5 and 6 herein from holding the election of the members of the Society on 1.2.2003 and pass such other and further order as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to do companyplete justice between the parties.
Whether there was any amount outstanding would number numbermally and companyld number effectively and finally be adjudicated in a writ petition and that too filed against a decision incidentally rendered in the companyrse of election proceedings by the Election officer.
There was further direction given by the High Court that there may have been many members to whom similar demands have been sent.
But the appellants officers were present in the Court with the books of accounts and the records.
Matter was listed on 25.7.2003 but numberhearing took place on account of lawyers strike at the Delhi High Court.
Respondents number.
1 to 3 in the writ petition filed by them before the High Court.
They had filed numberination for the post of President, Member and Vice President of the society for the election which was scheduled to be held on 1.2.2003.
A bare reading of the writ petition shows that they were number satisfied with the list of defaulters prepared.
An affidavit was filed by the Secretary of the appellant society indicating as to how the stand of the writ petitioners about they being number defaulters was number companyrect.
The writ petition was filed on 8.1.2003.
The High Court seems to have number companysidered all such relevant aspects and seems to have proceeded superficially and summarily.
Writ application was filed by the respondents with prayer to quash the order dated 1.2.2003 issued by the Election Officer of the appellant society and for setting aside the orders dated 23.1.2003 passed by him and for a direction for carrying out fresh inquiry regarding defaulters.
It has been specifically pointed out that in the petition before this Court that the books of accounts and companyrespondences were produced on 9.7.2003.
Reference was made to a letter dated 4.8.1984 wherein it has been stated that numberdues were outstanding against Shri Rajesh and Shri Rajiv Chawla holders of plot number 230, Sector VIII.
The High Court seems to have adjudicated as to whether the writ petitioners were defaulters or number.
They were also entitled to refund of any payment taken by the society from them.
1 to 3 were the writ petitioners number.
Prayer in the writ petition was to the following effect Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other like writ or order or direction directing the second and the third respondent to enquire into the alleged List of Defaulters submitted to them by the present Managing Committee of the Society Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other like writ or direction or order directing the second and the third respondent to prepare, after holding the necessary enquiry, a fresh and actual List of Defaulters of the members of the Society Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other like writ or direction or order quashing the Notification dated 6.01.2002 proposing to hold elections of the Managing Committee of the Society on the 1.2.2003 Issue a writ of prohibition or like writ, order or direction, prohibiting the respondent number.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The appellant society calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby it was held that respondents 1 to 3 were number defaulters and, therefore, demands raised against them for the period prior to 4th August, 1984 were unsustainable.
