c^^r^__ ci^> IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC ^ No. 3VV^C)_QF 2011 PETITIONERS ^ ^^' ^ ^yy' »-y'7 ^y' ...^ ^' 1. CHHATTISGARH PRANTIYA AGRAWAL SAMMELAN, RAIPUR (REGISTERED UNDER C. G. SOCIETt^ REGISTRIKARAN ADHINIYAM, 1973) THROUGH - ITS PRESIDENT, REGISTERED OFFICE - SHRI HANUMAN MARKET, RAMSAGAR PARA, RAIPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) ^' 2. SIYA RAM AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT'- 70 YEARS S/0 LATE HANUMAN PRASAD AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT, CHHATTISGARH PRANTIYA AGRAWAL SAMMELAN , RAIPUR R/0 WGEETA SADAN" RAMSAGAR PARA, RAIPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS AKHIL BHARTIYA AGRAWAL SA14MELAN, NEW DELHI (REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETi' REGISTRATION ACT) THROUGH - ITS PRESIDENT, 83, MODEL BASTI, EAST PARK ROAD, KAROL BAAG, NEW DELHI, 110005 SHRI SURENDRA GUPTA, PRESIDENT, AKHIL BHARTIYA AGRAWAL SAMMELAN, NEW DELHI ADDRESS - AREONS GOLD SOOK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, GOLD v c^-> INIINI^I x 5. SOOK, 4TH FLOOR, BLOCK - C, SECTOR - 43, SUSHANT LOK, ^" FACE- I,GURGAON (HARYANA) 3. SHRI GOPAL SHARAN GARG, GENERAL SECRETARY, AKHIL BHARTIYA AGRAWAL SAMMELAN, NEW DELHI, ADDRESS - ROYAL MARBLE & MINERALS, 22 - A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, NARNOUL (HARYANA), PIN - 123001 4. SHRI VIRENDRA AGRAWAL, ELECTION OBSERVER, AKHIL BHARTIYA AGRAWAL SAMMELAN, NEW DELHI, ADDRESS - 83, MODEL BASTI, EAST PARK ROAD, KAROL BAAG, NEW DELHT. 110005 SHRI RAJENDRA GUPTA, ELECTION OFFICER OF THE CHHATTISGARH PRANTIYA AGRAWAL SAMMELAN, RAIPUR ADDRESS - G - 20, GREEN PARK MAN, NEWDELHI, 110016 6. SHRI RAM AVTAR AGRAWAL, CO - ELECTION OFFICER OF THE CHHATTISGARH PRANTIYA AGRAWAL SAMMELAN, RAIPUR ADDRESS - 3 - A, ANUPAM NAGAR, RAIPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (C. G.) 7. SHRI JITENDRA GANDHI, CO - ELECTION OFFICER OF THE CHHATTISGARH PRANTIYA AGRAWAL SAMMELAN, RAIPUR ADDRESS - TILAK PARA, BILASPUR, / DISTRICT - BILASPUR (C. G.) 8. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR TRIVEDI, (?) CO - ELECTION OFFICER OF THE CHHATTISGARH PRANTIYA AGRAWAL SAMMELAN, RAIPUR, ADDRESS - H. N0. - 5 A, STREET N0. - P. M. R. SECTOR - 4, BHILAI, DISTRICT - DURG (C. G.) 9. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH - ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FIRMS & SOCIETi', MANTRALAYA D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR. Writ Petition under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAJUI AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 3459 of 20-11 PETITIQNERS RESPQNDENTS Chhattisgarh Prantiya Agrawal Sammelan, Raipur & Another. VERSUS Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan, New Delhi & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy GA. for the State. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the Caveator/respondent No.l ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on Olst day ofJuiy, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the communication dated 14 June., 2011 (Annexure P/l), issued by the President, Akhil Bhartiya Agrawal Sammelan, to hold election as notified on 15 June, 2011 (Annexure P/2). 2. The case of the petitioners Is that the petitioner No. 1 is a registered society undertheprovisionsofChhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Adhiniyam,1973)'). The impugned letter issued by the respondent No. 2 is bad in law on the ground that the process of elcction initiated by respondent No. 1 is arbitrary and illegal, as the election of the petitioner No.2 as the President of the petitioner No.l/society has already taken place on 03.02.2011. Thus, interference by another party by notifying election is withoutjurisdiction and deserves tobe quashed. ^'";'- •'^' On consideration of the submissions made by leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondents, as well as on pemsal ofthe documents, it appears that the petitioner No.l is a registered society under the provisions ofthe Adhiniyam, 1973. The respondent No. 1, a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short 'the Act, 1860') and the other respondents i.e. 2 to 7 are the private parties. The State of Chhattisgarh has been impleaded as respondent No. 9 only to bring the dispute within the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia. It is well settled principle of law that a writ or direction can be issued only to an agency or instmmentality which is a 'State' as defmed under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have failed to establish that the respondent No.l and other office bearers fall within the defmition of 'State5 and as such, no direction can be issued against them. Even if the respondent No. 1 is a registered society under the provisions of the Act, 1860, it does not become the State for the purpose of election or otherwise. Thus, this petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is neither the instmment or agency pftheGovemment.The respondent No. 1 society also does not perform any state function or not supported by the State Act. Thus, the same is not a 'State9 as defined under Article 12 ofthe Constitution oflndia. This is a dispute of private nature wherein the remedy may be available under the other provisions of law, not in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Amit 6. Even othenvise, ifthe election has been set in motion, it is well settled proposition of law that once the election process is set in motion, the Court should not stall the process of election, till the same is complete. Thereafter, deficiency, if any, either in jurisdiction or process of election may be questioned in the appropriate proceedings. In view of the foregoing, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge