Court overturns debarring order due to delay, rules resolution illegal. Delay doesn't bar jurisdiction. Proper removal procedures required.

The Division Bench's decision to set aside the Single Judge's order due to delay in challenging the resolution debarring the Petitioner from holding any post in a Trust for 10 years was overturned. The Single Judge correctly found the resolution to be illegal as the Trust's bye-laws did not authorize such debarring. The Court emphasized that delay does not bar its jurisdiction, especially when the relief sought remains relevant. The Respondents were directed to follow proper procedures for removing the Petitioner from membership. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the validity of a resolution debarring a member from holding any post in a trust for 10 years, the authority of the General Body and Governing Body to pass such a resolution, the power of the Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the impact of delay in filing a writ petition.

Validity of Resolution Debarring Member:
The Petitioner, a member of a Trust, was debarred from holding any post for 10 years by a resolution of the General Body. The resolution was challenged through writ petitions. The learned Single Judge held that the resolution was illegal as the Trust's bye-laws did not empower debarring any person from holding a post. The Judge found the resolution to be without legal sanction, and the Petitioner continued to be a member of the Trust. The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order due to delay in challenging the resolution.

Authority of General Body and Governing Body:
The Trust's bye-laws did not provide for debarring a member from holding a post for a specified period. The Governing Body's resolution debarring the Petitioner was found to be invalid. The Court noted that the power to remove a member does not include the power to debar the member from holding an office. The Single Judge rightly quashed the resolution, and the power to mould relief is available to the Court issuing prerogative writs.

Court's Power to Grant Relief:
The Court can grant relief depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the specific relief claimed is not granted. Delay and laches do not bar the Court's jurisdiction, as it is a matter of discretion. The Single Judge correctly considered the relevant facts and did not dismiss the writ petition based on delay.

Impact of Delay in Filing Writ Petition:
The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order due to delay in challenging the resolution. However, the Single Judge's decision to grant relief was justified as the resolution debarring the Petitioner was still in force. The Court clarified that delay does not render the relief claimed in a writ petition in fructuous if the effect of the order continues.

Separate Judgment:
The Division Bench's decision was set aside, and the Single Judge's order was restored. The Court emphasized that the Respondents could proceed against the Appellant for removal of membership in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.

---