AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Sinha, J.—This application is directed against an order dated 18.9.1987 passed by the respondent no. 3 (The Director General of Police-cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar) whereby and whereunder the said respondent declared the petitioner''s Association, which is alleged to be a parallel body of the Bihar Police Ministerial Association, as illegal and un-constitutional purported to be in exercise of his power conferred upon under the Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules 1960. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner is said to be an association. The said association was allegedly established in the year 1945.
It is an admitted fact that the State of Bihar in purported exercise of its power conferred upon it under Article-309 of the Constitution of India framed a rule by issuance of a notification on 20th July, 1960, known as the Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1960. The relevant provisions of the said rules are Rules-11, 12 and 13 which have been set out in paragraphs of the writ application, In terms of Chapter-IV of the said rules, a Central Executive Committee is to be constituted.
According to the petitioner, the annual conference of the association was held on 20th and 21st June, 1987 at Munger wherein allegedly one Raj Nandan Prasad was elected as Chairman, Sri Lambodar Mishra and Dina Nath Singh were elected as vice-Chairmen and Sri Ram Bali Prasad through whom the present writ petition has been filed, was elected as General Secretary.
According to the petitioner, the aforementioned persons were, thus, validly elected as office-bearers, in their respective capacities, as mentioned hereinbefore, of the petitioner''s association.
By letter dated 5.8.1987, the General Secretary of the association informed the Railway Superintendent of Police about the holding of the election and further stated that several persons had been elected in the aforementioned meeting. The said letter is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. By a letter dated 20.8.1987 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition the General Secretary of the Bihar State Non Gazetted Employees Federation Shri Yogendra Prasad Singh addressed to the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police drew his attention to the letter of Shri Rambali Prasad dated 24.6.1987. It further appears that by the said letter aforementioned Yogendra Pd. Singh drew the attention of respondent no. 3 to his letter dated 29.7.1987 wherein it was alleged that the list of the elected officers sent by Sri Ram Bali Prasad was wrong. By the said letter Sri Yogendra Pd. Singh conveyed to the said respondent that Sri Ram Bali Prasad is also a Treasurer of the Federation. By the said letter, the aforementioned Yogendra Pd. Singh, therefore, requested the respondent no. 3 that the inter se dispute amongst the officer of the aforementioned association be resolved.
By the impugned order dated 18.9.1987 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, respondent no. 3 by a letter addressed to the Railway, Superintendent of Police, came to the conclusion that a parallel association was constituted by Sri Ram Bali Prasad. From a perusal of the said letter it appears that the respondent no. 3 perused the relevent documents in this connection and came to the conclusion that the document submitted by Sri Ram Bali Prasad were without any basis and, as such, he, by the said order, purported to declare the parallel association as un-constitutional and illegal.
In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. In the said counter affidavit it has been alleged that in the interest of the administration it is.-not desirable to allow functioning of more than one associations. It has further been stated therein that the election of Sri Ram Bali Prasad was not in accordance with law and was against the bye-laws of the petitioner''s Association.
In this case an application was filed on behalf of the Police Ministerial Officers Association wherein, a prayer was made for vacating the interim order of stay passed in this case on 16.3.1988. M. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the recognition granted by the Government can be withdrawn only by the State of Bihar. He, therefore, submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, respondent no. 3 had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
On the other hand Mr. J.P. Shukla, learned Government Pleader no. 1, appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3, and Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the intervenor, contended that by reason of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, respondent no. 3 has not passed any order withdrawing recognition granted to the petitioner''s Association. According to the learned counsel, in facts, the aforementioned Sri Ram Bali Prasad through whom the writ application was filed, had absolutely no locus-standi to file the writ petition inasmuch as, he was not even a delegate in the aforementioned meeting. According to the said respondent in terms of Rule-16 occuring in Chapter-5 of bye-laws of the association each branch of the Association will send delegates and the members of the Central Executive Committee shall be elected by the delegate at the conference but the said Sri Ram Bali Prasad was not sent as a delegate from the office of the Superintendent of Railway Police, Patna, and, as such, purported election of Sri Ram Bali Prasad is not in accordance with the provisions of the said rules. This aspect of the matter has been stated in Paragraph no. 13 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 and paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4.
It is, therefore, evident that the issue which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the respondent no. 3 had any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order or not.
True it is, that from a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application it does not appear that the recognition granted by the State of Bihar in respect of the petitioner''s Association has been withdrawn, but it appears that the respondent no. 3 purported to have come to the conclusion that the parallel Association allegedly constituted by Sri Ram Bali Prasad and others was illegal and un-constitutional. Ex-facte the functions of grant of or withdrawal of the recognition of Union is a matter within the exclusive domain of the State Government. It has not been contended by the respondents that the State had delegated its power to respondent no 3 nor has it been contended that it was authorised to do the same under the afore mentioned rules. Under the said rules, all the functions are to be performed by the State Government itself. The State Government being thus a statutory authority has also no power to delegate its function to any other person and in this view of the matter the respondent no. 3 had absolutely no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
The question as to whether an election was duly held or not or in the said election the aforementioned Ram Bali Prasad and other persons were duly elected or not are essentially questions of fact. Such a question of fact, it does not appear from the rules as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, can be decided by the respondent no. 3. The State. Government which was competent to pass an order for grant of recognition and withdrawal thereof the Association, in question, in my opinion, by necessary implication was also authorised to deal with such incidental matters which require the intervention of the State by reason of inter-se dispute amongst the office-bearers of the Association. The fact that the State Government has such a power is also supported by Rule 5 (e) of the said rules whereby and whereunder the union inter alia is required to furnish to the State Government annually a list of members/ office-bearers after the general annual meeting. The State Government, thus has to maintain the list of the office-bearers so supplied by the union and this will have necessary power to make an enquiry as to whether the names of the office-bearers so supplied are correct or not in order to maintain such a list.
Apparently, respondent no. 3 has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the question as to whether Sri Ram Bali Prasad was duly elected General Secretary of the association or not. True it is, as suggested by Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, that the petitioner Sri Ram Bali Prasad filed an application before the respondent no. 3 for obtaining recognition of the alleged election of the Association in which, he was allegedly elected as General Secretary along with other purported office bearers. It may also be true that the respondent no. 3 pursuant to or in furtherance of the said application heard the parties and per(sic)sed the documents produced by them before passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, but it is evident that the respondent no. 3 had absolutely no jurisdiction to do the same.
In Mukund Ram Tanti Vs. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade Unions and Others, , a Division Bench of this Court in a similar circumstance under the provisions while deciding at most a similar matter under the Trade Union Act has held that the Registrar of the Trade Union has necessary power to decide the question as to whether some office bearers have been elected in accordance with law or not. In the said decision, it has been held that such power exists in view of section 29 of the said Act as in terms thereof, the Registrar of the Trade Union is enjoined with the statutory duties to entertain only the names of the office-bearers in the register maintained by him.
True it is that in the said decision, it has been held by a Division Bench that a person who submitted himself to the jurisdiction of an authority can not later change the same. However, this aspect of the matter has been considered later on by a Full Bench of this Court as well as by of the Supreme Court in several cases. In Chandeshwar Singh v. Dahu Mahto and others, 1983 B.B.C.J. 503 : 1983 PLJR 443 a Full Bench of this Court held that a person who submits himself to a jurisdiction of any authority should be deemed to have waived his objection regarding want of jurisdiction but clarified that question of such waiver would not arise in a case where the concerned authority lacked inherent jurisdiction in deciding the dispute which is evident from the following:
The legal principle is well settled by now that there is a marked distinction between the cases in which the Courts has the jurisdiction to try a case and where a jurisdiction is irregularly exercised by a court (sic) is now well settled where as in the former ease the court ought not to have based upon the trial court in the latter, it could nave avoided the trial but not necessarily.
The competency of a court to try an action goes to the root of the matter and when such competence is not found it has no jurisdiction at all to try the case. But objection based on irregular exercise of jurisdiction in a matter which parties may waive. Equally well settled is the proposition that where there are two or more competant courts which can entertain a suit, parties to the concerned transaction can contract to vest jurisdiction in one of such courts, to try their disputes. If such a contract is clear, unambiguous and explicit, it is not hit by section 28 of the Contract Act either.
In Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others, , the Supreme Court has held that any order which has been passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Recently the Supreme Court in a case M/s Madnani Development Corporation (P) Ltd., v. Commissioner of Income tax, Orissa, reported in AIR 1987, Supreme Court page 564 has further held that even a right decision by a wrong forum is no decision in the eye of law.
In view of the findings mentioned above, it appears that respondent no. 3 had absolutely no jurisdiction to adjudicate the lis and as such the petitioner cannot be said to have waived his right to challenge his jurisdiction only because he submitted himself to him.
However, the question as to whether the election held on 21st May whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was elected as General Secretary is valid or not is a disputed question of fact.
As indicated hereinbefore, such a question could, if at all, be decided by the State of Bihar or by an aggrieved person or persons by instituting a suit in Civil Court. In this view of the matter, although the impugned order does not purport to be an order withdrawing the recognition as suggested by Mr. Chandra Shekhar, but it being wholly without jurisdiction, in my opinion, the same cannot be sustained. However, it is clarified that I have not decided the question as to whether Sri Ram Bali Prasad was elected as General Secretary or for that matter respondent no. 4 was elected as General Secretary or not. Such a dispute, as indicated hereinbefore may be determined by the appropriate authority in an appropriate proceeding. With the aforementioned direction, this application is disposed of.