Election Commission of India containing directions as to the manner of counting votes. The

- 36 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 issue was related to the 13th Lok Sabha elections. The poll had taken place on 11.09.1999 and the counting was scheduled to take place on 06.10.1999. Two days before the counting i.e. on 04.10.1999 the order of stay was passed by the concerned High Court. The issue that had arisen for the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) was with respect to the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to issue interim directions after commencement of the electoral process. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court after having extensively considered the decisions in the cases of N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency 49, Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. 50, Lakshmi Charan Sen and Ors. v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and Ors. 51, Election Commission of India v. State of Haryana52, Digvijay Mote v. Union of India 53, Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P. 54, C. Subrahmanyam v. K. Ramanjaneyullu and Ors.55 and other decisions held in paragraph No. 32 as under:-

48. In paragraph No.19 of the said decision it has been noted that the Constitution Bench in the Mohinder Singh Gill case (supra) could not resist commenting on the Ponnuswami case (supra) by observing that the non obstante clause in Article 329 pushes out Article 226 where the dispute takes the form of calling into question an election, except in special situations pointed out at, but left unexplored in Ponnuswami case (supra). It has also been observed in paragraph NO. 20 that the Constitution Bench in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) in paragraph No. 29 noticed two types of decisions and two types of challenges—the first relating to proceedings which interfere with the progress of the election and the second which accelerate the completion of the election and acts in furtherance of an election. In paragraph No. 28 in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) the Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed that election disputes are not just private civil disputes between two parties. The stakes of the constituency as a whole are on trial. Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of the constituency and the citizens generally. A conscientious approach with overriding consideration for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the democracy is then called for. Whilst neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of overenthusiastic activist would do. The two extremes, therefore, have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes.

49. It is thus seen that neither the provisions of the Constitution nor the provisions of the RP Act totally exclude the right of a citizen to approach the High Court to remedy a wrong done. Nevertheless, normally, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be available to the petitioner, except in exceptionally extraordinary circumstances. Any approach which has the effect of interrupting, - 39 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 obstructing or protracting the election process in any manner, through the invocation of judicial remedy, has to be postponed till after the completion of the proceedings in elections. An approach which subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election cannot be described as questioning the election. Any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings needs to be avoided. Judicial review is only permissible on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of the decisions of statutory bodies, on grounds such as for instance, mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power. Care has to be taken, in order to ensure, that there is no attempt being made to utilise the courts indulgence, by the filing of a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or otherwise a pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end.

50. It is thus seen that there is a narrow scope to interfere into matters arising out of elections. The scope becomes narrower when the election relates to parliamentary or legislative constituencies as the RP Act, provides for efficacious alternative remedy once the election is over. Similar principle applies in all such elections where the statute or scheme that provides for the election or regulates the same, itself provides for a mechanism for adjudication of election dispute.

51. In the case in hand, it is conceded at bar that under the applicable Sports Code or MEG, there is no mechanism provided thereunder, to deal with the election dispute either by any authority or by any specialised tribunal. What has been argued by the respondents is that if there is no remedy provided, the aggrieved person has to file a civil suit and not a writ petition. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Samadhan Swimming Club (supra). The Division Bench of this court in Samadhan Swimming - 40 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 Club (supra) in turn has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of S.D. Siddiqui v. University of Delhi & Ors.56 In paragraph No. 17 of Samadhan Swimming Club (supra) it has been held as under:-

53. It is thus seen that the ratio of the decision in the case of S.D.Siddiqui (supra) is that unless the respondent falls within the definition of a ‗State‘ or an instrumentality of the State, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is a purely private body working for the welfare of teachers of the University and affiliated colleges. The observations made in paragraph No. 30 are in the context of that case and, therefore, the same are not binding precedent for the issue involved herein. However, the Division Bench of this court in the case of Samadhan Swimming - 42 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 Club (supra) has non-suited the appellant therein on the ground that elections were already held and the members of the Executive Committee of the Delhi Swimming Association had already been elected who were not party to the case therein and their rights would be adversely affected. Hence the decision in the case of Samadhan Swimming Club (supra) is not a binding precedent deciding the issue contended by the respondent- that when the statute does not provide a remedy, the party must be relegated to the civil suit, and in no circumstance would a writ be maintainable.

54. It is settled law that the existence of an alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue writs and there is no absolute bar against the same. It is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. There cannot be a blanket ban on the exercise of such jurisdiction as that would effectively mean that the writ court is denuded of its jurisdiction, provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and consistently held by the courts of this land to be plenary, to entertain such writ petitions. The court can, and has in the past, in exceptional circumstances issue a discretionary writ, notwithstanding the fact that the statutory remedy has not been exhausted. However, in the instant case, it is seen that there is no efficacious alternative remedy provided under the applicable Sports Code or MEG. It is equally correct in law that in all cases where there is non-existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, the writ court does not come under an obligation to exercise its powers and can still leave the parties to file a civil suit before the competent court. However, before taking such a decision, the writ court may still examine as to what is sought to be agitated by the parties under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If a dispute raised in writ proceedings is capable of being adjudicated without requiring any evidence to be - 43 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 adduced or witnesses to be cross examined, the writ petition can still be entertained.

55. The principle that jurisdiction of Article 226 is not barred in election matters has been recognised along with the caveat of it needing to be sparingly exercised. It is also to be seen that in exercising powers under Article 226, the court has to bear in mind that such an exercise is not creating any obstruction or interruption or protracting the election process in any manner. Once a wrong is found to have been conducted, the court cannot stultify itself by allowing the wrong to be consummated. Any situation that results in postponing the election or creating a situation where the sanctity of the election itself is at stake, is also to be avoided.

56. In the instant case, the dispute is with respect to NSFs and there is no alternative efficacious remedy. The petitioners have alleged that the RO is acting as per the dictate of the present incumbent President, compromising the fairness and transparency of the election process. However, this court refrains itself from adjudicating on all those aspects as the same relate to various disputed facts. This court is confining its scrutiny only to the following issues—whether the nomination forms submitted by the petitioners suffer from substantial defect and, consequently, whether the decision of rejecting the nomination forms by the RO can be said to be correct or not. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the RO en bloc rejecting the nomination forms is arbitrary or illegal so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

57. In the case of Saroj (supra) a Coordinate Bench of this court had an occasion to consider the order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers submitted by the petitioner therein for - 44 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 the election on the post of municipal counsellor. The reason for rejection was found to be as under:- “During the scrutiny, the following discrepancy was observed:-

1. The said nomination of Smt. Saroj was not contained with a declaration made by her that she is a women and she has also failed to tick the mark on male or female in the said nomination paper which is violation of Rules 19(3) of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules 2012. During the scrutiny the undersigned marked a round with red ink on the said discrepancy on the part of the said nomination paper. Thus it is clearly established that Smt. Saroj has failed to comply the provision of the Rules 19(3) & 22(2) (a) & (b) of Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules 2012. Hence, in the above mentioned circumstances and provisions mentioned in the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Election of Councillor) Rules 2012, the said nomination paper bearing no.08 of Smt. Saroj for the ward no.03E of EDMC is hereby rejected”. (emphasis supplied)”.

58. In paragraph No. 35 of the decision in the case of Saroj (supra), it has been held as under:-

59. In paragraph No. 38 of the decision in the case of Saroj (supra) this court held that the entire case was based on documents. No trial was thereby necessary and therefore there was no impediment in the way of this court to examine whether the decision of rejecting the nomination form was arbitrary, malafide, or patently illegal. It has been held in para 38 as under:-

60. While relying on various decisions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, it was found therein that the nomination form was rejected on account of a hyper-technical approach and on insubstantial grounds. Paragraph No. 49 of the aforesaid decision is reproduced as under:-

61. While considering the issue with respect to the exercise of powers under Article 226 relating to election disputes, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Benedict Denis Kinny (supra) has held that the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 is not barred in election matters though it has to be sparingly exercised. In paragraph No. 51 of the said decision it has been held as under:xxxxxxxx “(i) The power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution and is basic structure of our Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is original, extraordinary and discretionary. The look out of the High Court is to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any decision of a constitutional authority, a tribunal, a statutory authority or an authority within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. - 47 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993

(ii) The Courts are guardians of the rights and liberties of the citizen and they shall fail in their responsibility if they abdicate their solemn duty towards the citizens. The scope of Article 226 is very wide and can be used to remedy injustice wherever it is found.

(iii) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution overrides any contrary provision in a Statute and the power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be taken away or abridged by any contrary provision in a Statute.

(iv) When a citizen has right to judicial review against any decision of statutory authority, the High Court in exercise of judicial review had every jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so as to by lapse of time, the petition may not be infructuous. The interim order can always be passed by a High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction to maintain the status quo in aid of the relief claimed so that at the time of final decision of the writ petition, the relief may not become infructuous.

(v) It is true that requirement of submission of Caste

Validity Certificate within a period of one year under Section 5B of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act is mandatory requirement but in the facts of the case before us before the expiry of the period of six month, the Caste Scrutiny Committee had illegally rejected the claim necessitating filing of writ petition by aggrieved persons in which writ petition the interim relief was granted by the High Court. The power of the High Court to grant an interim relief in appropriate case cannot be held to be limited only for a period of one year, which was period envisaged in Section 5B for submission of the Caste Validity Certificate. No such fetter on the power of the High Court can be read by virtue of provision of Section 5B.

(vi) There is no fetter in the jurisdiction of the High

Court in granting an interim order in a case where caste claim of the respondents was illegally rejected before the expiry of period of six months and the High - 48 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 Court granted the interim order before the expiry of the period of six months, as then prescribed.

(vii) In the facts of the present case, the deeming fiction under Section 5B of retrospective termination of the election could not come in operation due to the interim order passed by the High Court”.

62. Even in the case of Ponnuswami (supra), in paragraph No. 15, it has been held that if the grounds on which an election can be called into question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there would be no meaning in enacting a provision like Article 329(b) and in setting up a Special Tribunal. It is thus seen that the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while deciding the case of Ponnuswami (supra), which relates to the rejection of a nomination form for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly had in mind, the fact that the provisions of the RP Act provides for the setting up of a Special Tribunal.

63. In any case, the decision in the case of Ponnuswami (supra), and other decisions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court have been considered by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) and as has been seen in the preceding paragraphs, the action taken or orders issued by the Election Commission are open to judicial review on the basis of well settled principles that enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies. Similarly, in the case of Avtar Singh Hit (supra), in paragraph No. 29, it has been noted that the dispute raised in that case was purely factual in nature and the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board were not party to the writ petition and Sections 15 to 20 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 provided for the resolution of disputes relating to elections by the filing of an election petition. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion of not interfering with the view taken - 49 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which in turn interfered with the view taken by the Single Judge where directions were issued to conduct a fresh election. In the case of Umesh Shivappa Ambi (supra) the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition and the Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Single Judge holding that the nomination of the respondent therein was wrongly rejected and in view of the availability of remedy under Section 17 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, the order of the Division Bench was set aside by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court.

64. In the case of Shaji K. Joseph (supra) a remedy under Regulation 20 of the Dental Council (Election Regulation 1952) was provided and interference was made by the High Court in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of the Returning Officer of rejecting the nomination in respect of the candidature of the respondent therein, and further directing to conduct elections afresh after including the name of the said respondent and to declare the result on the basis of said election.

65. In the case of Arghya Kumar Nath (supra) the dispute was with respect to the conduct of the election of the office bearers of Delhi University and this court in paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 has held as under:-

66. In the case of BCCI (supra), an interlocutory application was rejected by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court mainly on the ground that the election results were notified and the dispute raised therein was with respect to summoning of the electoral officer from Goa instead of Bihar and also that the definition of the expression ‗full member‘ was alleged to be altered so as to include district associations and local clubs and it was alleged that the candidates who contested for the posts of President, Secretary and Treasure were not part of the draft or final electoral roll. The same would also have no application under the facts of the present case.

67. In the case of Rahul Mehra (supra), the Division Bench of this court has rightly observed that the legal regime apropos sports administration in India has to be implemented fully and effectively. Compliance with the Sports Code is non-negotiable. If a Sports Federation does not comply with the law of the land, it will receive no recognition from the Government. For the sake of clarity paragraph Nos. 102 to 104 are reproduced as under:-

70. In the instant case, out of 48 eligible voters (i.e. electoral college), 27 eligible voters i.e. more than half of the total electoral college is against the manner in which the nomination forms have been rejected and the elections have been conducted. The rejection of the nomination forms would invariably lead to the exclusion of the participation of a large number of State representatives. Any exclusion of this nature cannot be approved in a democratic polity governed by the rule of law, if the same is found to be based on non-substantial ground.

71. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. (supra) has held that if the alternative remedy fully covers the challenge to the election then that remedy and that remedy alone must be resorted to even though it involves the challenge of the election of all the successful candidates. But if the nature and the grounds of the challenge of the whole election are such that the alternative remedy is no remedy in the eyes of law to cover the challenge or, in any event, is not an adequate and efficacious remedy, then the remedy of filing a writ petition to challenge the whole election process is still available. In paragraph No. 18 of the said decision, it has been held as under:- - 54 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993

72. The respondents have also argued that in the instant case, the election stands concluded and, therefore, the only remedy available is to file a civil suit and not to entertain the instant petition. Firstly, it has already been held by this court that there are no disputed facts being adjudicated by this court; and secondly, there is no remedy much less an efficacious alternative remedy to get the dispute resolved expeditiously. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, whether the election stands concluded or not will not detain this court from exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case the scheme of Section 67A of the RP Act, 1951 sought to be relied upon to argue that the election stands concluded is different than the scheme under MEG. Section 67A of the RP Act states that for the purpose of the Act, the date on which the candidate is declared by the RO, under the provisions of Section 53 or Section 66, to be elected to the House of the Parliament or of the Legislature of a State shall be the date of election of that candidate. Section 53(2), if is perused carefully, provides that if the number of contesting candidates are equal to the number of seats to be filled, the RO shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats. - 56 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993

73. It is thus seen that at the stage of Section 53 (2) of the RP Act, there is a provision for a specific declaration by the RO of such candidates as elected candidates who are elected unopposed. If the clauses of MEG are compared with the scheme of the RP Act, the same would reveal that under Clause 9 (1), there is no specific provision providing for the RO to declare a candidate who remains unopposed to be the elected candidate. On the contrary, whether the election is uncontested or contested, a formal declaration is required to take place under Clause 12 of MEG which states that the names of contesting candidates who shall be deemed to have been elected in the election in accordance with Clause 11 (6) shall be declared as having been duly elected to the respective posts by the RO at the Annual General Meeting in Form 15.

74. It is thus seen that unless the formal declaration in Form 15 of the MEG takes place, the election cannot be said to be concluded. Therefore, in the absence of compliance with the applicable regulatory framework, the argument that the election stands concluded has no legs to stand on. However, as stated above the guiding principle for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution in cases where no effective alternative remedy is available and the respondent is a State or other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not whether the election is concluded or underway, yet for the sake of clarity, this court has dealt with the argument and assigned its reasoning.

75. Where the undisputed material available on record suggests that a candidate or candidates are wrongfully and arbitrarily denied the right to contest the election, then it would indeed be highly improper, to ask the petitioner to wait till the returned candidate assumes the charge and only then seek a remedy. The lookout of the High Court is - 57 – Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:2993 to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any decision by an authority falling within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The judicial review is designed to prevent and remedy cases of abuse of power or neglect of a duty by the public authority.

76. The determination of the issue involved herein would not require any adjudication on facts so as to call for evidence or to allow for the parties to cross-examine witnesses. What is required to be seen is the comparison of two forms and to determine whether the forms submitted by the petitioners are rightly rejected by the RO or such a decision needs to be interfered with. Hence, in the absence of any alternative efficacious remedy and in view of the issue involved in the instant writ petition, this court holds that the present writ petition filed against the rejection of the nomination forms by the RO is maintainable.

77. Coming back to the core issue in the instant case i.e., whether the decision of rejecting nominations requires to be interfered with, it is to be seen that Clause 6 of the MEG requires that the nomination of a candidate for election as an officer bearer or member of the managing committee shall be made in Form 2. Form 2 prescribed under MEG reads as under: Name of the Federation Election of Office Bearers and Members of Managing Committee, ____ FORM[2] ELECTION OF OFFICE BEARERS AND MEMBERS OF Managing Committee To NOMINATION PAPER FOR ELECTION AS ________ (NAME OF THE POST) To, (Name and address of returning officer). The Returning Officer for above Election