In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court, today quashed the order of Single and Division bench of Calcutta High Court quashing and setting aside the election of office bearers of EIRC of ICSI held on 27-12-2021 by explaining the difference between vacation of office and resultant absence from meeting and general absence from meeting.
The respondent, Mr. Biman Debnath was Vice Chairman of the Institute and was allowed to chair the meeting for the limited purpose of election to the post of Chairman for the remaining period of the current year ending on 18.01.2022 in terms of Regulation 119(2). Allegedly, the respondent was disrupting the meeting, the remaining members decided to proceed with the agenda item i.e. electing the chairman for the remaining period and for that purpose appointed another respondent, Mr. Anil Kumar Dubey to chair the said item. That thereafter elections took place and Mr. Anil Kumar Dubey was duly elected as Chairman for the remaining period.
The Respondent, who did not participate in the election and/or contest filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge contending inter alia that the meeting dated 27.12.2021 chaired by Mr. Anil Kumar Dubey was illegal. The High Court allowed the plea and quashed the election.
As per Regulation 114(4) whether any dispute arises regarding any election to a Regional Council, the matter may be referred by the candidate concerned within 30 days from the date of the declaration of the result of the election, to the President and the decision shall be final.
A bench of Justice M R Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that “Under the circumstances, in view of Regulation 114(4) of the Regulations, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition challenging the validity of the election. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that even as per Regulation 114(4), the election can be challenged by the candidate concerned. In the present case respondent no.1 who challenged the election of the office bearers did not even contest the election. Under the circumstances the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition challenging the election at the instance of the respondent no.1 who even did not contest the election of the office bearers.” The bench concluded.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
