AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. Petitioner an association, has challenged the action of the respondents, whereby they have deployed the doctors (VAS) and compounders (AVFO) of the veterinary hospitals and members of the association in the election duty. Order dated 07-06-2013 is also challenged by way of amendment.
By filing reply, it is contended that this petition is not maintainable because of certain deficiencies. Reliance is placed on Prabhat Vs. Barkatulla University, Bhopal and Another,
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Before dealing with the matter on merits, I deem it proper to deal with the question of maintainability of this petition filed by the association. In Prabhat (surpa), this Court has opined as under:
A writ petition for enforcement of the rights of its members, as distinguished from the rights of the Association as a body, can be filed by the Association acting through its office bearer or member, whether the Association is registered or unregistered, incorporated or not, only when the Association can satisfy the Court that if an adverse decision is given in that petition all the members of that Association or "Body of Individuals" will be bound by the decision. The reason is, that otherwise, immediately after adverse decision any other member of that Association may come before the Court in an independent writ petition, saying that he has not been heard and he had not authorized such Association or office-bearer or member to represent him in the litigation.
Therefore firstly the members of the Association must be clearly determinate and identifiable; and secondly either there should be Rules of such Association, or a legally biding special resolution of its general body for such representation in the litigation, so as to bind the members by the decision in such litigation.
As per said paragraphs, it is the first requirement that members of the association must be identifiable. In the present case, petitioner has not filed any list or material to show the details of the members. Secondly, as per the said judgment it needs to be shown that all the members of the association would be adversely affected by the decision of this Court. In the present case, petitioner placed reliance only on Annexure P/6 (handbook for returning officer, 2012). Clause 3.3(a)(ii) gives exemption from election duty only to the doctors and compounders working in the veterinary hospitals. In absence of any list of the members of the petitioner association, the requirement of Division Bench''s judgment is not satisfied.
Apart from this, it is not shown that the decision of this Court will affect all the members of the association. Thus in my opinion, for the aforesaid deficiencies this petition cannot be entertained. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the individual affected persons to avail the remedy in accordance with law. It be noted that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.