Disposed

Sanjiv Aggarwal v. Bharat Scouts and Guides and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Mar 2017W.P.(C)/7993/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a list of Life Members as it overlapped with Associate Members list, hindering his nomination for election. Court set aside the petition after respondents assured removal of names from the Associate Members list, leaving maintainability issues open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of conditionally upon removal of overlap between Life Members and Associate Members lists; election majorly deferred.

Sanjiv Aggarwal Vs Bharat Scouts and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~26

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7993/2016 SANJIV AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. P.R. Chopra, Advocate.

¶4

versus

¶5

BHARAT SCOUTS AND GUIDES AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Santosh Krishanan and Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocates for R-1 & 2.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

¶7

O R D E R % 02.03.2017

¶8

As per the Registry, respondents No.3 to 9 have been duly served. However, none has appeared on their behalf, nor have the counter affidavits been filed. Accordingly, the respondents No.3 to 9 are proceeded against exparte .

¶9

Pleadings qua the respondent No.1 and 2 are complete.

¶10

The petitioner prays for striking down a list of Life Members of the respondent No.1, as declared on 03.8.2016. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 had prepared a list of 23 Life Members of the respondent No.1/Association as on 03.8.2016 and the petitioner and the respondents No.3 to 9 are a part of the said list. At the same time, the names of the respondents No.3 to 9 are featuring in the list of Associate Members displayed by the respondent No.1 on its website. In support of the said submission, Mr. Chopra, counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure P-2, which includes the list of Life Members of the respondent No.1 vis-a-

¶11

W.P.(C) 7993/2016 Page 1 of 3

¶12

vis Annexure P-3, which includes the list of Associate Members. It is stated that the respondents No.3 to 9 whose names are featuring at Sr. No. 17-23 of the list of Life Members, also feature at Sr. No. 34 to 39 and 42 of the list of Associate Members, which is impermissible as it would adversely affect the prospects of the petitioner, who has filed his nomination papers to contest for the post of a Life Member Representative, that was received by the respondent No.1 in August, 2016 (Annexure P-5).

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 draws the attention of the court to the documents filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-6, Minutes of the Meeting of the respondent No.1, held on 04.3.2016 to state that the names of the respondent No 3 to 9 were approved for enrolment as Life Members of the respondent No.1 and once they have been enrolled as Life Members, their names shall automatically stand deleted from the list of Associate Members. He therefore explains that there is no overlap in the list of Life Members and Associate Members, as contended by the other side. He also seeks to clarify that the election to the post of the Life Member Representative was to be conducted in August, 2016, but due to disputes raised by the petitioner herein, the said elections have been deferred and the same shall be conducted in the near future.

¶14

Satisfied with the reply given by the other side, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as long the names of the respondents No. 3 to 9 are not shown in two lists and are deleted from the list of Associate Members, he has no objection to the elections being conducted now.

¶15

The petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the submissions made by counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. It may be observed herein that while disposing of this petition, the court has not expressed any opinion

¶16

W.P.(C) 7993/2016 Page 2 of 3

¶17

on the maintainability of the present petition, an objection that has been raised by the respondents No.1 and 2 in the counter affidavit. The said issue is left open for adjudication in an appropriate petition.

¶18

HIMA KOHLI, J

¶19

MARCH 02, 2017 ap/rkb

¶20

W.P.(C) 7993/2016 Page 3 of 3

Sanjiv Aggarwal v. Bharat Scouts and Guides and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv Aggarwal v. Bharat Scouts and Guides and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salek Chand Jain Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Gian Bala Vs State (Govt. Ofnct of Delhi)

Union of India and Ors. Vs Central Engineering Services Group a Direct Recruitment Association and Ors.

Divya Darpan Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Ors.

Rahul Dhaka Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Gnct of Delhi Vs Ex-Si Har Saroop

M/S Brandavan Food Products Vs Union of India & Anr.

Bharat M. Ruparella Vs Union of India & Ors.

B Block Harinagar Resident Welfare Association Vs Delhi State Election Commission

Harish Chand Dhupar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjeet Singh Dabas Vs State Election Commission & Anr.

Priyanka Mittal Vs Federation of India Export Organisations and Ors.

Ganga Prasad Tiwari & Anr. Vs All India Womens Conference

Ajay Juyal Vs State Election Commission NCT of Delhi