- (1.)IN this appeal, Bangalore Golf Club calls in question the justification of the trial Court staying the, order of suspension pending enquiry, issued by the appellant- club.
(2.)BRIEFLY staled, respondent-plaintiff being a member of appellant-club, was issued with a show-cause notice dated 23/2/2010 in which it was stated that the membership of the respondent had stood suspended with immediate effect for a period of three months or till the committee takes appropriate decision with regard to charge of misconduct levelled against reapondent-plaintiff in the show cause notice issued on 15/12/2009 to him. This order of suspension formed the basis for the respondent's suit for declaration/that the said order of suspension is ultra vires, illegal, and unenforceable and show cause notice issued to him on 15/12/2009 was also null and void and for other reliefs. I.A.No. 1 was filled during the pendency of the said suit for an order of temporary injunction seeking staying of the operation of the suspension order dated 23.2.2010. After hearing both sides, the trial Court by its impugned order allowed the said LA. and stayed the operation of the order of suspension, thereby driving the Golf Club to approach this Court in this appeal.
Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Ananth Mandagi for the appellant, submitted at the outset that the suspension order issued to the respondent was an order issued pending enquiry and it was not an order issued post enquiry. Referring to the Club's rules, it is submitted that Rule 19.3 empowers the Club Committee to order suspension of a member if there is a prima-facie case against the concerned member and in accordance with the said Rule 19.3, the order dated 23.2.2010 was issued. Referring to the Rules 19.1,19.2 & 19.7.3, the submission made is that if the Club Committee is satisfied that there is a prima-facie case against a member, the committee by invoking Rule 19.3 has every right to suspend a member pending enquiry. It is submitted that the appellant was subjected to continuous harassment, by way of respondent seeking various information and despite the respondent being informed to go over to the club's office and verify the documents, respondent continued to write to the club on various aspects and apart from this, in the show-cause notice dated 15/12/2009 issued under Rule 19.2 of the club rules, various acts of misconduct were mentioned and the respondent was called upon to show cause within seven days as to why action should not be taken against him. Said show cause notice was also accompanied by the proceedings of the Managing Committee dated 10.12.2009 with regard to certain allegations of misconduct against respondent member. The acts alleged against the respondent fall within the acts which are prohibited under the by-laws and in this connection, learned counsel referred to by-law 4 of the by-laws and also to other by-laws. Though the suspension was passed for a period of three months, the respondent kept quite for two months and thereafterwards approached the Civil Court with the suit and the order of suspension is now put on hold by virtue of the said order granted by the trial Court.

Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Anant Mandagi apart from referring to the aforesaid rules and by-laws contended that the trial Court could not have stayed the operation of the suspension order when the enquiry itself is yet to be conducted and observations of the trial Court indicates that the trial Court has already decided the merits of the case and further more, the trial Court has observed that the entire material should have been placed by the club in support of the suspension order and this goes to show that the trial Court expects the entire evidence even before an enquiry is actually held. Drawing distinction between suspension before enquiry and suspension after enquiry, submission made is that the former does not fail within punitive nature and it is only after full-fledged enquiry that the decision can be taken as per Rule 19.7. Under these circumstances, the entire reasoning of the trial Court is perverse and contrary to the rules and by-laws of the club. Referring to the decisions reported in 1975 KLJ 428 in respect of Bangalore Turf Club and also another decision wherein Sadashivang Club was involved, reported in ILR 1993 Kar 2313, learned Sr. Counsel argued that the trial Court lost sight of the fact that Club Committee has got the power to suspend the respondent-plaintiff pending enquiry and the trial Court ought to have abstained from interfering with the order of suspension and being an internal affair of the club, Court should have refrained from staying the order of suspension, moreso, when it is an order of suspension pending enquiry. If the trial Court is allowed to stay the operation of the suspension order of the present nature, it would be impossible for the club to function is further submission made by the learned Counsel. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court be set aside by allowing this appeal.

(3.)ON the other hand, learned Sr. Counsel Shri Ravi B. Naik for the respondent-plaintiff referring to Rule 10.3.1 contended that said rule provides that members are entitled to all the rights of using the club, participation in joint meeting, management of the club, etc., and therefore, the request made by the respondent through various letters to the club seeking certain information only goes to show that the respondent has got a right to have a say in the management of the club and the management does not mean mismanagement. As the club is intending to put up a new club house, the respondent sought certain information and according to the respondent, without obtaining any sanction from the concerned authorities, the club has gone on to take steps like issuing tender notification, etc., and therefore, being a member of the club for over three decades, the respondent is very much interested in seeing that there is no mismanagement in the functioning of the club. Under these circumstances, mere asking for certain information from the officials cannot be a serious misconduct so as to get suspension from a membership of the club. The period of three months is already over and the allegations made against the respondent as could be seen from the show cause notice also have no basis because the respondent had stopped playing golf at the club about two years back and as such, committing certain misconduct and involving caddies does not arise. In support of all the above submissions, learned Sr. Counsel also placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2004 (4) SCC 697 : (AIR 2004 SC 1975) and (1991) 2 SCC (Supp) 36. Therefore, it is contended that when the show cause notice is bereft of particulars of the misconduct committed, the order of suspension cannot be maintained in law. Under these circumstances, the trial Court was justified in staying the operation of the suspension order.
In the light of the aforesaid submission put forward, whether the impugned order of the Court below staying operation of the suspension order calls for interference is the question that is to be answered at this juncture.