High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-04-01Petition dismissed.

Roy Ommen v. Mavelikkara Bar Association and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 29691 of 2012 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2013-04-01
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed; the court will not interfere with the election conducted by the Mavelikkara Bar Association.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Roy Ommen

Respondents

Mavelikkara Bar Association
Returning Officer, Mavelikkara Bar Association
Ruby Raj
Prasanth.S.Pillai
Premdeep.K.B
Subash.S
K.K.Rajesh
Binu.P
Meril.M.Das
Manu.V.Balan
Shajahan.P.
Rejimon.A.
Bindu
Deepa Stenet

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri R. Krishna Raj
• Smt. E.S. Soni

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Babu Karukapadath
• Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu
• Sri Jagan George
• Sri K.A. Nooshad
• Sri P.G. Pramod
• Sri Kandampully Rahul
• Sri George Varghese (Perumpallikuttyil)
• Sri A.R. Dileep
• Sri Manu Sebastian
• Sri Jacob P. Alex
• Sri Joseph P. Alex

Case Synopsis & Summary

Roy Ommen, a member of the Mavelikkara Bar Association, challenges the association’s election, alleging non-compliance with the Bye-law provisions governing electoral rolls. The dispute centers on whether the election was conducted in accordance with the association’s bye-laws (Ext. P1). Clause 19(d) requires the governing body to prepare and publish a valid electoral roll by December 1, while Clause 20(f) mandates that the final electoral roll be published on or before December 15 after considering objections. The petitioner contends that once the final roll is prepared on the basis of the membership register, including members who paid subscriptions by November 30, there can be no further changes; in practice, the respondent association allegedly allowed members who had not paid by November 30, 2012 to pay subsequently and vote. The initial roll published on December 1, 2012 contained 360 members, which, after objections, rose to 365 because five additional voters were included. The respondents argue that the bye-law provisions are inconsistent, making strict implementation impracticable, and that a long-standing practice permits payment of arrears before the election. They aver that the petitioner participated in the process and, despite contesting the roll, no prejudice arises. They also claim interim judicial orders led to bye-law amendments. The petition is ultimately dismissed, with the court declining interference in the association’s election process.

Provisions of Law Cited

Clause 19(d) of the Bye-lawsClause 20(f) of the Bye-laws

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Public function doctrine: Courts may interfere in voluntary associations’ affairs only if they perform a public function; absence of public function justifies non-interference.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the election violated the Bye-laws Ext. P1 by permitting changes to the electoral roll after the cutoff dates. He asserts Clause 19(d) requires roll preparation by December 1 and Clause 20(f) obliges final roll publication by December 15 after objections, with no legal room for late additions. He contends the final roll was prepared just before the election and included members who paid subscriptions after the deadline, undermining the integrity of the process. Reliance is placed on A.C. Muthiah v. BCCI to argue that courts may intervene in private associations when public functions are involved, though the association here does not perform a public function. The petitioner participated in the election and, given the alleged irregularities, seeks judicial scrutiny and redress.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ext. P1 contains inconsistent provisions, making ideal compliance impractical. They maintain the practice has long existed to publish the electoral roll based on subscriptions up to November 30 and to permit arrears payments before the election. They point to the published roll of 01.12.2012 with 360 members, later increased to 365 after objections, arguing that such deviations are in line with established practice and do not prejudice the petitioner, who contested but lost. They attribute the irregularities to practical exigencies and assert interim court orders prompted bye-law amendments, arguing that interference is unwarranted in a civil dispute between private bodies and that the election should stand based on the familiar procedures and conventions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
A.C. Muthiah v. BCCI and Another	2011 (6) SCC 617	Distinguished	Cited to argue for court intervention in public-function scenarios; court distinguishes it as inapplicable since the association does not perform a public function.
Suresh v. High Court Advocates' Association	2000 (1) KLT 652	Distinguished	Cited by petitioner to justify intervention; court finds it not applicable to the private association in question.
Kerala High Court Advocates' Association v. Babbalan	2010 (2) KLT SN 15 (C.No. 19)	Distinguished	Cited to support intervention; court rejects as not applicable in this matter.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Roy Ommen v. Mavelikkara Bar Association and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935** **WP(C).No. 29691 of 2012 (J) -------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): --------------------------** **ROY OMMEN ADVOCATE, TEJ BHAVAN, CHERUKOL P.O. MAVELIKARA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ SMT.E.S.SONI** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. MAVELIKKARA BAR ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKARA.** ## **2. RETURNING OFFICER,** - **MAVELIKARA BAR ASSOCIATION, M.S.USMAN, ADVOCATE DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKARA.** **3. RUBY RAJ** - **ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** **4. PRASANTH.S.PILLAI ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** **5. PREMDEEP.K.B ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** **6. SUBASH.S. ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** **7. K.K.RAJESH ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** **8. BINU.P. ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** ## **DCS** **WP(C).No. 29691 of 2012 (J)** **9. MERIL.M.DAS ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** **10. MANU.V.BALAN ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** **11. SHAJAHAN.P. ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** ## **12. REJIMON.A.** **ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** ## **13. BINDU** **ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** **14. DEEPA STENET ADVOCATE, DISTRICT COURT, MAVELIKKARA PIN - 6850101.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL R2 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN R3-R14 BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DCS** **WP(C).No. 29691 of 2012 (J)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE BY LAW OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.11.2008. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 10.12.2012. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2012 EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **DCS** ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J** ## **--------------------------------------W.P.(C). NO. 29691 OF 2012** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 1[st ] day of April, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, a member of the Mavelikkara Bar Association challenges the conduct of election. According to him the election was conducted in violation of the provisions of the Bye-law. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that as per Clause 19(d) of the bye-laws at Ext.P1 it is for the governing body in office to prepare and publish a valid electoral roll by the first day of December. Clause 20(f) further indicates that the governing body shall prepare the electoral roll and to make such publication in the notice board as per the valid membership register and subscription register on or before 30[th] November every year. It further indicates that any objection in regard to the said electoral roll shall be considered and decided and the governing body shall publish the final electoral roll on or before 15[th] December. W.P.(C). NO. 29691 OF 2012 **2** 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that once the final electoral roll is prepared on the basis of the membership register by including all the members who had submitted their subscriptions on or before 30[th] November of every year, there cannot be any further subsequent change in the electoral roll. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent Association had permitted members who had not paid their subscription prior to 30[th] November 2012 to pay the subscription subsequently and they were all permitted to exercise their right to vote and the final electoral roll was only prepared just before the date of election. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 1[st] respondent Association inter alia contending that there are number of contradictory and inconsistent provisions in Ext. P1 bye-law. Therefore implementation of bye-law without violating the said provisions was practically impossible. They also narrated the reason for making a deviation from the bye-law W.P.(C). NO. 29691 OF 2012 **3** on the factual circumstances involved in the matter. It is further stated that it has been a consistent and continuous practice, procedure and convention followed by the Association to publish the electoral roll on the basis of subscription paid up to 30[th] November of every year and permit the persons in the electoral roll to clear their arrear if any accrued subsequently before the election. It is stated that an electoral roll was published on 01.12.2012 with 360 members. On the basis of objection received from 5 persons they were also included in the electoral roll making the total number of voters to 365 and as per the usual practice payments for annual subscription are made by most of the members only before the election in December as arrears accrued even after the publication of electoral roll and following the usual practice and convention they were also permitted to pay arrears of subscription. It is also contended that the petitioner has also participated in the election process and he lost the election. He got only about 9 votes W.P.(C). NO. 29691 OF 2012 **4** whereas the other candidate got more than 100 votes. 4. The first question to be considered is whether this writ petition in maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in **A.C. Muthiah v. BCCI and Another [2011 (6) SCC 617]** to contend for the position that even in respect of voluntary associations, it is open for the Court to interfere if they carry on any public function. In so far as the first respondent Association is concerned the dispute raised is regarding election process and which according to petitioner is not in accordance with the bye-laws. This is purely a civil dispute between the petitioner and the Association and no public function is involved as far as the first respondent Association is concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner however relies upon the following judgment in **Suresh v. High Court Advocates' Association [2000 (1) KLT 652]** and **Kerala High Court Advocates' Association v. Babbalan [2010 (2) KLT SN 15 (C.No. 19)]** to contend for the position that W.P.(C). NO. 29691 OF 2012 **5** this Court had interfered in such election process at different point of time. But as I have already held I am not inclined to accept the said position in view of the fact that the Association does not perform any public function and there will be no justification on the part of this Court to interfere in the election process or to come to a finding that bye-law conditions have been violated. 5. Still further it is stated in the counter affidavit that in the Association itself it is an accepted practice to permit the members to submit there subscription even before the election. If such practice had been followed, especially in view of the fact that there are certain inconsistencies in the bye-law provisions I do not think this Court will be justified in interfering with the election so conducted. That apart it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent Association that in view of the interim order passed by this Court steps have been taken to amend the bye-law in order to rectify the inconsistency that had come W.P.(C). NO. 29691 OF 2012 **6** up in the bye-law conditions. That apart no prejudice is caused to the petitioner if the elected members are permitted to continue in office. In that view of the matter I do not think that it is necessary to interfere with the election conducted by the 1[st] respondent Association, hence this writ petition is dismissed. sd/- **A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE** DCS