SHRI YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

4. The aforesaid election was challenged by Arun Kumar Grover and others before respondent no.3 being Election dispute case number 271 of 1999. One Anjani Kumar Grover also challenged the election bearing Election dispute case number 56 of 2001.

5. Petitioners have assailed the impugned order on various grounds. They allege that the impugned order passed by respondent no. 3 has cast aspersions on counsel appearing on behalf of the Co-operative Society.

6. Counsel for private respondents have raised preliminary objections stating that the writ applications have become infructuous. They state that tenure of Managing committee is only of three years and in any view of the matter, the same has already expired on 31.12.2002. He submits that this court may not go in legality or illegality of the impugned order, only for academic purposes. Furthermore he has drawn my attention to order dated 31.3.2009, passed in C.W.J.C.No. 1858/04, wherein the authorities have been directed to hold fresh election for constitution of Managing Committee of the Society at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the aforesaid order. He submits that in case even if the impugned order dated 15.5.2002 is set aside, no positive relief can be granted to the petitioners, as the term of earlier Managing committee has already expired and an Administrator has been appointed to manage the affairs of the Society. - 3 -

7. The petitioners submit that even if no positive relief can be granted in the writ application, if the impugned order which may adversely affect parties or casts aspersions, this Court can certainly intervene in ends of justice. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Constitution bench decision rendered in the case of Ujjam Bai versus the State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1621, particularly para 15, the relevant extract of which is being reproduced hereinbelow:- judicial tribunal Whenever a judicial or quasi empowered or required to enquire into a question of law or fact for the purpose of giving a decision on it, its findings thereon cannot be impeached collaterally or on an application for certiorari but are binding until reversed on appeal. Where a quasi-judicial authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it does not lose its jurisdiction by coming to a wrong conclusion. Whether it is wrong in law or in fact. The question whether a tribunal has jurisdiction depends not on the truth or falsehood of the facts into which it has to enquire, or upon the correctness of its findings on these facts, but upon their nature, and it is determinable “ at the commencement, not at the conclusion, of the inquiry.” (Rex v. Boltan, (1841) 1 QB 66 at p. 74) thus, a tribunal empowered to determine claims for compensation for loss of office has jurisdiction to determine all the measure of questions of law and fact relating compensation and the tenure of the office and it does not exceed its jurisdiction by determining any of those questions incorrectly; but it has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for reinstatement or damages for wrongful dismissal, and it will exceed its jurisdiction if it makes an order in such terms, for it has no legal power to give any decision whatsoever on those matters. A tribunal may lack jurisdiction if it is improperly constituted, or to observe certain essential preliminaries to the inquiry. But it does not exceed its incorrect jurisdiction by basing determination of any question that it is empowered or required (i.e., has jurisdiction) to determine. its decision upon an it fails

8. I am in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that though the relief sought for may have become - 4 - infructuous, if the order in challenge has cast aspersions or decided issues of fact which may prejudicially affect the parties in subsequent proceeding, this court would not hesitate interfering in such circumstances. Learned counsel particularly referred to last para of page 86 and submits that the same cast aspersion on the counsel representing the Society. However, learned counsel for the private respondents state that there is nothing in the aforesaid paragraph that cast any aspersions on the counsel representing the Society as there are unreported facts. The paragraph in question contains mere statement of facts. It would be useful to quote relevant extracts of last para of internal page 4 of the order which is at page 86 of the brief of instant case i.e. C.W.J.C.No. 10692/2002. Now coming to the list published for the purpose of 29.11.1999 elections. Anupma Sharma has been listed as the member of the society at serial no.5 of the list attested by the Administrator on 6.11.1999. From the body of the list it is obvious that this list was published w.e.f. 31.10.1999 when the last date of publication of the members list was fixed for 24.10.1999. How 30.10.1999 has come into picture? There is no denial that the election officer Bipin Bihari Verma was suspended prior to election date i.e. 24.11.1999. It was claimed by the learned counsel that Anupma Sharma, who is incidentally the counsel of the society in this case was admitted as member on 30.1.1983. Photo copy of her Matriculation certificate has also been filed which shows that her date of birth is 22.10.1971. Obviously as contended by the learned counsel of the petitioner, she was only 17 years old when she was admitted as member of the society. Anupma Shama did not deny the authenticity of her certificate. Further, Amarjyoti Sharma who is the younger brother of Anupma Sharma has also been shown in the member list. Rule 8 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959 lays down who shall be eligible as member of a registered society. In view of these facts the very authenticity of the list becomes suspect. In such a situation Rule 9 of 1959 Rules with come into play automatically.

9. Mr. D.K.Sinha, who represented some of the petitioners stated that the Registrar, Co-operative Society instead of going into the - 5 - circumstances germane for deciding an election dispute has unnecessarily dealt upon unnecessary issues like sale deeds etc. He states that for deciding an election dispute, the following facts could be relevant- a) Whether voters are genuine or not. b) Whether votes have been calculated properly or not. c) Whether election petition can be filed by one voter or and similar issues.

10. Mr Basant Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for opp parties submits that perusal of sale deeds would also be relevant for the purposes of determining members in appropriate cases.

11. It is not in dispute that the tenure of Managing committee expired in December, 2002 and since then the Society is run by Administrator. In view of above, no positive relief can be granted to the writ petitioners, except for directing respondents to conclude the election process at the earliest as has been directed by this Court in case of Rekha Sachadava disposed of on 31.3.2009 in C.W.J.C.No. 1858/04. Nevertheless, as this court has not entered into the merits or the legality/illegality of the impugned order or the finding of facts, however, I observe that any finding of facts in the aforesaid order would not affect either of the parties adversely in any subsequent proceeding. The parties would be at liberty to reiterate these cases and it would be open for such other to rebut the same. For these reasons, aspersions, if any, cast on any of the affected parties would be deemed to be wiped off.

12. Learned counsel for the opp party alleged that signatures of some of petitioners’ are forged, as such, proceeding under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be initiated. Counsels for the petitioners dispute - 6 - the aforesaid statement and submit that the same in any case would require scrutiny of facts and documents. The petitioners state that such prayer may not be allowed, as a plea under section 340 of the CrPC would not be applicable in facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioners have relied upon decisions rendered by Apex Court in case of Iqbal Singh Marwa versus Minu reported in 2005(4) SCC 370.

13. In my view, the respondents would be at liberty to file complaint before appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised.

14. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)