AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Exemption application is not opposed and is, therefore, ordered.
This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.3693 of 2019 date 04.12.2019.
The jurisdiction of this Court was invoked by the appellants herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 13.11.2019 and 16.11.2019 issued by respondent nos.2 to 4 in so far as it related to the appellants-writ petitioners; a writ of certiorari to quash the O.M. dated 02.08.2004 issued by the Additional Secretary, Forest and Environment, Section-I, Government of Uttarakhand by which recognition was granted to Sahayak Van Karmchari Sangh, Uttarakhand under the U.P. (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1979 (for short the "1979 Rules") for violating the 1979 Rules; and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the elections, of the Sahayak Van Karmchari Sangh, Uttarakhand, which is proposed on 06.12.2019 at Dehradun.
Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the Government of U.P. framed the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Forest (Ranger, Deputy Ranger and Forester) Service Rules, 1951 (for short the "1951 Rules") by notification dated 17.04.1951; by O.M. dated 02.08.2004, the Additional Secretary, Forest and Environment, Section-I, Government of Uttarakhand granted recognition to Sahayak Van Karmchari Sangh, Uttarakhand under the 1979 Rules; elections were held on 26.10.2015 and the office bearers of the State body, elected in the said elections, took office; in terms of Rule 4(s) of the 1979 Rules, made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, every Association/Federation/Confederation, recognized or deemed to have been recognized under the Rules, shall hold election of its office bearers within the period prescribed in its bye-laws, or within two years, whichever is earlier.
Since the earlier office bearers, elected in the elections held on 26.10.2015, assumed office soon thereafter, their term of office of two years came to an end in October/November, 2017. The appellants' complaint is that, despite their term having expired, the members of the elected body continue to hold office illegally ever since then till date.
While matters stood thus, the President and the General Secretary of the Sahayak Van Karmchari Sangh, Uttarakhand fixed 06.12.2019 as the date on which fresh elections should be held. Prior thereto, the President is said to have submitted his resignation vide letter dated 02.08.2019. The appellants-writ petitioners' complain that he still continues to hold office. The election commenced yesterday ie 06.12.2019, and is due to end today.
While it does appear that elections should have been held in October/November, 2017, it is curious that the appellants-writ petitioners, who have remained silent ever since October/November, 2017, should now choose to contend that elections were not held for around two years' thereafter, more so when elections are now being held.
Yet another relief which the appellants-writ petitioners seek is under Rule 8(1)(c) of the 1979 Rules, which confers power on the State Government to withdraw the recognition granted to any association if it is satisfied that it had failed to comply with the requirements and conditions laid down in Rule 4 within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Rules.
According to the learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners, since Rule 4(s) of the 1979 Rules required elections to be held within two years, failure to hold elections within the specified period would attract Rule 8(1)(c) of the 1979 Rules, and enable the State Government to withdraw the recognition granted to the associations/federations earlier.
The power, conferred under Rule 8(1)(c) of the 1979 Rules, is an enabling power, and thereby discretion is conferred on the State Government, if it is satisfied that there is a violation of Rule 4, to withdraw the recognition granted by it, to any association, earlier. No right is conferred thereby on the appellants-writ petitioners to claim that, for failure to hold elections within two years, the Government must withdraw the recognition.
Be that as it may, all that the learned Single Judge has held is that the elections are scheduled to be held on 06.12.2019 for which leave has also been sanctioned to the employees so that they can participate in the election; and the petitioners, in effect, were requesting the Court to interfere in the ongoing election process. Holding that, once the elections have been notified, no interference is called for, the learned Single dismissed the Writ Petition.
The appellants-writ petitioners seek de-recognition of the Association for their failure to hold elections in November, 2017, two years thereafter in December, 2019, that too after elections have been notified to be held. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is extremely limited. Save case where the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality no interference is called for. In refusing to interdict the election process which is underway, the learned Single Judge has not committed any such infirmity.
Suffice it, while dismissing the Special Appeal, to observe that neither the order now passed by us, nor the order under appeal, shall disable the appellants-writ petitioners from approaching the competent authority for action to be taken under Rule 8(1)(c) of the 1979 Rules. If any such request is made, the concerned authority shall examine such a request uninfluenced by any observations made either by us in this order, or in the order under appeal.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.