Dipakbhai Prahaladbhai Patel Vs. Tribhovandas Gangaram Patel - Court Judgment

Oral Order:

1. Heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned senior counsel assisted by learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioners.

2. Notice returnable on 8th January, 2016.

3. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel has contended that by virtue of provisions of section 97(1)(B), the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is hopelessly time barred. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 17/12/2015 in L.P.A. No. 1459 of 2015 to contend that since 2006, nobody has raised any objection regarding the membership of the petitioners and has urged that the adinterim relief, as prayed for, in para 6(B) may be granted.

4. Having heard Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and having perused the accompaniment of the petition, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the interest of the petitioners so far as their rights to exercise their franchise in the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of respondent No. 2 Bank is needs to be protected. I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the following arrangement during pendency of this petition is made.

5. Respondent No. 3 Board of Nominees is directed to focus on the contention of the petitioners as regards the limitation in prosecuting the cause which has arisen on 11/3/2006 and also on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 17/12/2015 in L.P.A. 1459 of 2015, which are extracted hereinabove, besides other contentions and issues which may be raised by the petitioners while deciding exh.6 the injunction application in Lavad Suit No. 230 of 2015. The order passed by the learned Board of Nominees below Exh 6 would be subject to out come of this petition and will not be implemented till 8/1/2016:

The present case is limited to the admission of individual persons as member. Such admission has taken place as back as in the year 2006, thereafter, 9 years have passed and the general body of the society which is supreme has approved the decision. At no point of time during the period of 9 years, the action is initiated by any member or any other office bearers, may be in the opposite group/party. If the history of past litigation is considered, in series of actions taken, the resulting litigations show that it is clear that there was election between two groups, may be one group might be supported by the government officials, but that does not mean that the law is to be given a go bye. If the law made by the legislature is not authorizing initiation of action, it can hardly be backed by showing the conduct as sought to be canvassed. In any case, the admission of the petitioners has continued for about 9 years. After the admission as member in the year 2006, they have participated in various elections and for the first time, action is sought to be taken. If the allegations of mala fide are considered as against the government officials, though it is an allegation, but considered with the litigation, it can be said that it is lacking bona fide of quasi-judicial authority who is supposed to discharge the function in an independent manner and cannot be an instrument at the instance of any group though there is duty upon him to discharge the same independently. In any case, the function of the quasi-judicial authority is subject to judicial review of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Under the circumstances, we find that it is not the case where writ should be declined on the ground as sought to be canvassed by the learned Additional Advocate General. Hence, the contentions are rejected. ?

6. The election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of respondent No. 2 Bank is scheduled at 10.30 today i.e. 29/12/2015. This Court has passed order on 28/12/2015 in Special Civil Application No. 21190 of 2015 whereby all stake holders are permitted to cast their votes in the said election. It is reiterated that the petitioners shall be permitted to cast their vote in the election. The result of the election shall not be declared as directed by this Court vide order dated 28/12/2015 passed in Special Civil Application No. 21190 of 2015 till 8/1/2016. Direct service is permitted today.

7. The registry is directed to communicate this order by fax to respondent No. 3 board of Nominees.