Writ of Certioriari against election of the member presidents of Indian Olympic association : High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Haryana Olympic Association. V. State Of Haryana And Others High Court Of Punjab And haryana CWP 3621The matter has been taken up through video conferencing on account of restrictions due to outbreak of pandemic COVID 19 2. Petitioner 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 and reference dated 30.12.2020 issued by respondent No.2 3. Records of the case show that vide order dated 08.01.2021 notice of motion was issued. Considering the urgency the respondents were granted time to file short reply. Thereafter on 11.02.2021 this Court passed the following order: Petitioner Haryana Olympic Association through its President Paramvir Rathee has filed the present writ petition inter alia with a prayer to quash impugned letter dated 30.12.2020 and reference dated 30.12.2020 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 Learned counsel for the petitioner by making reference to the pleadings in the petition submits that the brief facts relevant in the present case are that the petitioner Association is affiliated with the Indian Olympic Association i.e. respondent No.4. It is then submitted that in 1987 the Society was registered in accordance with law. There is some chequered history regarding the events in between however it is briefly mentioned that 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 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 vide letter dated 10.09.2020 it was advised that and reference dated 30.12.2020 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act 2012 hereinafter referred to be as the Act ) "The tenure of the Governing Body shall not exceed three years". It is the case of the respondents that term of governing body of the petitioner society expired in 2019. No fresh elections of governing body were held within statutory period prescribed and as per provisions of Section 39 then the issue of membership and other issues connected with the elections be also decided by the said Observer This Court has no hesitation in issuing such a direction List on 16.02.2021 for further consideration and final disposal Let the State make its stand clear on the above issue 4. Today on the resumed hearing of the case 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 5. In view of the facts noticed and reasons recorded above no further orders are called for in the pending Civil Miscellaneous Application(s). 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 6. Accordingly in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances as noticed above the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) Hon ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bhalla is appointed as Administrator by this Court with the consent of the parties ii) 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 iii) 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 v) The Administrator is free to decide his own remuneration to be paid to him depending on the workload Ordered accordingly Disclaimer: Legitquest has made all efforts to avoid any omission and or mistake in publishing this document and adding editorial and other enhancements. Legitquest would not be liable in any manner whatsoever by reason of any omission or mistake in the published document or any action or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of the document or any editorial or other enhancements like idraf infographics Note Notebook Acts Rules Regulations Bills Notifications Circulars News Interviews Columns Treaties LawCommission Reports Constituent Debates and or any material or feature added by us. All disputes will be exclusively dealt with the Courts Tribunals at Delhi only. It is advised to check the authenticity of all published document from the original source (Printed For: Reetasa Samal 26 12 2021 On: 10:22:AM

Summary: 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