Patna High Court
Ashesh Kumar vs Deepak Kumar on 11 July, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.16 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9954 of 2022
======================================================
1. Angad Kumar Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh, Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o Ambika Nagar, P.S.-
Town Motihari, East Champaran-845401.
2. Meena Mishra, W/o Sri Hemant Mishra, Member of Managing Committee
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o Gayatri Nagar, P.S. Town, Motihari,
East Champaran-845401.
3. Dr. Chandra Subhash, S/o Late Vijay Kumar, Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o Belbanwa, P.S. Town,
Motihari, East Champaran-845401.
4. Pushpa Kishore, w/o Er. Kishore Prasad, Member of Managing Committee
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o Dhaka, P.S. Dhaka, Dhaka, East
Champaran-845418.
5. Bibhuti Narayan Singh, S/o Mahesh Chandra Singh, Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o New Gopalpur, P.S.
Town, Motihari, East Champaran-845401.
6. Dilip Kumar Singh, S/o Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o Miscot, P.S. Town,
Motihari, East Champaran-845456.
7. Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Late Lalan Prasad Jaiswal, Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o V.K. Garden, Janpul,
P.S. Town, Motihari, East Champaran-845401.
8. Ujjwal Kumar Srivastava @ Shekhar Srivastava, S/o Pramod Prasad,
Member of Managing Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o
Lalita Homeo Pharmacy, P.S. Town, Motihari, East Champaran-845401.
9. Dr. Omprakash, S/o Sri Vidhyasagar Arya Member of Managing Committee
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o Om Sai Hospital, Agarwa, P.S.
Town, Motihari, East Champaran-845401.
10. Dr. Amit Kumar, s/o Sri Shankar Prasad, Member of Managing Committee
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o Miscot, P.S. Town, Motihari, East
Champaran-845401.
11. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, S/o Er. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o Om Gopalpur, P.S.
Town, Motihari, East Champaran-845401.
12. Mahesh Prasad Sinha, S/o Kailash Prasad Sinha, Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari. R/o Chandmari, P.S. Town,
Motihari, East Champaran-845401.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Patna,
Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari.
3. The Additional District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari/Executive
President, Indian Red Cross Society, District Branch, Motihari.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
2/38
4. The Officer in Charge, District General Section, Motihari.
5. The Civil Surgeon, East Champaran at Motihari.
6. The District Transport Officer, East Champaran at Motihari.
7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari.
8. The Treasury Officer, East Champaran at Motihari.
9. President IMA, Motihari.
10. Government Advocate, East Champaran at Motihari.
11. Indian Red Cross Society, New Delhi.
12. Indian Red Cross Society, through its General Secretary, State Branch,
Patna.
13. Deepak Kumar, S/o Khanaiya Prasad, R/o Main Road, Motihari, East
Champaran Bihar 845401.
14. Dr. Ashutosh Sharan, S/O Late Shambu Sharan, Member of Managing
Committee, Indian Red Cross Society, R/O Belanwa, P.S.- Town, Motihari,
East Champaran
15. Ajay Kumar, S/O Late Brij Kishore Singh, Member of Managing
Committee, Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/O Sudhna, Plot No. 125,
Patna, 800025.
16. Ashesh Kumar, S/O Chendeshwar Prasad Singh, Member of Managing
Committee, Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari,, R/O Gram Bangro, Post-
Saganli, East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CIVIL REVIEW No. 43 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9954 of 2022
======================================================
1. Ashesh Kumar Son of Chandeshwar Prasad Singh, Member of Managing
Committee, Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, resident of Gram Bangra,
Post- Sangauli, P.S. - Sangauli, East Champaran- 845456.
2. Ajay Kumar, Son of Late Brajkishore Singh, Member of Managing
Committee, Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, resident of Shudhna Plot
No.- 125, Patna- 800025.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Deepak Kumar Son of Khanaiya Prasad, Resident of Main Road, Mothihari,
East Champaran, Bihar, PIN- 845401.
2. The State of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Health,
Patna, Bihar.
3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari.
4. The Additional District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari/Executive
President, Indian Red Cross Society, District Branch, Motihari.
5. The Officer- in- Charge, District General Section, Motihari.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
3/38
6. The Civil Surgeon, East Champaran at Motihari,
7. The District Transport Officer, East Champaran at Motihari.
8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari.
9. The Treasury Officer, East Champaran at Motihari.
10. The President IMA, Motihari.
11. The Government Advocate, East Champaran at Motihari.
12. Indian Red Cross Society, New Delhi.
13. Indian Red Cross Society, through its General Secretary, State Branch,
Patna.
14. Dr. Ashutosh Sharan, S/o Late Dr. Shambhu Sharan, Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o Belanwa, P.S.- Town,
Motihari, East Champaran- 845401.
15. Angad Kumar Singh, S/o Rameshwar Singh Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o- Ambika Nagar, P.S.-
Town, Motihari, East Champaran- 845401.
16. Meena Mishra, W/o Sri Hemant Mishra, Member of Managing Committee
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o Gayatri Nagar, P.S.- Town,
Motihari, East Champaran- 845401.
17. Dr. Chandra Subhash, S/o Late Vijay Kumar Varma Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o- Belbanwa, P.S.-Town,
Motihari, East Champaran- 845401.
18. Bibhuti Narayan Singh, S/o Mahesh Prasad Singh Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o- Gopalpur, P.S.-Town,
Motihari, East Champaran- 845401.
19. Pushpa Kishore, W/o Er. Kishore Prasad Member of Managing Committee
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o- Dhaka, P.S.-Dhaka, Dhaka, East
Champaran- 845418.
20. Dilip Kumar Singh, S/o Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o- Miscot, P.S.-Town,
Motihari, East Champaran- 845401.
21. Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Late Lalan Garden, Member of Managing
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, Janpul, Champaran-845401
Prasad Jaiswal R/o- P.S.-Town, Motihari, V.K. East.
22. Ujjwal Kumar Srivastava alias Shekhar Srivastava, S/o Pramod Prasad
Member of Managing Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o-
Lalita Homeo Pharmacy, Balua Taal, P.S.- Town, Motihari, East Champaran-
845401.
23. Dr. Omprakash, S/o Sri Vidhyasagar Arya, Member of Managing Committee
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o Om Sai Hospital Agarwa, P.S.-
Town, Motihari, East Champaran- 845401.
24. Dr. Amit Kumar, S/o Sri Shankar Prasad, Member of Managing Committee
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o- Miscot, P.S.- Town Motihari, East
Champaran- 845401.
25. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, S/o Er. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Member of Managing
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
4/38
Committee Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o Gopalpur, P.S.- Town,
Motihari, East Champaran- 845401.
26. Mahesh Prasad Sinha, S/o Not known Member of Managing Committee
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari, R/o Chandmari, P.S.- Town, Motihari,
East Champaran- 845401.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CIVIL REVIEW No. 16 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Mukesh Kant, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, AC to AAG 9
For the Society : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
(In CIVIL REVIEW No. 43 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, AC to AAG 9
For the Society : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-07-2025
Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel
along with Mr. Mukesh Kant, Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Braj
Bhushan Mishra, learned AC to AAG 9 for the State.
2. The issue and ground of review involved in both
the civil review is similar, they are being disposed of by a
common judgment.
3. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel along
with Mukesh Kant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the Indian Red Cross Society has
directed to convene a meeting of Managing Committee of
Indian Red Cross Society, Bihar State Branch for conducting
election of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Treasurer of new
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
5/38
State Managing Committee on 21.07.2025 at 11:00 a.m at
Darbar Hall, Raj Bhawan, Patna but the voter list don't find
names of the present review petitioners due to malafide act of
the present chairman of the State Unit. He further submitted that
name of representative of District Brnach Head of Motihari, Dr.
Ajay Kumar also don't figure in the voter list, which has been
brought on record by way of Annexure 2.
4. Petitioners have sought review of the order dated
11.12.2023
passed in CWJC No.9954 of 2022 firstly on the
ground that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article
226 of the Constitution of India as the Red Cross Society don’t
come within the purview of the State or other authority or
instrumentality or agency to discharge the public function and as
such is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court,
secondly the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot interfere with the election process or with the result
of the election declared.
5. The present review petitions arise out of CWJC
No.9954 of 2022. The aforesaid writ petition was filed for the
following reliefs:-
“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the election and election
result held on 12.06.2022 and declaring the election as
illegal and ultra vires as the same was conducted by the
District Magistrate and District administration Motihari
against the rules and regulations of Indian Red Cross
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
6/38Society and against basic tenants of election laws.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the respondent
authorities to hold a free and fair election of the
Managing Committee of Indian Red Cross Society,
District branch, Motihari in accordance with the rules
and regulations of Indian Red Cross Society and in
accordance with basic tenants of election laws.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the Managing
committee of Indian Red Cross Society, District branch,
Motihari not to use financial power and not to function
as office bearer of the Indian Red Cross Society, District
branch, Motihari.
iv. Pass any other or further order as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.”
6. The writ petition was filed for quashing the entire
election result held on 12.06.2022 and declaring the result as
illegal. The main grievance of the petitioner of the writ petition
was that against the action of the District Magistrate, Motihari
who had allegedly conducted the election in unfair,
unreasonable and illegal manner by flouting the Indian Red
Cross Society Uniform Rules (hereinafter referred as IRCS –
Uniform Rules and guidelines. The review petitioners support
the result of the election held on 12.06.2022.
7. The writ petition was heard on several dates and
was finally disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2023 and the
same is reproduced hereinafter
“Heard Mr. Kumar Amit along side Mr.
Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioner; Mr .Rajeshwar Singh,
learned GA 10 for the State and Mr. Dhananjay
Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.12.
2. In continuation of order dated
28.11.2023, certain documents have been produced
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
7/38
before this Court on behalf of the Red Cross Society
to show that no approval of National Committee
with respect to the voters who had participated in
the 2022 election relating to District Chapter,
Motihari was taken prior to holding of the election
by the Collector. The Clause 3 of Chapter VI
provides for registration of new members which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
3. Certain communication was made by
the Chairman of the Red Cross Society-cum-
District Magistrate, East Champaran with the
Chairman of the Indian Red Cross Society seeking
certain guidelines for holding the election which
was to be held on 12.06.2022, duly attested by
Public Relation Officer has been produced in the
Court in support that upto 12.06.2022, 2322
members were to be registered and from 06.07.2022
as per revised list, 1351 members were to be
added after notification of the election, which goes
to show that no approval of National Committee was
obtained by the Chairman of the State Chapter of
Red Cross Society, Bihar.
4. In view of above discussion made
hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The
election held on 12.06.2022 is declared to be
invalid. The ‘Red Cross Society’ may proceed to
hold election of East Champaran society in
accordance with the provision of the bye-law.
5. The Chairman of the Bihar State Red
Cross Society is directed to be more vigilant in
future by giving specific instruction to the President-
cum-District Magistrate with respect to the valid
members of voters in future to avoid negligence on
his part.”
8. The writ petition was filed by the life member of
East Champaran, District Branch of Indian Red Cross Society
on being aggrieved by the action of the District Magistrate and
district administration, Motihari whereby the election of the
members of the Managing committee of Indian Red cross
society, District Branch, Motihari was conducted in unfair,
unreasonable and adopting illegal means flouting the Indian Red
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
8/38
Cross Society and Uniform Rules and the basic tenets of the
election laws.
9. The Indian Red Cross Society was represented
through its General Secretary, State Branch, Patna (respondent
no.12) and respondents no.13 to 27 were impleaded as
respondents being the member of the Managing Committee,
Indian Red Cross Society.
10. Both the review petitions have been filed by the
members of the Managing Committee who were made
respondents in the writ petition. The grounds apart from
maintainability of the writ petition, the other ground of
challenge is the election result dated 12.06.2022 on the ground
that the writ petitioner was not a candidate in the election of
Indian Red Cross Society, Motihari and was not prejudiced with
the election and had filed the writ petition on improper
consideration of disqualifying 1351 members who had
participated in the election without issuing notice to them or
without adding them parties – respondents to the writ petition in
complete disregard of principle of natural justice. The
respondent no.12 and the petitioner in the writ petition had
concealed the fact that 1351 members were added as voters
(enrolled as members) much early to the notification of the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
9/38
election. The respondent no.12 and the petitioner of the writ
petition misrepresented the fact that for voting right of a
candidate, prior approval of the National Committee will be
required, even if the members had submitted membership and
subscription much early and could be processed before the
National Committee for the reasons not attributable to them
respectively. It has further been contended that the alleged
category of 1351 members had paid the membership amount to
the State Branch on the date indicated in the list of voters they
were enrolled as life members of the Indian Red Cross Society,
District Brach, East Champaran, Motihari.
11. On the basis of the above facts and information,
grounds have been taken for review of the order dated
11.12.2023 passed in CWJC No. 9954 of 2022, which are as
under:-
“(i) For that the order under review, in
the absence proper representation of the petitioners
all issues of facts could not be brough in course of
hearing of the case.
ii) For that the order under review,
where the election of Red Cross Society Motihari,
East Champaran declared to be invalid without
deciding the question of maintainability of the writ.
iii) For that the order under review that
1351 members including petitioners were made
member between 24.01.2022 to 23.05.2022 before
the publication of Voter list.
iv). For that the impugned judgment
and order is causing serious prejudices to the
elected members as well as those 1351 voters which
have been decided in their absence and without
their representation.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
10/38
v) For that the impugned orders
required reconsideration on other legal grounds to
be urged during course of hearing of the case.
12. It is well settled that review is permissible only
when
(I) new and important evidence is discovered and
that could not have been produced earlier with due diligence,
(ii) there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record or any other sufficient reason.
13. A review by its very nature contemplates
reconsideration of the same subject by the same Judge or
Judges while an intra court appeal is heard by another Division
Bench of this Court. Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code
creates a right to make an application for review under certain
conditions and Order 47 provides for mode, manner and
circumstances under which review petition can be made, heard
and determined. No doubt procedure is meant to advance justice
and as such cannot be treated as mandatory procedure,
however, should be followed as far as possible, keeping in view
the cause of justice.
14. The power under 226 of the Constitution of India
is exercised by the High Court in its equity jurisdiction and thus
as it has to do equity to the parties and to do complete justice to
them its power of review cannot be limited only in terms of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
11/38
Section 114 or Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
By parity of reasoning, Order 47 and Rule 5 ipso facto would
not be attracted in the writ proceeding, whereas a civil Court
trying a suit (or the High Court in exercise of original
jurisdiction) is bound by the provision of Order 47 Rule 5 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The power to review is taken recourse
to guide the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
15. The reason, as to why, the provision of Code of
Civil Procedure is not applicable in the writ proceeding has been
explained by the Apex Court in the case of Puran Singh & Ors
vs State Of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 1092.
The Apex Court in case of Puran Singh (Supra) held that the
provision of Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable even
before coming into force of Civil Procedure code (Amendment)
Act 1976. It is further held that if because of the explanation,
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution has been
excluded, there is no question of making applicable the
procedure of Code as far as it can be made applicable to such
proceeding. The procedures prescribed in respect of suit in the
Code if are made applicable to the writ proceedings then in
many cases, it may frustrate the exercise of extra-ordinary
powers by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
12/38
Constitution. High Court Rules is silent whether, the Code of
Civil Procedure is to apply mutatis mutandis as far as they are
not inconsistent with the said Rules. It is well settled that when
abuse of process of law comes into play and exercise of power
is in total disregard of all canons of justice and violative of
acceptable norms and manifestly exposes clear abuse of the
process of law, a writ Court cannot ignore it. The basic concept
of Rule of Law by which the democracy is governed, the action
which is likely to create an atmosphere of anarchy and curtails
the right of a person to exercise his vote, paves the path towards
the darkest hour in a democracy and fossilises the basic tenet of
Rule of Law.
16. I find to deal with the relevant rules. The ground
of review is prominently on the basis of information given by
the review petitioners who have been declared elected and they
are the paid members and have been enrolled as life members of
the Indian Red Cross Society, District Branch, East Champaran,
Motihari and, as such, total 1351 members were added as voter
(enrolled as a member) much before the notification of the
election, but the petitioner of the Writ Petition No.9954 of 2022
and respondent no.12 in the writ petition in connivance with
each other had not presented the correct facts before this Court
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
13/38
by misleading that 1351 members were added as a voter after
notification of the election or during the course of election and
as such, the election declared could not have been held to be
invalid by the Court vide order dated 11.12.2023, also on the
ground that the Court in exercise of Article 226 should not have
interfered with the election result, which could only be
challenged by filing an election petition.
17. From the perusal of my order dated 11.12.2023,
on the basis of documents produced before the Court on behalf
of the Red Cross Society, after verifying the records, I could
find that no approval of National Committee with respect to the
voters who had participated in 2022 election relating to District
Chapter Motihari was taken prior to holding of the election by
the Collector which is mandatory as per the Clause 3 of Chapter
VI which deals with the registration of new members which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
“3. Members enrolled by the
District Branches are members of the Indian
Red Cross Society. Enrolments shall be in
accordance with the rules, subscription and
grades of membership laid down by the
Managing Body at National Headquarters.
District Branches shall submit to the
General Secretary of the respective State/UT
branch monthly list of new members enrolled
along with 30% share of membership
subscription of the State Branch and
National Headquarters. As soon as new
members have been duly registered,
certificates will be issued by the National
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
14/38Headquarters through the State/UT branch
concerned.
A District branch will be
expected to enroll, within one year of its
formation, a minimum of 500 members of
different categories.”
18. Section 5(1) of the Indian Red Cross Society Act,
1920 provides that the Managing Body with the approval of the
President may make rules for the management, functions,
control and the procedure of the Society. The rules may provide
for the procedure of election of members by State Branch
Committee. The section 5(1)(j) also provides that the rules may
provide for the regulation of the procedure generally of the
society and the Managing Body. Therefore, it is evident that the
Managing Body of the Indian Red Cross Society can frame rules
for conduct of elections to the District Managing Body.
19. The supervisory role of the National
Headquarters of the Indian Red Cross Society is evident from
Rule 1(f) of the Uniform Rules for state/UT Red Cross Branches
of Indian Red Cross Society. It provides that the National
Headquarters shall, in consultation with the State Branches,
develop policies and strategies for the better functioning of the
Branches keeping in mind the principle of unity. All Branches
shall work within these guidelines, framework and strategic
directions agreed with the National Headquarters.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
15/38
20. Chapter III, Rule G(e) provides that the
Managing Committee of the National Headquarters has the
power to make rules for the management, functions, control and
procedure of the state/UT/District Branch (including the service
rules for the staff). Chapter VI, Rule 1(a) provides that the
Managing Committee of the State/UT Branches shall form
District Branches and that all the District Branches shall be
under the control of the respective State/UT Branch.
21. Chapter VI, Rule 11(9) provides that District
branches shall be subject to all rules and regulations issued from
time to time by the National Headquarters of Indian Red Cross
Society and from the State Branch. Rule 12 again provides that
any District branch whose administration in the opinion of the
State Branch Managing Committee has not been in accordance
with the principles and policies laid down by the State Branches
Committee, subject to the approval by the National
Headquarters, may be taken over by the State Branch and any
funds and property at their disposal added to the general funds
of the State Branch. The afore provisions would undoubtedly
establish the strong supervisory role of the State Branch and
National Headquarters over the District Branches.
22. The Indian Red Cross Society headquarters has
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
16/38
issued Circular dated 08.01.2013 (Ext.P3 in WP(C)
No.7205/2022) providing for the manner in which elections are
to be conducted in District branches. Clause 1 of Ext.P3
provides that the concerned Managing Committees are required
to pass resolution for appointment of Returning Officer and
forward to the next superior branch 30 days prior to expiry of
the term. The Chairman of the Managing Committee who
receives the resolution shall appoint a person who is not a voter
of the Branch for which the election is to be conducted, as
Returning Officer. As per Clause 3, the Returning Officer Shall
inform the election proceedings to the voters/members either
personally or through paper publication, at least 21 days before
the election. As per Clause 4, it is for the Returning Officer to
prepare the voters list of the Branch where the election is to be
conducted and publish the draft voters list, providing time for
filing objections.
23. In the present case, neither of the parties have
brought on record the resolution passed by the District
Managing Committee who conducted the election which was
held on 12.06.2022 and it could not be ascertained even if the
said resolution was forwarded to the State Branch for seeking
appointment of a Returning officer. However, if statement made
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
17/38
in paragraph no.7 of the review application to the extent that
members under the alleged category of 1351 has paid
membership amount, as well as, the amount to be paid to the
State Branch were paid much early to the process of election
was initiated and were all enrolled as life members of Indian
Red Cross Society, District Branch, East Champaran, Motihari,
Certainly review petitioners have ground for review. In this
regard, vide annexure 2, the petitioners have brought on record a
list of enrolled life members subscription of Indian Red Cross
Society, District Branch, East Champaran, Motihari.
24. After thoroughly scrutinizing the same, I find that
in civil review petition no.16 of 2024, the name of members
start from serial no.1 to 1351, total membership amount
received was Rs.1351000/- and total amount of Rs. 405300/-
was paid to the State Branch, whereas the list which is annexed
by the review petitioners of review No. 43 of 2024, the names of
members start from serial no.1 and ends at serial no.3639. There
is no reference regarding the total amount paid in respect of
those members to the State Branch.
25. Insofar as civil Review No. 43 of 2024 is
concerned, the list of members don’t mention the membership
amount paid to the State Branch which was required to be duly
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
18/38
forwarded by the Chairman of the District Managing
Committee, which required approval by the State branch.
26. The lists as contained in the two review petitions
relating to the members, which the review petitioners claim that
the said lists were approved by the State Branch after receiving
the membership fees, much before the election process has
begun, creates doubt.
27. In CWJC No.9954 of 2022, counter affidavit was
filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 4, 6 to 8 and 10 and
they denied the averments made in the writ petition. Certain
provisions of the Indian Red Cross Society Act have been
referred and it has been stated in paragraph nos.5 to 9 which is
reproduced hereinafter:
“5. That it is noted from Annexure P-1 to the writ
application it transpires that chapter III read
with clause 2 (c) of chapter VI deals with
Governance, Functions, Powers and Terms of
Office Bearers. Clause (d) states that the terms
(tenure) of the Managing Committee, the tenure
of its Chairman, Vice-Chairman and treasures
shall be for three years.
The tenure of the previous
Managing Committee of East Champaran
district branch of Indian Red Cross Society
ended much earlier. The District Magistrate,
East Champaran-cum-President of the district
branch proceeded to make the district branch
well functioning as such he invited members of
different class of the society to advice in proper
and effective functioning of East Champaran
district branch Indian Red Cross Society. An
advisory committee was formed to advice for
smooth and proper functioning of the district
branch. The answering respondent did not form
any Managing Committee of district branch of
Indian Red Cross Society.
6. That it is evident from
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
19/38paragraph no. 11 of writ application itself, it
transpires that a general body meeting of the
members of the district branch of Indian Red
Cross Society was called for and held on 26-04-
2022. In the meeting it was resolved that election
for constituting Managing Committee be held on
12-06-2022.
That from paragraph no. 1 of the
writ application it also transpires that election
was held on 12-06-2022.
The election was fairly and
impartially held through secret ballots. On
counting of votes members obtaining votes in
higher number were declared elected.
7. That the election concerned was
conducted with consultation of Bihar State Unit
of Indian Red Cross Society. The State Unit
appointed an observer to supervise the election.
The Sub Divisional Officer, Motihari Sadar was
appointed returning officer to conduct the
election. The Additional Collector, East
Champaran was deputed to provide
administrative assistance in the fair and smooth
election. The election was fairly and impartially
conducted. No regulation of Indian Red Cross
Society was violated in constituting the
Managing Committee of East Champaran
District branch. The newly elected members,
except Dr. Ajay Kumar, took their oath on 26-06-
2022. The Managing Committee is properly
constituted and functioning.
8. That from Annexure P-4 it
transpires that the matter of election was
presented before the state Unit. Also, from
paragraph no. 2 of Annexure P-4 it transpires
that participation of new member in voting has
not been declared against the norms or void. The
payment of contribution of membership has been
sent to the State Unit, delay payments of
contribution of membership by the district unit
do not deprive the members to participate in
voting. Thus, voting right of member is a
constitutional right and no member can be
deprived of his right.
That legal opinion from Advocate
General, Bihar was sought for in respect of
validity of election of respondent Dr. Ajay
Kumar, Legal opinion dated 01-07-2022 was
received. Then, on receipt of legal opinion Dr.
Ajay Kumar took oath. Financial activity was
allowed after receipt of legal opinion.”
28. The writ petition was adjourned on several
occasions and detailed hearing was made by the respective
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
20/38
parties on 28.11.2023 and after considering the provisions of
Indian Red Cross Society Act, 1920 which has been brought on
record in the writ petition by way of Annexure P/1 to consider
the veracity of the main objection of the petitioner of the writ
petition that some of the persons claiming themselves to be
members had participated in the election without approval of the
Central Committee as per the provisos of Chapter II of the Act.
This Court has directed the Chairman of the Society to provide
all the evidences relating to the members, who had participated
in the election which was held on 12th June, 2022. The
Chairman must ensure to send the records along with an officer
having knowledge with respect to the affairs of the Society.
29. Finally, the writ petition was heard on 11.12.2023
when the Chairman of the Indian Red Cross Society had
produced certain communication seeking guidelines for holding
the election duly attested by the Public Relation Officer was
produced in the Court which gave information that 2322
members to be registered and from 6.7.2022 as per revised list,
1351 members to be added after notification of election i.e,
12.06.2022. Therefore, this Court concluded that there was no
approval of National Committee in respect of 1351 members
was obtained by the State Chapter of Red Cross Society, Bihar
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
21/38
and in this circumstances and the record which was made
available before this Court, the election held on 12.06.2022 was
declared to be invalid and directed the Red Cross Society to
proceed to hold election of East Chamapaan Society in
accordance with the provision of by-law and the Indian Red
Cross Society Act. This Court also cautioned the Chairman of
the Bihar State Red cross Society to be more vigilant in future
by giving specific instruction to the President-cum-District
Magistrate with respect to the valid members of voters in future
to avoid negligence on his part.
30. The question arises whether this Court in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
could have adjudicated the dispute. In regard to the jurisdiction
of the writ Court to entertain a writ petition involving disputed
question of facts is no more res integra and in appropriate cases,
the writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition.
Reference in this regard can be made to the following judgments
of the Apex Court.
I. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd. &
Another Vs. the Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and
another, reported in (1970) 1 SCC 582
II. ABL International Ltd. & Another Vs. Export Credit
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
22/38
Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Others, reported in
(2004) 3 SCC 553
III.Unitech Ltd. & Others Vs. Telagana State Industrial
Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) & others, reported in
(2021) 16 SCC 35
Iv. . Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami
Suvarna Jayanti Mahostav Smarak Trust V. V.R. Rudani
reported in (1989) 2 SCC 69
V. In case of Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs.
Cricket Association of Bihar & Others, reported in (2015)
3 SCC 251, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in
paragraph nos.22 to 35 after taking note of the judgment in
case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Another vs. union of India &
Others , reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649 and opined that
though BCCI may not be a State under Article 12 of the
Constitution, the BCCI certainly was amenable to the writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
31. The case of Board of Control for Cricket in
India Vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Others, reported in
(2018) 9 SCC 624 is a continuation of its first case between the
said parties wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed
consequential direction pursuant to the Lodha Committee report
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
23/38
and held that the BCCI though not a State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution but when the BCCI exercises
public functions it would be amenable to Article 226 of the
Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Ramakrishna Mission & Another vs. Kago Kunya & Others,
reported in (2019) 16 SCC 303 had dealt with the question, as
to whether, proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
was maintainable against Ramakrishna Mission.
32. Recently, in the case of St. Mary’s Education
Society and Another vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and
Others, reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498, the Supreme Court after
dealing with various judgments summed up as to when a writ
petition would be maintainable against the person or body
discharging public functions. Paragraph No.75 and its sub-
paragraphs being relevant are quoted herein under:-
“75.1. An application under Article 226 of the
Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body
discharging public duties or public functions. The public
duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it
is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe
that duty or obligation to the public involving the public
law element.”
33. It is indisputably a public law action which
confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
24/38
Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having
any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified
through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have
intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226,
either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory
provisions or the employer had the status of “State” within the
expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the
action complained of has public law element.
34. The issue regarding maintainability of a writ
petition against Indian Red Cross Society came before the High
Court of Madhya Pradhesh, Jabalpur Bench in case of M/S
New Balaji Chemist Vs. Indian Red Cross Society (Madhya
Pradesh State Branch) & Anr. reported in AIR 2018 (NOC)
804 (M.P.) Answering the preliminary objection raised that the
Indian Red Cross Society is neither the State nor the
Instrumentality of State or authority within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, after relying on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of k K. Saksena Versus
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and
others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 670, maintainability of the writ
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
considered and after finally relying upon the judgment of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
25/38
Supreme Court in case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas and taking
note of majority view has held in paragraph no. 7 as follows:
“7. The Constitution has to an extent defined
the word “State” in Article 12 itself as including “the
Government…under the control of the Government of
India”. That an ‘inclusive” definition is generally not
exhaustive is a statement of the obvious and as far
as Article 12 is concerned, has been so held by the Supreme
Court. The words “State” and “authority” used in Article
12 therefore remain among “the great generalities of the
Constitution”
35. The circumstances under which this Court can
exercise to review its own order as has been explained by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and as per the provision of Order 47
Rule 1 and the extra ordinary, equitable and discretionary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, I can hold that the
writ petitioner had not approached the writ Court with clean
hand and at the same time, the action of the Chairman of the
State Branch can also be said to be mala fide, which calls for the
interference with the order dated 11.12.2023. However, it has
been informed that the Hon’ble Governor, who is the ex officio
president of the Indian Red Cross Society, has taken a decision
to convene a meeting of Managing Committee of the Society,
Bihar State Branch for conducting election of Chairman, Vice
Chairman and Treasure of new State Managing Committee on
Monday, i.e., 21.07.2025 at 11 a.m. at Darbar Hall, Raj Bhavan,
Patna.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
26/38
36. Now question arises, once the election has been
announced, whether this Court can interfere with the election
process, even otherwise, the review petition is allowed,
considering the mala fide action of the Chairman of the State
Branch in course of election process, which was held on
12.06.2022, in which the review petitioners were declared
elected. It is well settled that in exercise of power of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, any
challenge, once the election has been announced, the same can
be challenged by way of election petition. In this regard, I may
refer with profit to decision in N.P. Punnuswami V. Returning
Officer, Namakkal and others reported in 1952 SC 64.
37. In Nanhoo Mal and others v. Hira Mal and
others, reported in AIR 1975 SC 2140, a three-Judge Bench of
the Apex Court referred to the case of Ponnuswami (supra) and
expressed thus:
“5. It follows that the right to
vote or stand for election to the office of the
President of the Municipal Board is a
creature of the statute, that is, the U.P.
Municipalities Act and it must be subject to
the limitations imposed by it. Therefore, the
election to the office of the President could
be challenged only according to the
procedure prescribed by that Act and that is
by means of an election petition presented in
accordance with the provisions of the Act
and in no other way. The Act provides only
for one remedy, that remedy being an
election petition to be presented after of the
election is over and there is no remedy
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
27/38provided at any intermediate stage. These
conclusions follow from the decision of this
Court in Ponnuswami‘s case (AIR 1952 SC
64) (supra) in its application to the facts of
this case. But the conclusions above stated
were arrived at without taking the provisions
of article 329 into account. The provisions of
Article 329 are relevant only to the extent
that even the remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution is barred as a result of the
provisions. But once the legal effect above
set forth of the provision of law which we are
concerned with is taken into account there is
no room for the High Courts to interfere in
exercise of their powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution. Whether there can be any
extraordinary circumstances in which the
High Courts could exercise their power
under Article 226 in relation to elections it is
not now necessary to consider.”
38. In this context I may fruitfully refer to the
decision in Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal, reported in (1982) 1
SCC 691 wherein it has been held as under:
“A right to elect, fundamental though it is
to democracy, is, anomalously enough neither a
fundamental right nor a common law right. It is pure and
simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So
is the right to dispute an election. Outside of statute,
there is no right to elect, no right to be elected, and no
right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are,
and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election
petition is not an action at common law, nor in equity. It
is a statutory proceeding to which neither the common
law nor the principles of equity apply but only those
rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special
jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be
exercised in accordance with the statute creating it.
Concepts familiar to common law and equity must
remain strangers to election law unless statutorily
embodied. A court has no right to resort to them on
considerations of alleged policy because policy in such
matters, as those, relating to the trial of election
disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of
election disputes, court is put in a strait-jacket. ……..”
39. In Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat and another v.
Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe and others, reported in (1995) 5
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
28/38
SCC 347, the Apex Court has ruled thus:
“12. The right to elect and the
right to be elected are statutory rights. These
rights do not inhere in a citizen as such and
in order to exercise the right certain
formalities as provided by the Act and the
Rules made thereunder are required to be
strictly complied with. The statutory
requirements of election law are to be
strictly observed because the election contest
is not an action at law or a suit in equity but
it is a purely statutory proceeding unknown
to the common law. The Act is a complete
code in itself for challenging an election and
an election must be challenged only in the
manner provided for by the Act.”
40. In this context I think it appropriate to refer to
another three-Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court in K.K.
Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain and others, reported
in AIR 1977 SC 1703, wherein V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., speaking
for the Court, laid down as under:
“It is well settled law that while Art.
226 of the Constitution confers a wide power on the
High Court there are equally well settled limitations
which this Court has repeatedly pointed out on the
exercise of such power. One of them which is
relevant for the present case is that where there is an
appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the Court
should keep its hands off. This is more particularly
so where the dispute relates to an election. Still
more so, where there is a statutorily prescribed
remedy which almost reads in mandatory terms.
While we need not in this case go to the extent of
stating that if there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances the Court should still refuse to
entertain a writ petition it is perfectly clear that
merely because the challenge is to a plurality of
returns of elections, therefore, a writ petition will
lie, is a fallacious argument. It is important to notice
what the High Court has overlooked is that the
period of limitation prescribed by the rules is 15
days and if writ petitions are to be entertained long
afterwards it will stultify the statutory provision.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
29/38Again in the present case an election petition
covering the same subject matter is actually
pending. There is no foundation whatever for
thinking that where the challenge is to an `entire
election‟ then the writ jurisdiction springs into
action. On the other hand the circumstances of this
case convince us that exercise of the power under
Article 226 may be described as mis-exercise. It is
unfortunate that an election petition, which
probably might have been disposed of long ago, is
still pending because the writ petition was pending
in the High Court and later on special leave having
been granted these appeals have been pending in
this Court. How injurious something writ petitions
are where they should not be is illustrated by this
very case.”
41. In Gujarat University v. Shri N.U. Rajguru and
others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 66, a two-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court has held thus:
“6. It is well settled that where a
statute provides for election to an office, or an
authority or institution and if it further provides
a machinery or forum for determination of
dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved
person should pursue his remedy before the
forum provided by the statute. While considering
an election dispute it must be kept in mind that
the right to vote, contest or dispute election is
neither a fundamental or common law right
instead it is a statutory right regulated by the
statutory provisions. It is not permissible to
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution by-passing the
machinery designated by the Act for
determination A of the election dispute.
Ordinarily the remedy provided by the statute
must be followed before the authority designated
therein. But there may be cases where
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may
exist to justify by-passing the alternative
remedies. In the instant case, there existed no
circumstances justifying departure from the
normal rule as even the challenge to the validity
of statute 10 was not pressed by the respondents
before the High Court. 7. We do not consider it
necessary to burden the judgment by referring to
decisions of this Court laying down the principle
that where a statute provides a complete
machinery for obtaining relief against the orders
passed by the authorities a petitioner cannot be
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
30/38permitted to abandon that machinery and to
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution. We would
however refer to a decision of this Court in K.K.
Shrivastava etc. v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain and
other, AIR 1977 SC 1703 where a defeated
candidate at the election to the membership of
the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh moved the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
challenging the validity of the election. The High
Court was conscious that equally efficacious
remedy was available to the petitioner under the
rules but even thereafter the High Court
interfered on the ground that since the entire
election was challenged an election petition
could not be an appropriate remedy and the
same could not be considered as an equally
efficacious remedy. This Court set aside the High
Court’s order. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the
Court observed: “It is well settled law that while
Art. 226 of the Constitution confers a wide
power on the High Court there are equally well
settled limitations which this Court has
repeatedly pointed out on the exercise of such
power. One of them which is relevant for the
present case is that where there is an appropriate
or equally efficacious remedy the Court should
keep its hands off. This is more particularly so
where the dispute relates to an election. Still
more so where there is a statutorily prescribed
remedy which almost reads in mandatory terms.
While we need not in this case go to the extent of
stating that if there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances the Court should
still refuse to entertain a writ petition it is
perfectly clear that merely because the challenge
is to a plurality of returns of elections, therefore
a writ petition will lie, is a fallacious argument.”
42. In Maheswar Tripathy v. State of Orissa &
Ors., 1992 (II) OLR-90 the Division Bench of the Orissa High
Court has recorded the conclusions in seriatim which I
reproduce hereinbelow:
“17. (1) The right to stand for election
is a creature of a statute, and so, must be subject to
limitations imposed by it. (2) If the statute provides
only one remedy, that remedy being an election
petition to be presented after the election is over,
remedy at any intermediate stage would not be
available. (3) The word `election‟ has to be
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
31/38understood as including the stage of rejection or
acceptance of nomination paper. (4) If the
alternative remedy fully covers the challenge to
election, that remedy alone must be resorted to, even
though in the case challenge is to the election of all
the successful candidates. (5) There may exist
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances under
which a High Court can be approached to challenge
an election like the one at hand; but improper
acceptance or rejection of nomination papers in
individual cases would not normally be such a
circumstance. (6) There would be hardly any room
to entertain applications under Art. 226 of the
Constitution in matters relating to elections. An
exception can be when there is real and genuine
challenge to the vires of a provision having intimate
connection with the holding of election. This too
would be permissible after the election is over.”
43. The act of the Chairman of the State Branch as I
perceive, is not based on any acceptable intelligible principle. I
find no difficulty in holding that the same will frustrate “Rule of
Law” by which the democracy is governed. The right of a
person should not be curtailed or clipped by such an exercise of
law. I am disposed to think that in want of approved list of life
members of the Red Cross Society, Motihari Branch, if the
election of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Treasure of New
State Managing Committee to be held on 21.07.2025 will create
an impediment in completion of the election process. In the
exceptional circumstances, when the question of validity of
election held on 12.06.2022 has been challenged on the sole
ground that some of the list of members have not been approved
by the Central Committee of Indian Red Cross Society and the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
32/38
review petitioners have challenged the order dated 11.12.2023,
this Court, in such circumstances, find that from the Rules
providing the procedure of election of members of State
Committee which finds reference in Section 5(1)(j) to provide
procedure generally of the society and the managing body. The
managing body of the Indian Red Cross Society can be said to
be vested with the power to frame Rules for conduct of election.
The supervisory role of the National Headquarters of Indian Red
Cross Society is evident from Rule 1(f) of the Uniform Rule for
State/UT Red Cross Branches of Indian Red Cross Society
which provides that the National Headquarters, shall in
consultation with the State Branches, develop policies and
strategies for better functioning of branches keeping in mind the
Principle of Unity. Chapter 6, Rule 11 (9) provides that District
Branch are abide by the rules and regulation issued by the
National Headquarter of IRCS. Rule 11 provides that if District
Branch in the opinion of the State Committee has not acted
properly after taking approval of the National Headquarter, the
State Branch can take over the fund and property of the District
Branch in the general fund of the State Branch.
44. At this stage, today Mr. Dhananjay Kumar,
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
33/38
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Red Cross
Society, State Branch informs that at the relevant time, the
Chairman of the State Branch was one Dr. B. B. Sinha. In the
writ petition, it has not been denied that Dr. Ajay Kumar is not a
member of the Motihari Branch. In paragraph no.14 it has been
informed that his membership number is 361/2017-18.
Information is also to the extent that Motihari Branch has total
3562 members and he won by 866 votes. Challenge was on the
ground that total 1320 persons were made member of Motihar
Branch to influence the election without any intimation/consent
of State Branch of Indian Red Cross Society. The question
relating to genuineness of total 1320 persons who were made
members remained the subject matter calling for the interference
with the election which was held in the year 2022 having three
years tenure.
45. This Court while adjudicating the writ petition
had also taken note provisions of Chapter VI, which relates to
registration of new members on the basis of the election held on
12.06.2022, duly attested by Public Relation Officer was
produced in Court in support upto 12.06.2022, 2322 members
were to be registered and from 06.07.2022 as per the revised
list, 1351 members were to be added after notification of the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
34/38
election which goes to show that no approval of National
Committee was obtained by the Chairman of the State Chapter
of Red Cross Society, Bihar.
46. In the writ petition also, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar,
learned counsel had represented the Chairman but no
information has been given till date, as to whether, the Chairman
has verified the new members and the revised list which has
duly been attested by the Public Relation Officer and was
produced during the course of hearing while the order dated
11.12.2023 was passed in the writ.
47. Today Mr. Dhananjay Kumar on behalf of the
Chairman State Branch alleges that around two crores rupees
amount has been defaulcated by the District Branch. However,
learned counsel has not been able to bring any report or any
complaint made by any of the members or by the Chairman of
the State branch, who was required to be more vigilant, holding
the administrative post. The State Chairman can be said to have
allowed the alleged malpractice at the same time he has not
complied with the order dated 11.12.2023 under review. The
additional voter lists were directed to be sent for the approval of
the Secretary General, National Headquarter, which act only
suggests that his act is vested with mala fide, having adopted
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
35/38
malpractice in election.
48 This Court can only observe that the Chairman
who is/ was required under Rules to send the names of all the
additional members for their approval in accordance with the
Rules from Central Committee has not only stalled the
functioning of the society in respect of District Motihari branch
with the sole intention to prevent the members of the Motihari
Branch from present election.
49. At this stage, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior
Counsel informs that the necessary party, namely, Secretary
General, Indian Red Cross Society, New Delhi has not been
impleaded in the writ petition and as such, this is also one of
the grounds of review for non-joinder of party.
50. The fact which has emerged that the Motihari
Branch of Indian Red Cross Society is not functional due to the
fact that the voter list has not been prepared and it has been
resolved by the Managing committee of Indian Red Cross
Society Bihar State Branch for conducting the election of
Chairman, Vice Chairman and Treasure of new State Managing
Committee on 21.07.2025 at 11:00 a.m. at Darbar Hall, Raj
Bhawan, Patna and petitioners don’t find name resulting into the
name of the representative of the District Branch Head of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
36/38
Motihari, Dr. Ajay Kumar also don’t figure in the voter list. The
question that emanates in the present situation whether it can be
treated to be one founded on the face of exceptional
circumstances to interfere with the election process when it has
already commenced?
51. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, two
principles, namely to contest an election is simple and purely
statutory right and, if a statute provides one remedy, the same
has to be taken recourse to after the election is over and there
can be no intervention by the High Court in exceptional extra
circumstances.
52. It can be said that the doctrine of abuse of
process of law comes into play in the facts of the present case.
The system should be governed by the “Rule of Law”. I find
that if the names of the members of the Motihari Branch of
Indian Red Cross Society including Dr. Ajay Kumar are added
in the voter list, then such step will facilitate the process of
election instead of impeding it. In the prevalent factual matrix,
otherwise also, the action of the present Chairman can only
creates an atmosphere of anarchy and corrode the basic
objective of Indian Red Cross Society.
53. In view of the development which has taken
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
37/38
place, as well as, the voter list being not complete insofar as
District Motihari unit is concerned, the review petitioners along
with all the members whose name have not been deliberately
scrutinized by the State Chairman are directed to approach the
Secretary General, National Headquarter, Indian Red Cross
Society, New Delhi within one week, so that the proposed
election on 21.07.2025 many not be impeaded in any manner.
This Court leaves upto the Secretary General, National
Headquarter, Indian Red Cross Society, New Delhi to exercise
his jurisdiction to include the names of left over members. The
date of election is in the knowledge of the Hon’ble Governor. In
case, Secretary General is not in a position to approve the
members of District Motihari, the left out members or the
Secretary General may make a request to the Hon’ble Governor
for notifying the election on some other date.
54. All the parties who are aggrieved, they may
approach to the Secretary General, National Headquarter,
Indian Red Cross Society, New Delhi.
55. The present Chairman of the Indian Red Cross
Society, State Branch is restrained from administrative work as
the election process has started.
56. Let this order be communicated to the Hon’ble
Patna High Court C. REV. No.16 of 2024 dt.11-07-2025
38/38
Governor, Bihar and Secretary General, National Headquarter,
Indian Red Cross Society, New Delhi.
57. The present review petitions stands disposed of
with aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s).
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
Mantreshwar AFR/NAFR A.F.R. CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 14.07.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link