1. When the matters were taken up for hearing, Mr. Shirish Joshi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners pressed for the grant of Draft Amedment moved by the petitioners in both the petitions. The Draft Amendments have been filed seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara in Judicial Misc. Application No.20/2011 dated 22.02.2012 and Judicial Misc. Application No.02/2012 dated 22.02.2012 and to quash the election of Chairman held on 26.02.2012.
1.1 The captioned petitions have been moved on 06.02.2012 and 08.02.2012 respectively. It is a well settled principle that an amendment shall relate back to the date of filing of the petition. By moving the Draft Amendments, the petitioners seek to challenge the orders, which have been passed subsequent to the filing of the present petitions. The subsequent development could be challenged before the appropriate Court / authority. Therefore, in my opinion, the amendment sought could not be granted since the subject matter of amendment was not in existence on the date of filing of the petitions. Hence, the Draft Amendments are not entertained and are, accordingly, rejected.
2. The petitioners herein seek to challenge the Resolution dated 19.01.2012 passed by the Governing Body of Charutar Vidya Mandal, respondent no.1 herein and also the Election Programme dated 21.01.2012 published by respondent no.1 for electing the Chairman of respondent-Mandal.
3. The respondent no.1 herein is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and is engaged in the activity of running educational institutions. The Governing Body of the Trust passed a Resolution in its Meeting dated 19.01.2012 deciding to hold election for the Post of Chairman. When the above fact came to the knowledge of the petitioners, they preferred Judicial Misc. Applications No.20/2011 and 02/2012 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara seeking to issue direction against the Trust that the said Resolution may not be acted upon. However, on 21.01.2012, the Joint Secretary of the Trust declared the election programme. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions.
4. Mr.
Shirish Joshi learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire election process initiated by the respondent-Trust is illegal, ultra vires and de hors the provisions of the Rules & Regulations of the respondent-Trust. It was submitted that in the past also, the petitioners had preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2017/2011 before this Court challenging the election process initiated by the Trust. In that petition, initially, the learned Single Judge had granted stay over the election process. However, in the Letters Patent Appeal filed against such order, the Division Bench vacated the stay and permitted the election to proceed, subject to the final outcome in Special Civil Application No.2017/2011. The said petition is still pending. He, therefore, submitted that the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has made the respondents arrogant and to proceed with the election process this time also, by giving a complete go-bye to the Rules and Regulations of the Trust.
5. Mr.
Dhaval Dave learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that by making false and frivolous allegations, the petitioners herein have tried to derail the election process. He submitted that it is a settled law that Courts shall not interfere while any election is in progress. The petitioners can avail of appropriate remedy after the elections are over. He, therefore, submitted that the present petitions deserve to be rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Considering the reliefs claimed in the petition, I am of the opinion that the same have got exhausted since the election process is already over. If the petitioners are willing to challenge the election process undertaken by the respondents, then it is always open to them to challenge the same by way of filing appropriate application.
7. However, so far as the present petitions are concerned, the reliefs claimed have got exhausted and hence, the petitions have become infructuous. Thus, only on the ground that the prayers are exhausted, these petitions are not entertained and are, accordingly, disposed of. Notice is discharged.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top