The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a writ petition challenging the election of the President of Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Gurudwara Road, Naka Hindola, Lucknow. The court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, emphasizing that “there cannot be estoppel against statute,” thereby rejecting the petitioner’s claims regarding electoral improprieties.
Background of the Case
The petition, filed by Satpal Singh (Petitioner), contested the election of Opposite Party No. 4 as the President of Sri Guru Singh Sabha. The petitioner sought the annulment of the election and requested the court to direct the competent authority to refer the election dispute to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Additionally, he sought the appointment of an administrator to oversee the society’s affairs until the dispute was resolved.
Legal Issues
The case revolved around the following key legal questions:
Material Concealment – The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to disclose his own participation in the election, questioning his locus standi.
Lack of Specific Pleadings – The complaint lacked detailed grounds required under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which outlines criteria for setting aside an election.
Judicial Precedent & Government Conduct Rules – The petitioner relied on a 2016 judgment restricting government officials from managing societies, but the court found it inapplicable as the respondent was an employee of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, a statutory body.
Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – The petition challenged the election of the governing body without impleading all 15 elected members, rendering the plea incomplete.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Presiding over the matter, Justice Manish Mathur held that the petition was unsustainable. The court made several key observations:
No Estoppel Against Statute: The court noted that an election challenge is a statutory right and cannot be barred by estoppel, even if the petitioner participated in the election.
Failure to Meet Section 25 Criteria: The petitioner failed to demonstrate how the election was conducted improperly. The court observed, “Complaints against an election process require specificity, and vague allegations cannot be a basis for judicial intervention.”
Judicial Precedent Not Applicable: The 2016 ruling cited by the petitioner applied to Central Government employees, whereas the contested respondent was a state statutory body employee. Thus, the petitioner’s argument was dismissed.
Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties: The court ruled that the petitioner’s failure to implead all elected members invalidated the plea.
Deputy Registrar’s Decision Upheld: The court found no fault with the Deputy Registrar’s decision to refuse reference under Section 25(1) and instead leave it open for one-fourth of the general body members to challenge the election if they wished.
Final Ruling
The High Court upheld the preliminary objections and dismissed the petition with no interference in the impugned order. It reiterated that election disputes must strictly adhere to statutory provisions, and broad, vague allegations do not warrant judicial interference.
The case, Writ – C No. 11104 of 2024, saw legal representation from Senior Advocate R.S. Pandey and Advocate Virendra Bhatt for the petitioner, while the respondents were represented by C.S.C. Anand Mani Tripathi, Gaurav Mehrotra, and Vivek Kumar Rai.
