Himanshu Saini v. Income Tax Employeesfederation & Ors

$~33 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 5386/2023 HIMANSHU SAINI.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Sanjeev Panda, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX EMPLOYEESFEDERATION & ORS. .....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Ramit Malhotra, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R %03.12.2024 1.The petitioner has filed this writ petition with regard to election tothe Central Secretariat of respondent No.1 - Income Tax EmployeesFederation [“Federation”]. 2.Respondent No.1 is a service association of Group ‘C’ and Group‘D’ employees working in the Income Tax Department. The petitioner isalso an employee of the Income Tax Department in Group ‘C’. Hewished to stand for the post of Vice President in the elections held at theXXXI All India Delegates Conference, Hyderabad of respondent No.1 inDecember 2021. He is aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination, andhas filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records of this case; (ii) Quash and set aside the results of the election to the CentralSecretariat of ITEF-CHQ which was held in the All India DelegatesConference of ITEF, at Hyderabad in December 2021; (iii) Declare Note (iii) to the Article- IX - A (i) of ITEF Constitutionand Rule-1 of Election Rules, to the extent it authorizes nomination ofretired employees of Income Tax Department & former members ofITEF as CEC and members of Election Commission of ITEF as illegaland quash the same.; (iv) Direct the respondents to hold fresh elections to the Secretariat ofITEF-CHQ, after giving proper notice to all concerned stake holders. (v) Direct the respondents to pay the cost of litigation to theapplicants;applicants; (vi) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court thinksfit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3.Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states, at the outset, that the tenure of the candidate elected in the impugned election has lapsed, and afresh election has been held in September 2024. He, therefore, submitsthat the reliefs sought in the present writ petition have been renderedinfructuous. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, points out that thechallenge in prayer (iii) is to a provision of the Constitution of theFederation, and a rule which is part of its election Rules. He submits thatprayer (iii) survives the lapse of the term of the candidates elected in2021. 5.By order dated 10.07.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner wasgranted time to satisfy the Court as to how these reliefs would beamenable to the writ jurisdiction, as the same essentially pertains to adispute relating to the elections to a society. 6.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the challenge to theConstitution and Rules articulated in prayer (iii), is based upon anotification of the Union of India-Department of Personnel & Trainingdated 05.11.1993, by which the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules, 1993, were notified. 7.I am of the view that the said argument does not take thepetitioner’s case much further. The question of maintainability of a writpetition cannot be established on the basis of an allegation that anotification of the Central Government has been breached by therespondent. The Union of India is not party to the writ petition, and thesaid notification is not under challenge. The question is whether therespondent, and the disputes sought to be adjudicated by the petitioner,are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Service Associations) Rules, 1993, were notified. 7.I am of the view that the said argument does not take thepetitioner’s case much further. The question of maintainability of a writpetition cannot be established on the basis of an allegation that anotification of the Central Government has been breached by therespondent. The Union of India is not party to the writ petition, and thesaid notification is not under challenge. The question is whether therespondent, and the disputes sought to be adjudicated by the petitioner,are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. 8.The judgments of this Court in Sumir Dhir and Anr. v. Union ofIndia and Ors. [W.P.(C) 4671/2024, decided on 29.07.2024][1], ImranHafeez v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) 11086/2024, decided on09.08.2024], and in Balwan Singh and Anr. v. The Registrar of Societiesand Ors. [W.P.(C) 10326/2019, decided on 09.09.2024], have clearlyestablished that the writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily available tochallenge elections of a registered society, which does not dischargefunctions of a public character. The functions of a society are required tobe examined to determine whether the public law remedies areappropriate for adjudication of these grievances. 9.In the present case, respondent No.1 is a federation of associationsof employees of the Income Tax Department. It does not, by itself,discharge duties of a public character, although its members may beGovernment servants in their individual capacity. Respondent No.1retains itscharacterasa society registered underthe Societies 1 The Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court inter alia in Ramakrishna Mission v. KagoKunya [2019 16 SCC 303] and K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation & DrainageKunya [2019 16 SCC 303] and K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage Registration Act, 1860 and is amenable to the jurisdiction of the civilcourt. 10.The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of, with liberty to thepetitioner to approach the civil court in respect of his subsistinggrievances, if any. DECEMBER 3, 2024SS/AL/ PRATEEK JALAN, J [2015 4 SCC 670], while declining to entertain the writ petition.