Moulding of relief and remand for fresh election after statutory change, with eligibility decided first by the competent authority.

The High Court erred in proceeding on the assumption that the application for additional evidence had not been dealt with, because the application had not been pressed before the Charity Commissioner and there was no occasion for any order on it; the materials sought to be produced could not therefore be treated as wrongly ignored. On the statutory and factual position arising from later events, the Court held that relief could be moulded, but not so as to defeat vested statutory rights. The dispute was remanded to the prescribed appellate authority to decide the eligibility of the 38 persons first and then conduct a fresh election under the substituted regime.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in proceeding on the footing that the application for additional evidence had not been dealt with by the Charity Commissioner and in relying upon the materials sought to be produced through that application. (ii) Whether, in view of the passage of time and the statutory change, the dispute should have been re-examined by the prescribed appellate authority with directions for a fresh election and a prior decision on the eligibility of the 38 persons included in the electoral rolls.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in proceeding on the footing that the application for additional evidence had not been dealt with by the Charity Commissioner and in relying upon the materials sought to be produced through that application.

Analysis: The application for additional evidence was not pressed before the Charity Commissioner, so the question of any order on it did not arise. The High Court's premise that the Charity Commissioner had failed to deal with the application was therefore incorrect. The materials which the respondents wished to produce could not be treated as having been wrongly ignored by the Charity Commissioner on the basis assumed by the High Court.

Conclusion: The High Court erred on this issue and its finding on the additional-evidence question could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the passage of time and the statutory change, the dispute should have been re-examined by the prescribed appellate authority with directions for a fresh election and a prior decision on the eligibility of the 38 persons included in the electoral rolls.

Analysis: Subsequent events may justify moulding of relief where the original relief has become obsolete or where updated facts require a different form of relief, but that doctrine cannot divest rights vested by statute. The Court applied the equitable maxims that an act of the Court should prejudice no one and that the law does not compel impossibilities, and considered that the dispute over eligibility of the 38 persons required decision by the authority under the substituted statutory regime. A fresh election under the supervision of the appellate authority was therefore an appropriate course, with the eligibility question to be decided first.

Conclusion: The matter was directed to be considered by the prescribed appellate authority, which was to decide the eligibility issue before holding a fresh election.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part, the impugned judgment could not be sustained on the additional-evidence issue, and the controversy was sent back for determination and fresh election proceedings under the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Subsequent events may justify moulding of relief in appropriate cases, but they cannot override statutory rights or cure a foundational error in the adjudication process; where a material application was not pressed, it cannot be treated as if it required disposal, and the proper course may be a remand for decision by the competent authority.

---