Press Club Of Jammu Th Sankeev Pargal vs. Dinesh Manhotra / Dinesh Kuar And Another

Held

The High Court held that it would not be appropriate to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution as the petitioner had already approached the learned District Judge for a similar relief. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed an application before the District Judge seeking to stay the operation of the impugned communications, and this application was posted for consideration on 09.11.2024. The Court requested the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu, to decide and dispose of the petitioner's application with reasonable dispatch, preferably on 09.11.2024. Until the application is decided by the District Judge, the Oversight Committee was requested not to conclude the election process. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the communications.

Facts

The petitioner, Press Club of Jammu, through its President, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging communications dated 22.10.2024 and 24.10.2024 issued by an 'Oversight Committee'. This committee was constituted by the Principal District Judge, Jammu, to oversee the election process of the Press Club. The petitioner's suit challenged resolutions and orders related to the election of the Management Committee. Earlier interim orders from the District Judge had kept certain communications in abeyance, restricted the use of club funds without court permission, but allowed for salary payments, government dues, and GST liabilities. The Oversight Committee was tasked with managing the club's financial affairs and ensuring transparency in the election process, with a deadline for completion initially set for 30.09.2024, later extended to 30.11.2024. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondent No.1, whose eligibility is disputed, was tasked with compiling the list of eligible voters.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Oversight Committee, constituted by the Principal District Judge, Jammu, acted within its mandate by issuing communications dated 22.10.2024 and 24.10.2024, directing the compilation of eligible journalist voters and convening a meeting for election initiation, when the eligibility of respondent No.1, who is tasked with these duties, is under dispute in the pending suit? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the eligibility of respondent No.1 is itself a matter of dispute in the ongoing suit, respondent No.1 should not have been entrusted with the responsibility of compiling the list of eligible journalist members and journalist life members entitled to vote in the election. This forms the basis of their challenge to the impugned communications. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state in response to the petitioner's challenge. The respondents named are individuals associated with the Press Club.