HC stays polls for FIEO management committee representatives

The Delhi High Court has stayed the process of election of representatives of three, four and five star export houses to the managing committee of the Federation of Indian Export Organizations (FIEO).
The FIEO categorises various export houses into different categories including three, four and five stars on various parameters.
"I am of the prima facie view that a body such as the respondent no.1 (FIEO) incorporated to boost exports from the country should be a truly representative body of the exporters and should desist from ousting representatives of the exporters from its Managing Committee on such technical grounds especially when there is no specific rule in this regard," a bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw said.

The bench was hearing a plea filed by Priyanka Mittal who approached the court seeking direction to put on hold the declaration of results of election after her nomination for the post of associate member was rejected.
It asked the FIEO, Union Ministry of Commerce and others to file the counter affidavits on the plea within two weeks and said "till then the election to the post of representative of the Three, Four and Five Star Export Houses (North Region) to the Managing Committee of the respondent no.1 is stayed."
It said when the petitioner had been in the managing committee of FIEO for past three years then it would not have been difficult to immediately enquire from her whether the nomination received had her consent.

The bench, further said that the purpose of requiring the signatures of the candidate on the nomination form filled up by the proposer is only to ensure that the person proposed for contesting the election has consented thereto.

The bench posted the matter for further hearing on February 9.
In the plea, Mittal had said that the scrutiny committee did not find the petitioner's nomination valid "as there were considerable difference in signatures on all the three proposal forms and the signatures available in the FIEO records".
"The scrutiny committee held the scrutiny in closed doors and the petitioner had no opportunity to be present before the committee. The petitioner was never kept abreast of the deliberations of the scrutiny committee," the plea had said.