- (1.) This Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 10-4-2002 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 3-4-2002 (Annexure 6) passed by the respondent No. 2 Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Bikaner by which all officers and Sr. Subordinate/Subordinate of Bikaner Division were informed that primary membership of the petitioner has been ceased by the President, Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union (for short "URMU") and thus, he lost all Union's portfolios automatically including the post of Branch Secretary of Bikaner Main Branch of URMU and order Annexure 7 dated 4-4-2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 General Manager by which on ceasing of primary membership of the petitioner, the respondent No. 8 Ravindra Pareek was appointed to act as the Branch Secretary of Bikaner Main Branch of URMU till proper elections were held, be quashed and set aside.
(2.) The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :- The petitioner was Branch Secretary of the Bikaner Main Branch of URMU and on 31-3-2002, annual election was held and in that election, he was elected as Divisional Secretary of the Bikaner Division and a copy of the result of the election dated 31-3-2002 is marked as Annexure 1. According to the petitioner, since he was a very influential and powerful leader, therefore, officials of the Railway were not happy with him and they were working against him and thus, he filed a civil suit along with application for temporary injunction No. 169/2000 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in the Court of Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner and that application was decided by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner through order Annexure 2 dated 1-12-2000 and it was ordered that the petitioner be not removed from the office of the Divisional Secretary of Bikaner Division, but the respondents were made free to remove the petitioner by bringing no- confidence motion against him as per the terms of the constitution of the Union. The further case of the petitioner is that aggrieved from the order Annexure 2 dated 1-12-2000 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner, the respondents filed appeal before this Court being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 840/2000 and the same was decided by this Court through judgment dated 20-4-2001 (Annexure 3) in the following manner :- "Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the subsequent no- confidence motion dt. 7-2-2001 this appeal has become infructuous, therefore, he does not want to press this appeal. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed as not pressed." The further case of the petitioner is that through impugned order Annexure 6 dated 3-4-2002, the primary membership of the petitioner has been ceased and thus, he lost all union's portfolios including post of Branch Secretary of Bikaner Main Branch, Bikaner of URMU and thereafter, through order Annexure 7 dated 4-4-2002, the charge of the post of Branch Secretary of Bikaner Main Branch was given to the respondent No. 8 Ravindra Pareek. These two orders Annexure 6 and Annexure 7 have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The main contentions of the petitioner are as follows:- (i) That the impugned order Annexure 6 dated 3-4-2002 is no order in the eye of law as the same was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and further, the same was not passed in accordance with the terms of the Constitution of Union and thus, it is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That the impugned orders Annexure 6 and Annexure 7 show mala fide exercise of power on the part of the respondents. (iii) That respondent No. 5, G. Sanjeeva Reddy, who was president of URMU, has not filed any reply to the writ petition and actually he was the only competent person to pass order of ceasing primary membership of the petitioner and in absence of reply of the respondent No. 5, the impugned orders Annexure 6 and Annexure 7 have no existence. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 and their case is that they are not at all concerned in the internal politics of the recognized Union. However, it has been submitted by them that the appeal being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 840/2000 was dismissed by this Court through judgment dated 20-4-2001 (Annexure 3) as having become infructuous because no-confidence motion had already been passed against the petitioner on 7-2-2001. It has been further submitted by them that the General Secretary of the URMU wrote a letter dated 1-4-2002 to the respondent No. 1 General Manger (P) informing that primary membership of the petitioner has been ceased by the President, URMU and thereafter, the respondent No. 1 General Manager (P) wrote a letter Annexure R/1 dated 1-4-2002 to the respondent No. 2 Divisional Railway Manager informing that the primary membership of the petitioner has been ceased by the President, URMU and thereafter, on the basis of that letter Annexure R/1, the impugned order (Annexure 6 and Annexure R/2) dated 3-4-2002 was passed by the respondent No. 2 Divisional Railway Manager. There is no illegality in the impugned order Annexure 6. Hence, no case for interference is made out and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. A reply to the writ petition was also filed by the respondent No. 8 Ravindra Kumar, who was given temporary charge of the post of Branch Secretary of Bikaner Main Branch of URMU through order Annexure 7, and it has been averred by him that vide order dated 21-8-2001 (Annexure R/8/1), the primary membership of the petitioner was ceased and thereafter, vide letter dated 1-4-2002 (Annexure R/8/2), the General Secretary of URMU informed the respondent No. 1 General Manager that the primary membership of the petitioner has been ceased by the President, URMU and thus, he lost all union portfolios. The further reply of the respondent No. 8 is that the case of the petitioner that he was elected as Divisional Secretary in the election held on 31-3-2002 is an after-thought and Annexure 1 is a bogus document, as prior to that, his membership had already been ceased through order Annex, R/8/1 dated 21-8-2001. Apart from this, if such election as alleged by the petitioner took place, he was not authorized to hold such election as his primary membership had already been ceased. Furthermore, some persons, who were shown by the petitioner at the time of so-called elections, which took place on 31-3-2002, have filed their affidavits and they are marked as Annexure R/8/3 to Annexure R/8/6 and these persons, namely, Yashpal, Ram Narayan, Rajendra Prasad Sharma and K.K. Saxena have stated in their affidavits that they were not present at Bikaner on 31-3-2002. Therefore, the so-called elections were absolutely bogus. It has been further submitted by the respondent No. 8 that no-confidence motion was moved against the petitioner and a meeting for considering the no- confidence motion against the petitioner was held on 7-2-2001 at Delhi Sarairohila office of the Union and in that meeting, no-confidence motion was passed against the petitioner and copy of the proceedings of the meeting dated 7-2-2001 is marked as Annexure R/8/7. It has been further submitted by the respondent No. 8 that when no-confidence motion was passed against the petitioner in the meeting held on 7-2-2001, therefore, through letter Annexure R/8/1 dated 21-8-2001, the petitioner was informed that his primary membership has been ceased and that letter Annexure R/8/1 dated 21-8-2001 was sent to the petitioner through registered AD, which is evident from Annexure R/8/8 and thus, to say that, the petitioner was never informed about the decision of ceasing his membership is wrong one and actually, he was informed, but he did not take letter, which is evident from Annexure R/8/8. Hence, no case for interference is made out and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Apart from the above, it has been further submitted by the respondent No. 8 that the petitioner has not challenged the main order dated 21-8-2001 (Annexure R/8/1) and communication dated 1-4-2002 (Annexure R/8/2). The orders Annexure 6 and Annexure 7 are consequential orders and they cannot be challenged. Therefore, from this point of view also, this writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. A rejoinder to the reply of the respondent No. 8 was filed by the petitioner and in the rejoinder, it has been submitted by the petitioner that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application under order 39 Rule 4 CPC before the Court of Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner with the prayer that the order Annexure 2 dated 1-12-2000 be quashed and set aside and that application was rejected by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Bikaner through order Annexure 8 dated 10-8-2001 holding inter-alia that so far as the question whether no-confidence motion was passed against the petitioner on 7-2-2001 or not, it is a disputed question of fact and that cannot be decided in an application under order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that from the order Annexure 8, he has got a prima facie case against the respondents on the point that his membership was not ceased as alleged by the respondents.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.;