Laxmi Narayan Jalani vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.

The matter comes up on three applications filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the writ petition, impleadment of party and for taking documents on record.

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 27.01.2015, inter alia, with the following reliefs:-

"1. The impugned notice to the shareholders dated 31.12.2014 (Annex.9) issued by the second respondent i.e. Managing Director of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur may be quashed and set aside.

The Clause (V)(iii) of the Annexure-A of the Notice dated 01.01.2015 (Annex.10) inserted in the light of the Government of India Guidelines No. 16/17/2010- BOI dated 13.10.2011 may be declared illegal and arbitrary.

It may be declared that the Government of India guidelines No. 16/17/2010- BOI dated 13.10.2011 are not applicable for the purpose of election of shareholder Director(s).

It may be declared that ensuing elections for the post of shareholders'' Director of respondent Bank for the vacancy arising on 12.08.2014 are required to be held as per the notice dated 23.06.2014 (Annex.-2) and the eligibility criteria and law applicable on that date.

Any other order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

Cost of the writ petition may be awarded to the petitioner."

From the above reliefs, it would be seen that the petitioner sought quashing of the notice to the shareholders dated 31.12.2014, declaration that Clause (V)(iii) of Annex.-A of Notice dated 01.01.2015 (Annex.-10) as illegal and further sought consequential declaration qua the eligibility criteria for the post of shareholders'' Director and that respondent Bank was required to hold election as per notice dated 23.06.2014 (Annex.-2).

In preliminary reply to the writ petition on behalf of the respondents, certain documents i.e. the Minutes of the Meeting of the Nomination Committee held on 19.10.2014 (Annex.-R/7) and the Resolution passed by the Board on 23.12.2014 (Annex.-R/8) were placed on record.

The petitioner has filed the present amendment application (I.A. No. 3214/2015) seeking to question the legality and validity of the said resolution of the Board of Directors and the Minutes of the Meeting of the Nomination Committee. Further as during the pendency of the writ petition, the elections based on the notice dated 31.12.2014 (Annex.-9) have been held, the petitioner has also sought quashing of the declaration of result of proposed respondent No. 5 as elected Director of the shareholders. It is, inter alia, claimed in the application that the copies of minutes/resolutions were sought by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, but they were not supplied and as the same have been relied on in the reply, the petitioner seeks to challenge the said resolutions also.

A reply to the application has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, raising objections to the amendment sought. It is submitted that the petitioner has remedy by way of election petition under Regulation 35 of the Subsidiary Banks General Regulations, 1959 and, therefore, the application seeking amendment itself is not maintainable. Besides the above, it is also contended that the amendment would change the scope of the present writ petition and, therefore, the amendment deserves to be rejected.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has sought the amendment merely with a view to challenge the resolutions passed by the Nomination Committee and the Board of Directors for seeking the relief already prayed for in the writ petition and there is no question of change in the scope of the writ petition. It is further submitted that as during the pendency of the writ petition, the elections have taken place, a further challenge to the resultant election has also been laid by the petitioner.

Vehemently opposing the plea seeking amendment in the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of filing the election petition and the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the writ petition so as to change the entire scope; even if the petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ petition at least the present writ petition cannot be permitted to be amended and the petitioner may be left to file a fresh petition.

Reliance has been place on judgment of this Court in Brij Kishore Ranga v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: 2003(4) RLW(Raj.) 2177.

I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material placed on record.

From the reliefs quoted hereinbefore, it is apparent that the petitioner in the second relief has sought declaration that Clause (V)(iii) of the Annex.-A of the notice dated 01.01.2015 inserted in the light of the Government of India Guidelines dated 13.10.2011 be declared illegal and arbitrary, by way of the present amendment, the petitioner has sought to question the foundation of insertion of the said Clause (V)(iii) of the Annex.-A i.e. the Minutes of the Meeting of the Nomination Committee dated 19.10.2014 and the Resolution dated 23.12.2014 (Annex.-R/8) passed by the Board of Directors produced by the respondents, therefore, apparently it cannot be said that the scope of the writ petition is sought to be enlarged so far as the challenge to the resolution passed by the Board of Directors and the Minutes of the Nomination Committee are concerned.

So far as the objection raised by the respondents regarding availability of alternative remedy by way of election petition is concerned, the provision dealing with the election disputes reads as under:-

"35.(1) If any doubt or dispute shall arise as to the qualification or disqualification of a person deemed, or declared to be elected or as to the validity of the election of a director of a subsidiary bank, any person interested, being a candidate or shareholder entitled to vote at such election, may, within seven days of the date of the declaration of the result of such election, give intimation in writing thereof to the chairman through the ''managing director'' of the subsidiary bank and shall in the said intimation give full particulars of the grounds upon which the doubts or disputes the validity of the election."

A bare look at the said provision reveals that the Election Tribunal can look into the matters/disputes, which arise as to qualification or disqualification of a person deemed, or declared to be elected or as to the validity of the election of a Director of a subsidiary bank. The challenge sought to be laid by the petitioner in the present writ petition i.e. the resolutions passed by the Nomination Committee and the Board of Directors, apparently does not fall within the parameters of the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal under Clause 35 as the said challenge apparently does not relate to qualification or disqualification of an elected person and to the validity of the election of the Director and further the Election Tribunal does not have power to quash the resolutions, therefore, the objection raised by the respondents based on availability of alternative remedy appears to be without any basis.

So far as the fact that now as the elections have taken place, and the petitioner is seeking to implead the respondent No. 5 as a party-respondent in the present writ petition, which would change the scope of the present writ petition is concerned, as already considered hereinbefore as the petitioner cannot question the validity of the Minutes of the Nomination Committee and the resolution passed by the Board of Directors before the Election Tribunal and consequential election of respondent No. 5 based on said resolutions and as the election has taken place during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent No. 5 becomes a necessary party as the consequence of acceptance of petitioner''s writ petition may result in setting aside of the election of respondent No. 5.

So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Brij Kishore Ranga (supra) is concerned, in the said case the application seeking amendment was refused on several grounds including the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy. As already determined, the so called alternative remedy is not available with the petitioner qua the relief sought by way of amendment in the present writ petition, the judgment in the case of Brij Kishore Ranga (supra) does not help the cause of the respondents.

In view of the above discussions, the amendment application filed by the application is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to amend the writ petition. The amended writ petition may be filed within a period of two weeks.

Reply, if any, to the amended writ petition may be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter.

Heard on application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 CPC.

In view of the amendment granted in the present writ petition, the application filed by the petitioner is allowed. Mr. Himakar Ramchandra Srivastava is directed to be impleaded as party-respondent No. 5. The name may be included in the amended petition.

Issue notice of the amended writ petition to the respondent No. 5 - Mr. Himakar Ramchandra Srivastava as well, returnable in six weeks.

The application filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to place on record certain documents shall be considered at an appropriate stage.