Arbitration Request No.21 of 2013, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (Karette Rotary Club v. P.G. Muraleedharan and Others)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/29TH ASWINA, 1935** **AR.No. 21 of 2013 ()** **---------------------** **PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT: ------------------------** **K.VIJAYAKUMAR PRESIDENT, ROTARY CLUB OF KARETTE, KARETTE VAMANAPURAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 606 ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY ROTARY CLUB KARETTE.** **BY ADVS.SRI.RAJIV ABRAHAM GEORGE SRI.EAPEN ABRAHAM GEORGE** **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:** **-------------------------** **1. P.G.MURALEEDHARAN DISTRICT GOVERNOR ROTARY INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT 3211 DISTRICT SECRETARIAT, GUGUMANDIRAM, SASTHAMANGALAM TRIVANDRUM-695 010.** ## **2. JATINDER SINGH** **MANAGER, CLUB AND DISTRICT SUPPORT SECTION ROTARY INTERNATIONAL SOUTH ASIA OFFICE, THAPAR HOUSE JANAPATH, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **3. C.LUKE CHIRAKKADAVIL, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM-686 001.** **R1 AND 3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) R1 AND 3 BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS R1 AND 3 BY ADV. SRI.BINU MATHEW R1 AND 3 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS R1 AND 3 BY ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN R2 BY ADV. KUM.N.V.ANUPRIYA** **THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.10.2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **A.R.NO.21 OF 2013** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.11.2012 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, ROTARY CLUB OF KARETTE** - **1 ALONGWITH THE DGN ELECTION SCHEDULE 2012-13** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.1.13 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **2 TO THE SECRETARY, ROTARY CLUB OF KARETTE** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 5.2.2013 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **3 TO RTN.ANSAR RAHIM.** - **TRUE COPY GOVERNOR NOMINEE SELECTIO PILOT PROCEDURES IN INDIA APPROVED BY THE ROTARY INTERNATIONAL BOARD IN MAY** - **4 2012** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.2.2013 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **5 TO THE SECRETARY, ROTARY CLUB OF KARETTE AMONG OTHERS.** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.2.2013 FROM THE APPLICANT AND the SECRETARY, ROTARY CLUB OF KARETTE TO THE 1ST** - **6 RESPONDENT.** - **TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT REPROT DATED 30.9.12 PUBLISHED BY THE ROTARY NEWS TRUST, CHENNAI FOR ROTARY INTERNATIONAL** - **7 DISTRICT 3211 FOR THE ROTARY YEAR 2012-13 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 1.10.2012 ISSUED BY ROTARY NEWS** - **8 TRUST TO THE APPLICANT** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.2.2013 FROM THE ROTARY NEWS** - **9 TRUST TO THE APPLICANT.** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.2.2013 FROM THE APPLICANT TO** - **10 THE ROTARY NEWS TRUST TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 8.3.2013 FROM THE APPLICANT TO THE** - **11 GENERAL SECRETARY, ROTARY INTERNATIONAL** - **TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 13.3.2013FROM THE SND RESPONDENT** - **12 TO THE APPLICANT** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.3.2013 FROM THE APPLICANT AND SECRETARY, ROTARY CLUB OF KARETTE TO THE 1ST AND 2ND** - **13 RESPONDENTS AMONG OTHERS TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 26.3.2013 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **14 TO THE OFFICERS OF ROTARY CLUB OF KARETTE.** - **TRUE COPY OF ARBITRATION CLAUSE AS CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 24 OF THE ROTARY INTERNATIONAL BYLAWS FORMING PART OF THE** - **15 MANUAL OF PROCEDURE.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES** - **R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ROTARY INTERNATIONAL BYELAWS R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ROTARY CLODE OF POLICIES** - **R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNOR ELECTION PILOT PROJECT R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 26.2.2013** ## **RKC** ## **TRUE COPY** ## **PA TO JUDGE** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------Arbitration Request No.21 of 2013 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2013** ## **ORDER** The prayer in this Arbitration Request filed by the President of Rotary Club of Karette on his own behalf and on behalf of the Secretary of the said club is for the appointment an independent and impartial person to act as Joint Arbitrator along with Rtn. PDG George Mathew, Rotary Club of Kottayam, Sankaramangalam, Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam - 686 004, nominated by the applicant so as to enable the two Arbitrators to appoint an Umpire, to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences made mention of in Annexure-13 and paragraph 23 of this application, in accordance with section 11 (6) and (8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The Rotary Club of Karette, of which the petitioner is the President, is a member of Rotary International, a world wide organisation, with its Secretariat headquartered in Evanston, Illinois, USA. The procedure regarding selection of District Governors for various Rotary Districts in India is governed by Annexure-4 minutes of the Board of Directors of Rotary International. The Rotary Club of Karette is a club within the local limits of Rotary International District 3211. The first respondent herein, who is the District A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..2.. Governor of Rotary International District 3211 now in office sent Annexure-1 letter dated 20.11.2012 to the Secretaries of various rotary clubs in that Rotary District inviting suggestions from eligible rotary clubs in Rotary International District 3211 for consideration by the nomination committee for nomination as District Governor for the rotary year 2015-16. Pursuant thereto, the Secretary of Rotary Club of Karette send Annexure-2 letter dated 21.1.2013 nominating Sri.Ansar Rehim, a member of Rotary Club of Karette for consideration by the nominating committee for nomination as a District Governor of Rotary International District 3211 for the rotary year 2015-16. Upon receipt of the said letter, the first respondent send Annexure-3 letter dated 5.2.2013 to Sri.Ansar Rehim inviting him to be present before the District Election Committee/District Nominating Committee at Hotel Nandanam Park, Palayam, Trivandrum at 1PM on 15.2.2013. He was also requested to bring the original receipts as proof of payment of : 1. RI First Semiannual dues (that was due on July 1, 2012 and old arrears if any) paid on or before 30[th] Sept.2012. 2. District Dues of Rs.500 per annum per Rotarian for all Rotarians reported on first SAR paid on or before 30[th] Sept.2012 3. Subscription to Rotary News or any other RI approved magazine for the first half year period fro July1, 2012 for all Rotarians and od arrears if any paid on or before 30[th] Sept.2012. The clubs that were not subscribing to Rotary news or any other RI approved magazine in 2011-12 Rotary year have to show proof that they A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..3.. have resumed subscription on July 1, 2012. 3. Sri.Ansar Rehim appeared before the District Election Committee/District Nominating Committee with the documents. It appears there was only yet another nomination, namely that of the third respondent, who is a member of Rotary Club of Kottayam East. After scrutiny by the District Election Committee, Sri.Ansar Rehim was found to be ineligible and in view of the fact that there was only one other nomination namely that of the third respondent who is a member of the Rotary Club of Kottayam District and his nomination was found to be in order, he was declared elected as District Governor Nominee of the Rotary International District 3211 for the year 2015-16. That decision was communicated to the Secretaries of all Rotary Clubs in Rotary International District 3211 by Annexure-5 letter dated 16.2.2013 sent by the first respondent. The said letter is extracted below in full for easy reference: “ROTARY INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT 3211 INDIA Rtn. Sakuji Tanaka, RI President| Rtn. PG Muraleedharan, District Governor February 16, 2013 To, All Secretaries of Rotary Clubs in RI District 3211 As per the Election Notification of the District Governor for RI District 3211, inviting suggestions from eligible Rotary Clubs in District 3211 of qualified and eligible Rotarians for A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..4.. consideration by the Nominating Committee for nomination as District Governor of District 3211 for the Rotary year 2015-16, the following two suggestions were received: 1. Rtn.Ansar Rahim of RC of Karette 2. Rtn.C. Luke of RC of Kottayam East The District Election Committee scrutinized these two suggestions based on the RI Byelaws Article 13.020.4 (MOP Page 216) and Article 15.070 (MOP Page 226), Standard Rotary Club Constitution Article 14 Section 1 & 2 (and MOP Page 253), and District Governor-Nominee Selection Pilot Procedures in India (D7 document, approved by RI Board in its Meeting in May 2012). On Scrutiny, the District Election Committee found that RC of Karette is ineligible for participating in the Governor Election Process during 2012-13 and to propose a candidate for District Governor Nominee for the year 2015-16, as the club was not subscribing to Rotary News or any other RI approved magazine in 2011-12 Rotary year and the subscription for 2012-13 was received from the club by the Rotary News Trust only on 4/10/2012 and the magazine dispatch was resumed only in Nov 2012. The District Nominating Committee immediately after its formation on Friday, 15[th] February 2013 met at Hotel Nandanam Park at 3:30 pm and considered the suggestion from RC of Kottayam East proposing Rtn.C.Luke as a candidate for District Governor Nominee for the year 201516. The Nominating Committee scrutinized the credentials of the proposed candidate and found that the suggestion from RC of Kottayam East is satisfying all stipulated conditions and in order. The committee, therefore, accepted the suggestion from RC of Kottayam East and selected Rtn.C.Luke of RC of Kottayam East as District Governor Nominee for the year 2015-16 of District 3211. Since the suggestion from RC of Kottayam East proposing Rtn.C.Luke as a candidate for District Governor Nominee for the year 2015-16 was the only one suggestion considered by the District Nominating Committee, Rtn.C.Luke of RC of Kottayam East is declared elected as the District Governor Nominee of District 3211 for the year 2015-16.' Yours in Rotary Service, A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..5.. Rtn P G Muraleedharan District Governor, RID 3211 District Secretariat RI District 3211, MLR 133 Gurumandiram, Sasthamangalam Trivandrum-695010, India, Ph: 91 471 2727999, 2319393” 4. Upon receipt of the said letter, the President and Secretary of Rotary Club of Karette send Annexure-6 letter dated 18.2.2013 to the first respondent with copy to the General Secretary of Rotary International wherein they took exception to the stand taken in Annexure-5 letter that Rotary Club of Karette was ineligible to nominate a candidate as District Governor Nominee and was hence disqualified and requested the first respondent to withdraw his decision declaring the third respondent as the District Governor Nominee for the rotary year 2015-16. They also called upon the addressees of the letter to give a reply before 26.2.2013, failing which it was stated that they will have to resort to alternate actions to get their grievances redressed. Along with the said letter, copies of Annexures-7, 8 and 9 and other documents were enclosed. No reply was admittedly send by the first respondent to Annexure-6 letter within the time stipulated therein or immediately thereafter. The petitioner thereupon send Annexure-11 e-mail dated 8.3.2013 to the General Secretary of Rotary International challenging the A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..6.. decision taken by the first respondent on 16.2.2013 including the disqualification of his club as one in violation of the clauses of the Rotary constitution. In that letter he prayed that the dispute as to election of the Governor General Nominee for the rotary year 201516 may be referred for mediation at the first instance. The General Secretary, Rotary International did not reply to Annexure-11 e- mail. Instead, the second respondent herein claiming to be the staff representative of Rotary International Secretariat send Annexure-12 e-mail dated 13.3.2013 to the petitioner wherein he took the stand that as per the interpretation placed by Rotary International on byelaw 24 of the byelaws of Rotary International, arbitration is not applicable in respect of the request contained in Annexure-11 letter. On receipt of the said e-mail, the President and Secretary of Rotary Club of Karette send Annexure-13 letter dated 23.3.2013 to respondents 1 and 2 as also to the General Secretary of Rotary International, whereby they invoked Article 24.010 of the byelaws of Rotary International, nominated Rtn.George Mathew of the Rotary Club of Kottayam as the nominee Arbitrator of Rotary Club of Karette and called upon the first respondent to nominate and appoint an Arbitrator. The second respondent thereupon send Annexure-14 e-mail dated 26.3.2013 advising the President and the Secretary of Rotary Club of Karette to file a formal election A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..7.. complaint before the Rotary International. In that e-mail also, the second respondent took the stand that Article 24 can apply only to disputes that do not involve actions taken by the Rotary International, Rotary District or a Rotary International Officer pursuant to the authority granted under the Rotary International Constitutional Documents, the Rotary Code of Policies, or the Rotary Foundation Code of Policies. The instant Arbitration Request was thereupon filed on 3.6.2013 seeking the reliefs aforesaid. 5. Relying on Article 24 of the byelaws of Rotary International, it is contended that disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the first respondent with regard to the procedure adopted for constituting the District Election Committee/District Nominating Committee, that the nominee of Rotary Club of Karette was arbitrarily excluded from consideration and that the third respondent was declared elected in undue haste. The second respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 28.8.2013 interalia contending that as the dispute raised by the petitioner relates to election of the District Governor of Rotary International District 3211, the election review procedure contemplated in Article 10.070 has to be adopted, that the petitioner cannot bye pass the said provision and invoke Article 24 of the bye-laws of Rotary International. It is also contended that the Rotary International has A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..8.. interpreted Article 24 of the bye laws of Rotary International as one applying only to disputes not involving actions taken by the District or Rotary International Officer pursuant to the authority granted under Rotary International Constitutional Documents, Rotary Code of Policies or Rotary Foundation Code of Policies that the decision disqualifying the nominee of the Rotary Club of Karette is one taken by the District Governor as an Officer of Rotary International and therefore, Article 24 has no application. Various other related contentions are also raised in the counter affidavit. 6. I heard Sri.Rajiv A.George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Jospeh Kodianthara, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.Deepu Thankan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Sri.Rajiv A.George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the dispute raised in Annexure-6 letter as well as in Annexures-11 and 13 was as regards the arbitrary and illegal declaration of the ineligibility of Rotary Club of Karette and the decision disqualifying Rotary Club of Karette to nominate a member for District Governorship on the ground that it had not subscribed to Rotary News and magazines of Rotary International, that by such arbitrary disqualification the candidature of Sri.Ansar Rehim, a member of Rotary Club of Karette was rejected and it thereby facilitated the A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..9.. uncontested election of the third respondent as District Governor for the year 2015-16. The learned counsel contended that a dispute has thus arisen between the petitioner on the one hand and the first respondent on the other, that notwithstanding Annexures-6, 11 and 13 letters the dispute has not been settled amicably, that request for mediation has proved to be unsuccessful and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to have the dispute resolved by arbitration as provided in Article 24 of the byelaws of Rotary International. The learned counsel contended that as the dispute involved in the instant case does not relate to the decision of the Board meaning thereby the Board of Directors of Rotary International, Article 24 squarely applies to the case on hand. The learned counsel contended with reference to Article 24.010 that a request for mediation was made within the period of 90 days stipulated in Article 24.020, that the Board of Directors of Rotary International did not set a date for mediation and as a result thereof the request for mediation has become unsuccessful and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to request that arbitration be held as provided in Article 24.040. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner is therefore entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the instant Arbitration Request. 7. Per contra, Sri.Jospeh Kodiyanthara, learned Senior A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..10.. Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.Deepu Thankan, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the dispute in the case on hand relates to the election of the District Governor Nominee for the rotary year 2015-16, that it is categorically stipulated in Article 10.070.5 that Rotarians and Clubs are obligated to follow the election review procedure established in the bylaws as the exclusive method of contesting the right to an elective office or the result of a Rotary International Election and that failure to follow such a procedure before seeking the intervention of any non-Rotary agency or other dispute resolution systems will entail disqualification of the Rotarian candidate from the election procedure. The learned counsel also contended that the election review procedure can be invoked only by a club with the support of five other clubs or a current officer of the Rotary International, that a complaint has to be filed before the General Secretary of Rotary International not later than 21 days after the result of the balloting is announced, that in addition to a club filing a complaint with the concurrence of five other clubs, a current officer of the Rotary International, the President's representative to a District, zone or regional meeting may also initiate a complaint, that in the instant case such a procedure has not been adopted, that the club of which the petitioner is President has not come forward with a A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..11.. complaint regarding the election with the concurrence of five other clubs and therefore, as the procedure prescribed for enquiring into complaints relating to an election has not been followed, the petitioner who is only a member of a club cannot invoke the arbitration clause by raising a dispute relating to the election of the District Governor nominee of Rotary International District 3211 for the year 2015-16. The learned counsel also contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in **A.K.Roy and another** v. **State of Punjab and others** (1986 (4) SCC 326) that if a procedure is prescribed it has to be adopted and no other procedure can be adopted and therefore, the instant Arbitration Request is liable to be rejected. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. From a reading of the instant Arbitration Request as also the contents of Annexures-6, 11 and 13 letters it can be seen that it was the disqualification of Rotary Club of Karette (on untenable grounds according to the petitioner) and the consequential rejection of the nomination of a member of the Rotary Club of Karette for Governorship of Rotary International District 3211 for the year 2015-16 that prompted the petitioner in his capacity as President of Rotary Club of Karette and A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..12.. its Secretary to address the said letters to the General Secretary of Rotary International. In the Arbitration Request it is contended that apart from the illegal disqualification of the club, the constitution of the District Election Committee/District Nominating Committee is also vitiated for the reason that it is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Annexure-4 minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of Rotary International held in May 2000 which applies to Governor Nominee Elections in India. 9. It is evident from a reading of Annexures-6, 11 and 13 letters that the disqualification of Rotary Club of Karette from participating in the election process for Governorship of Rotary International District 3211 for the year 2015-16 has lead to the dispute involved in the case on hand. The cause title to the arbitration request discloses that it is one filed by Sri.K.Vijayakumar styling himself as the President of the Rotary Club of Karette on his own behalf and on behalf of the Secretary of Rotary Club of Karette. Article 10.070.1 of the bye laws of Rotary International stipulates that no complaint regarding the selection process for a Rotary International elective office or the result of a Rotary International election shall be considered unless made in writing by a club. It is also stipulated that such a complaint must have the concurrence of at least five other clubs or a current officer of Rotary International. A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..13.. Such a complaint has to be filed within 21 days after the results of the balloting are announced. As per that Article, a President's representative to a district, zone or regional meeting is also competent to initiate a complaint. Article 10.070.01 which deals with such complaints is extracted below in full:- ## _“10.070.01. Complaints._ _No complaint regarding the selection process for an RI elective office or the result of an RI election shall be considered unless made in writing by a club. Such complaint must have the concurrence of at least five other clubs or a current officer of RI. All complaints with supporting documentation shall be filed with the general secretary not later than 21 days after the results of the balloting are announced. A President's representative to a district, zone or regional meeting may also initiate a complaint where sufficient evidence of violations exists. Such representative shall refer such evidence to the general secretary. The general secretary shall act upon a complaint pursuant to published procedures of the board.”_ 10. Article 10.070.2 stipulates that the Board (which is defined to mean the Board of Directors of Rotary International) shall give due consideration to such complaints and may take action as it deems fair and just. The said article also empowers the Board to dismiss the complaint, disqualify the candidate for the elective office sought or future Rotary International elective offices or both or take such other action as it deems fair and just. Article 10.070.5 stipulates that Rotarians and clubs are obligated to follow the election review procedure established in the bylaws as an exclusive A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..14.. method of contesting the right to elective office or the result of a Rotary International election. It is stipulated that if a Rotarian candidate or a club acting on behalf of such a candidate fails to follow and complete the election review procedure, before seeking the intervention of any non-rotary agency or other dispute resolution system, the Rotarian candidate shall be disqualified from the election in question. Article 10.070.5 is extracted below in full:- _“10.070.5. Completion of Election Review Procedure._ _Rotarians and clubs are obligated to follow the election review procedure established in the bylaws as an exclusive method of contesting the right to an elective office or the result of a RI election. If a Rotarian candidate or a club acting on behalf of such a candidate fails to follow and complete the election review procedure, before seeking the intervention of any non-rotary agency or other dispute resolution system, the Rotarian candidate shall be disqualified from the election in question.”_ ## 11. Article 24 which deals with arbitration and mediation does not empower a club to raise a dispute regarding elections. No doubt it enables the member of a Rotary Club or a former member to request the General Secretary of Rotary International if a dispute other than as to the decision of the Board of Directors of Rotary International arises between him and a Rotary Club and a Rotary District, Rotary International or a Rotary International Officer on any account whatsoever, to request the General Secretary to have A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..15.. the dispute referred for mediation. Article 24 in its entirety is extracted below:- ## _“_ _**Article 24 Arbitration and Mediation**_ _24.010. Disputes._ _24.020. Date for Mediation or Arbitration. 24.030. Mediation._ _24.040. Arbitration._ _24.050. Decision of Arbitrators or Umpire._ _24.060. Costs of Mediation or Arbitration._ ## _**24.010.** Disputes._ _Should any dispute other than as to a decision of the board arise between any current or former member(s) of a Rotary club and a Rotary district, RI or an RI officer, on any account whatsoever which cannot be settled amicably, the dispute shall, upon a request to the general secretary by any of the disputants, be resolved by mediation or, if mediation is refused by one or more parties, be settled by arbitration. Such a request for mediation or arbitration should take place within sixty (60) days of the occurrence of the dispute._ ## _**24.020** . Date for Mediation or Arbitration._ _In the event of mediation or arbitration, the board shall set a date for the mediation or arbitration, in consultation with disputants, to be held within ninety (90) days after the receipt of the request for mediation or arbitration._ ## _**24.030.** Mediation._ _The procedure for such mediation shall be set by the board. Either of the disputants may request the general secretary, or someone appointed by the general secretary for this purpose, to appoint a mediator who is a member of a Rotary club, other than that of the disputing parties, and who has appropriate mediation skills and experience._ ## _24.030.1 Mediation Outcomes._ _The outcomes or decisions agreed between the parties as a result of mediation shall be recorded_ A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..16.. _and copies held by each party, the mediator(s), and one copy given to the board to be held by the general secretary. A summary statement of outcomes acceptable to the parties involved shall be prepared for the information of both parties. Either party through the general secretary may call for further mediation, if either party has retracted significantly from the mediated position._ ## _24.030.2. Unsuccessful Mediation._ _If mediation is requested but is unsuccessful, any disputant may request arbitration as provided in section 24.040. of this article._ ## _**24.040** . Arbitration._ _In the event of a request for arbitration, each party shall appoint an arbitrator and the arbitrators shall appoint an umpire. Only a member of a Rotary club, other than that of the disputants, may be appointed as umpire or arbitrator._ ## _**24.050.** Decision of Arbitrators or Umpire._ _If arbitration is requested, the decision by the arbitrators or, if they disagree, by the umpire shall be final and binding on all parties and shall not be subject to appeal._ ## _**24.060** . Costs of Mediation or Arbitration._ _The costs of the conflict resolution, whether by mediation or arbitration, should be borne on an equal basis by the disputants, unless otherwise decided by the mediator or umpire of the arbitration.”_ ## 12. On the plain reading of Article 24.010 it is evident that it can apply only if a dispute arises between any current or former member of a Rotary Club and a Rotary District, Rotary International or a Rotary International Officer on any account whatsoever. However out of such disputes, disputes arising out of the decision of A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..17.. the Board of Directors of Rotary International are taken out. Meaning thereby that a member of a Rotary club or a former member cannot raise a dispute to be resolved by mediation or arbitration if such dispute arises out of a decision taken by the Board of Directors of Rotary International. Article 10.0701 and Article 10.0705 make it evident that Rotarians and clubs are obligated to follow the election review procedure when the complaint is regarding the selection process for a Rotary International elective office or the result of a Rotary International election. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the selection process is not disputed but the procedure adopted in disqualifying the petitioner's club and the consequential declaration of the result of election has led to the dispute, it cannot be disputed that it is the election after such disqualification that has given rise to the dispute. Since the bylaws provide that only a club with the concurrence of five other clubs or a current officer of Rotary International can raise a dispute or only a President's representative to a district, zone or regional meeting can raise a dispute regarding the selection process to an elective office, the petitioner who is only the President of a Rotary Club and has instituted the arbitration case on his own behalf and on behalf of the Secretary of the Rotary Club of Karette, cannot bypass that remedy A.R.No.21 of 2013 ..18.. and invoke article 24 merely for the reason that the dispute does not arise out of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Rotary International. The Apex Court has in **Suresh Bhasin v. Ramesh Chander** in its order dated 2.5.2005 in S.L.P.(C)No.8587 of 2005 disputes relating to clubs should be left to be adjudicated upon by the internal mechanism provided by the Constitution of the club. In the instant case, as the dispute relates to the election of District Governor of Rotary International District 3211 for the year 20152016 and article 10.070 provides for resolution of complaints regarding the selection process for a Rotary International elective office or the result of a Rotary International election, the petitioner who is bound by the bylaws as a Rotarian and as a member of a Rotary Club cannot in my opinion bypass that remedy and invoke article 24. His request was therefore rightly turned down by the second respondent, though the reasons stated by him may not bear scrutiny. On the terms of article 24 read with article 10.070, a dispute relating to election cannot be the subject matter of mediation or arbitration, though a suit may lie after the dispute is resolved in accordance with article 10.070 by the Board of Directors of Rotary International, in view of the fact that no finality is attached to the decision taken by the Board of Directors of Rotary International. It has also to be noticed that the consequences of A.R.No.21 of 2013 **==> picture [26 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** failure to follow the election review procedure is also prescribed in the bye-laws. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that article 10.070 does not take out disputes regarding elections from the purview of mediation and arbitration, I am of the considered opinion that as the dispute relating to election can be raised only by a club and not by a member, the petitioner cannot invoke article 24 and request for mediation or arbitration to resolve the dispute raised in Annexure - 6, 11 and 13 letters. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant arbitration request. It fails and is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to institute other appropriate proceedings, if so advised. Sd/- **P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE** rkc/vpv