M. Chockalingam, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall govern all these five appeals in OSA Nos.138 and 183 to 186 of 2009.
(2.) ALL these appeals have arisen from the common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in the above said applications pending the suit in which the plaintiffs sought the following reliefs: (a) For a declaration that the removal of the first and second plaintiffs as primary members of the first defendant sangam pursuant to the communications dated 24.06.2008 and 06.10.2008 to the first and second plaintiffs respectively is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and consequently, it shall not bind the plaintiffs 1 and 2 (b) For a declaration that the election of the office bearers to the first defendant sangam purported to have been held on 26.10.2008 is illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and consequently declare I bad in law (c) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 25, their men, agents and servants or any one claiming through them from functioning or discharging their duties and obligations as office bearers of the first defendant sangam pursuant to the illegal election held on 26.10.2008 (d) For a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant sangam to prepare a valid Electorate of the first defendant sangam after reviewing of the entire voters list (e) For a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant sangam to conduct an election of the office bearers to the first defendant sangam in accordance with the Rules and Articles of the ALL India Nayudu Sangam by appointing an officer of this Court. The plaintiffs while asking the above reliefs, have made these applications for interim reliefs stating that the functions of the first defendant Sangam should be in accordance with the rules framed by the Sangam that the plaintiffs are not only the members of the first defendant Sangam, but also functioning in their official capacity that the Executive committee has the power to suspend or dismiss a member, if that member is found to have acted against the interest of the Sangam that the second defendant issued show cause notices dated 14.6.2008 and 18.5.2008 respectively, as to why they should not be removed from the first defendant sangam for the alleged illegal and prejudicial activities that detailed replies were given on 26.6.2008 and 28.5.2008 respectively that without following the principles of natural justice, the plaintiffs have been removed not only from their post, but also from their primary membership for a period of five years which was illegal and arbitrary that it was also in violation of the constitution of the sangam that apart from that, the sangam is purported to have convened a general body meeting on 26.10.2008 in which the election of the office bearers of the first defendant sangam was conducted but, no such election was conducted at all that the election is invalid since the mode of service of notice as contemplated under the bylaws was not adhered to that 405 new members who were enrolled as eligible electorates to participate in the election were not allowed that the election process is vitiated on account of non-issuance of 21 days of prior notice to the members of the Sangam as envisaged in the bylaws that since there was no valid election in the eye of law, the defendants 2 to 25 who are said to be the office bearers, should be restrained from acting so that the first respondent should be directed to prepare a valid electorate as per the rules of the sangam that the first respondent should also be directed to conduct an election of the office bearers of the first defendant sangam in accordance with the rules and regulations of All India Nayudu Sangam by appointing an Officer of this Court to oversee the election that the first respondent should be restrained from giving effect to the order of suspension and removal as against the first plaintiff and the order of suspension as against the second plaintiff and a retired Judge has got to be appointed as Administrator pendente lite to discharge the functions and duties of the first defendant. All the above applications were inter alia contested by stating that the Executive Committee of the first defendant sangam was vested with powers to initiate action and take decision, and the same is final and binding on the matters of discipline that the then General Secretary Mr.K.Santhanam accepted the applications for admission of new members into the sangam arbitrarily which could be done only on scrutiny by the Executive Committee that the receipt of the said applications were not brought to the notice of the Executive Committee that contrarily, a resolution was passed by the Executive Committee on 24.4.2008 that the said Secretary Santhanam wrote a letter on 8.5.2008, to the Registrar of Societies about the alleged induction of 405 new members for a period ending with 30.4.2008 that he has also despatched Form VII to the Registrar of Societies even without approval of the Executive Committee that under the circumstances, a show cause notice dated 10.5.2008, was served upon him calling for his explanation that it was noticed that the plaintiffs began to deal with the properties of the sangam as their personal properties that the plaintiffs have misused their official position and copied certain vital information of the sangam in a compact disk even without the prior permission or knowledge of the office bearers of the sangam that the compact disk was also taken away that under the circumstances, a show cause notice dated 18.5.2008 was served upon the second plaintiff followed by another show cause notice dated 14.6.2008 to the first plaintiff pursuant to a decision taken by the Executive Committee that the second plaintiff who is the wife of the first plaintiff, has taken away the notices pasted in the sangam office with regard to the suspension of the General Secretary that both the plaintiffs sent replies to the show cause notices that after receiving the same, it was decided by the Executive Committee to remove the second plaintiff from the post of the treasurer and also from the primary membership of the sangam for a period of five years that the sangam convened a meeting on 24.6.2008 that since there was no reply from the first defendant, it was resolved to remove the first plaintiff from the primary membership of the sangam for a period of five years as per the bylaws that without the consent and approval of the sangam, the plaintiffs proceeded to open a website and collected money from outsiders towards matrimonial services registration fees that it was noticed that the conduct of the plaintiffs were against the interest of the sangam that an emergent meeting was conducted on 2.10.2008 wherein it was decided to conduct the annual general body meeting on 26.10.2008 that in the Executive Committee meeting held on 10.10.2008, a decision was taken to the effect that the applications received from 405 new persons were to be scrutinised by a committee to be formed for that purpose that the Annual General Body meeting was held on 26.10.2008 that the office bearers were elected unopposed and the Executive Committee was formed that the General Body unanimously approved the suspension of the plaintiffs from the respective posts in the Executive Committee as well as from their primary membership that notices were given by publication, courier and also by registered post and under the circumstances, all the applications filed by the plaintiffs for the above reliefs have got to be dismissed.
(3.) THE learned Single on enquiry, dismissed OA Nos.1329 to 1331 and A.No,5883 of 2008. In respect of O.A.No.1332/2008, the injunction sought for by the second plaintiff was denied, and injunction restraining the first defendant from giving effect to the order of suspension and removal as against the first plaintiff was granted. Hence, the above appeals. All these appeals center round upon the two questions: (1)Whether the removal of the plaintiffs from their respective posts and also from the primary membership made by the first defendant sangam is valid? (2)Whether the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction to restrain the office bearers namely the defendants 2 to 25, since there was no valid election as contended by the plaintiffs? ;