Writ of Certioriari against election of the member presidents of Indian Olympic association : High Court of Punjab and Haryana
The question as to the validity of writ of certiorari against the election of member presidents of Indian olympic association was examined by THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA , consisting of Justice Girish Agnihotri in the matter of Haryana Olympic association vs. State of Haryana and ors [ CWP-364 of 2021] on 26.02.21.
The facts of the case were that Haryana Olympic Association, has filed the present petition inter alia with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned letter dated 30.12.2020. The petitioner Association is affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association i.e. respondent No.4. the Society was registered in accordance with law. In 2007, Mr. R.S. Jowel, IAS, was appointed as an Administrator. As per the orders of the Administrator, in the year 2008, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.C. Garg (Former Judge of this Court) was appointed as Returning Officer for elections of the Society. In 2008, Mr. P.V. Rathee was elected as the President of the Society and after tenure of four years, in 2012, he was again elected as President. In 2016, i.e. after 4 years, he was once again elected as the President. He then submits that on 03.09.2020, election schedule was issued and date for the election was also fixed as 19.09.2020. However, due to COVID-19, it was advised that the election should be postponed and accordingly, the same was postponed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a prayer to quash impugned letter dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-13) and reference dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure P-14) issued by respondent No.2, along with further prayer to direct the respondents not to appoint an administrator/adhoc committee over petitioner association and to allow the present governing body/adhoc committee to continue till elections to new governing body are held.
The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that under section 33 (3) of Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. The technical objection has also been taken that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Registrar General, Firms and Society Haryana. There are other objections also taken by the respondents inter alia regarding the non furnishing of the Annual Audit statements and also the fact that infact two factions are working in contrary directions.
The learned Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondents, submits that the respondents would have no objection in appointment of retired Hon’ble Judge of this Court as Administrator. He further submits that the retired Hon’ble Judge, in his capacity as Administrator, be also requested to take up and examine all the issues including any objections if any filed by any party and decide the same in accordance with law. In view of the facts noticed and reasons recorded above, no further orders are called for in the pending Civil.
The High Court of Haryana held that all the parties are at liberty, if so advised, to raise any objection connected with the issue before the Administrator who may proceed to pass orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances as noticed above, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bhalla is appointed as Administrator by this Court with the consent of the parties. The Administrator is further at liberty to take up the issues/objections if any, raised by the concerned authorities and decide the same in accordance with law. Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bhalla (Former Judge of this Court), is appointed as Administrator by this Court with the consent of the parties. The Administrator is further at liberty to take up the issues/objections if any, raised by the concerned authorities and decide the same in accordance with law. The Administrator is further requested to expedite the process of holding elections and under his supervision.The Administrator is also at liberty to look into the day to day affairs of the Association. The Administrator is free to decide his own remuneration to be paid to him depending on the workload.
By Reetasa Samal