Ramprakash Sharma v. G-Block, Saket Residents Welfare Association & Ors.

1. Allowed,subjecttojust exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C[1] 3959/2016& CM No.16700/2016(for stavl

3. The petition impugns the Circular dated 19^^^ April, 2016 of the respondent No.l G Block, Residents Welfare Association scheduling the elections ofthe office bearers ofthe said Association for IS^''May,2016and appointingtherespondentno.2N.M.Sharma^stheReturningOfficer(RO) for holding the said elections. J ^ 4. It is worth noting that earlier, the respondent no.1 Association had ! appointed Mr. Joginder Tuli as the RO for holding the election and the respondent no.2 N.M.Sharma has been appointed as the RO in place ofMr. Joginder Tuli. Mr.Joginder Tuli,who as an Advocate hasfiled this petition W.P.(C)3959/2016 Page I of[3] 2016:DHC:8913.J on behalf of the petitioner, had on an earlier occasion filed W.P.(C) No.3558/20i[6] in his own name,impugning his substitution as the RO by Mr.N.M.Sharma. Thesaid writpetition came up beforethis Courton 29" April,2016 when fmding that Mr.Joginder Tuii while functioning asRO had exceeded his briefand started treating himselfas the Administrator of the respondent no.i Association, it was enquired from him appearing in person then as to whythe petition should not be dismissed on thisground alone besides on the ground ofmaintainability ofthe writ petition. Faced therewith,Mr.JoginderTuiihad withdrawn W.P.(C)No.3558/2016and has now filed this writpetition as an advocate on behalfofthe petitioner Ram Prakash Sharma.

5. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how a writ petition with respect to management and election of office bearers of a Residents Welfare Association registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act,1860is maintainable.

6. Though the Registrar ofSocieties has been impleaded as respondent no.3tothispetition butnoreliefhasbeenclaimed againstit.

7. The counsel for the petitioner draws attention to Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act which requiresthe annuallistofmanaging body to be filed.

8. Howeverthe same does not vestthe Registrar ofSocieties with any powers ofsuperintendence over the societies registered under the said Act, to intervene in the disputes relating to election of office bearers of the society. Thus on the facts pleaded,a writpetition under Article 226 would notbemaintainableandthedisputeifanywillhavetoberaised byasuit W.P.(C)3959/2016 Page2of[3] T Ij under Code ofCivilProcedure,1908.

9. Even otherwise,theDivisionBench ofthis CourtinS.D.Siddiqui Vs. University ofDelhi MANU/DE/2950/2005 has held that if the charter / constitution ofa body providesfor a mechanism for adjudication ofelection disputes,the election disputes have to be raised in accordance therewith and ifthere is no such mechanism provided then a dispute relating to election can be only raised by a suit under the CPC and cannot be raised by a writ petition unless there is/are statutory provision(s)quathe holding ofelection and qua which direction can beissuedtothe statutory authority.Thesame is notthe position underthe Societies Registration Act.

10. The writ petition is thus misconceived and is dismissed as not maintainable. Ddsti. MAY 06,2016 'gsr'.. W.P.(C)3959/2016 JIV SAHAIENDLAW,J Page3of[3] Q