HC stays orders deputing Charity Commissioner staff for poll dutiesBombay HC stays ERO orders requisitioning Charity Commissioner staff for election duties. Only specific authorities can make such requisitions. Next hearing on March 5.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on Friday stayed the orders issued by the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) requisitioning a significant portion of the staff employed under the Charity Commissioner for election duties. The court has ordered that no action should be taken upon the orders issued requisitioning the staff for Lok Sabha poll duties until the next hearing scheduled for March 5.

Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Arif S Doctor issued the order, highlighting that according to the Representation of the Peoples Act, only specific authorities, such as a Regional Commissioner appointed by the President or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, have the power to requisition staff for election duties. Since the requisitions in question were made by the EROs, who lack the authority to issue such orders, the court deemed it necessary to halt the operation of these orders until the next hearing.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

Amogh Kaloti, the current Charity Commissioner of Mumbai, filed a petition with the High Court, expressing concerns about the impact of staff requisitioning on the functioning of the Charity Commissioner’s office. Kaloti stated that out of the 226 allotted positions with the office of charity commissioner, 94 are vacant, and only 132 staff members are currently employed. Despite this shortage, 36 staff members have already been registered for election duties, with a demand for 16 more.

The Charity Commissioner, a quasi-judicial authority established under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, of 1950, plays a crucial role in administering public trusts in Mumbai. The position is akin to that of a District Judge and holds the headship of the Charity Commissioner’s office.

Advocate Harshad Bhadbhade, representing the Charity Commissioner, argued that since the Charity Commissioner’s office is not under the control of the state or central government but under the jurisdiction of the High Court, EROs cannot requisition its staff for poll duties.

However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that judicial officers working on deputation with the state government, funded and controlled by the state, are not under the supervision of the High Court and can be requisitioned for poll duties by the state.

Nevertheless, the court agreed with the Commissioner’s contention that the requisition was not made by an appropriate authority. According to the Commissioner, only Regional Commissioners appointed by the President or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State have the authority to make such requisitions for poll duties. In this case, the requisition was made by an Electoral Registration Officer, who lacked the necessary power under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 or any delegated authority.

Upon inquiry, the counsel representing the Election Commission of India failed to produce documents showing the delegation of power to EROs. The court directed the Election Commission to produce such material at the next hearing. Additionally, it requested details on whether an assessment was conducted on the required number of staff from the Charity Commissioner’s office and how much staff the office can spare, considering that halting the office’s functions may lead to violations of fundamental rights.