- (1.)PETITIONERS are the respondents in I.A. No.3122 of 2010 and defendants in O.S. No.685 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain petitioners from acting as General Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Organising Secretary, respectively of the Kerala Pulayar Maha Sabha (hereinafter referred to as "the Sabha"), a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act"), engaging in the administration of the Sabha as such office bearers, convening meetings, collecting contributions or using its letter pads, seals, flags and for such other reliefs. Respondents also prayed for an order of prohibitory injunction in the same line vide I.A. No.3122 of 2010. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides granted temporary injunction. PETITIONERS challenged that order in C.M.A. No.54 of 2010. Learned Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has confirmed the order of injunction. The said order and judgment are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(2.)RESPONDENT No.1, as aforesaid is the Sabha. RESPONDENT No.2 claimed to be the acting General Secretary of its State Committee and respondent No.3, its President. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 were elected as General Secretary and President, respectively of the State Committee of the Sabha in the election held on 10.12.2006. RESPONDENTs claimed that the Bye-law (Ext.P5) of the Sabha permitted General Secretary to receive funds and utilise it for the affairs of the Sabha in accordance with the relevant rules of the Bye-law. Petitioner No.2 used to keep the minutes book, account books and he was entrusted with the responsibility to receive amount relating to renewal of membership. Petitioner No.3 was to renew the membership. Petitioners worked against interest of the Sabha. Petitioner No.2 made false entries in the various records as per direction of petitioner No.1 and misappropriated its funds. The State conference of the Sabha met in May, 2008. Verification of the accounts revealed that balance cash in the hands of petitioner No.1 was Rs.2,55,929.98 as against the stipulation in the Bye-law that petitioner No.1 shall not keep cash in his hand more than Rs. 2,000/-. The same was the situation when the State committee met on 21.08.2009. The State Secretariat of the Sabha met on 06.12.2009 and the accounts were verified by a Sub Committee appointed by it. The Sub committee reported that petitioner No.1 had received Rs.1,00,000/- from the Ernakulam District Committee of the Sabha for which only a temporary receipt was issued and no official receipt was issued. That amount was not accounted in the accounts of the Sabha. On 10.10.2008, it was revealed that a sum of Rs.2,20,397/- was given to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Samyuktha Samithy but there was no authorisation to petitioner No.1 to make any such payment to that Samithy. A sum of Rs.33,630/- received from the Irinjalakuda Union of the Sabha was not accounted. Rs.1,24,175/- was seen transferred to the account of Panchami on 31.07.2009 but not seen remitted in the accounts of Panchami. Entries were made in the accounts of the Sabha that a sum of Rs.57,720/- and another sum of Rs.1,28,789/- were spent for organising branches of the Sabha at Malabar but actually only Rs.5,000/- was spent for the said purpose. Accounts of the Sabha were got audited by M/s.Thomaskutty & Co., Chartered Accountants and the audit revealed a deficit of Rs.8,20,646.75. The State Committee of the Sabha met on 19.03.2010. At that time petitioner No.1 produced receipts for remittance of Rs.1,24,175/- to the accounts of Panchami on 19.03.2010 and assured to settle the balance and remit the amount in the account of the Sabha. While so, some expelled members of the Sabha filed O.S. No.417 of 2010 against the Sabha in the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner No.1 refused to sign vakalath (for and on behalf of the Sabha) even after respondent No.3, the State President wanted petitioner No.1 to do so. Petitioner No.1 refused to sign the vakalath to invite orders against the Sabha from court. Petitioners did not attend meeting of the State Committee held on 01.04.2010. That meeting decided that petitioner No.1 was liable to remit Rs.5,10,000/- to the Sabha. Petitioner No.1 attended the meeting of State Committee of the Sabha on 08.04.2010. He undertook to remit the amount on or before 15.04.2010. That fact was recorded in the minutes of the Sabha but petitioner No.1 took away the minutes book. Petitioners tried to assault other office bearers of State Committee of the Sabha. Petitioner No.1 did not remit the amount as he had undertaken in the State Committee meeting. In view of the threat from petitioner No.1 to other office bearers of the Sabha, the State Committee decided to convene its meeting at Ernakulam. Accordingly the State Committee met at Ernakulam on 24.04.2010. That meeting was attended by 30 out of its 43 members. Petitioners arrived at the meeting place and created commotion. They snatched some of the records. Police interfered and petitioners and their men went away from the place of meeting with the records they snatched. Police registered a case against petitioners and others in connection with that incident. The State committee (which met on 24.04.2010) decided to remove petitioners from the respective offices they held. RESPONDENT No.2 was elected as acting General Secretary. On 05.05.2010 registered letter was sent to the petitioners informing them about decision of the State Committee in its meeting on 24.04.2010 and calling upon them to hand over the records they had unauthorisedly taken away. RESPONDENTs apprehended that petitioners might interfere with the administration of the Sabha in their assumed capacity as General Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Organising Secretary, collect funds, using letter pads, seal, etc., and hence the suit and application for injunction.
Petitioner No.1 filed objection denying the various allegations in Ext.P2 (affidavit in support of I.A. No.3122 of 2010). He contended that the suit and the application for injunction are not maintainable and that Rule 28 of the Bye-law (Ex.P5) empowers General Secretary of the State Committee to sue and be sued on behalf of the Sabha. Respondents have not mentioned the provision under which they claimed right to file the suit on behalf of the Sabha. The tenure of office bearers of the Sabha expired on 09.03.2010. Any further extension could be decided only by the General Council (which is the supreme body) of the Sabha as per Rule 11(a) of the Bye-law. The General Council met on 16.05.2010 and decided to place respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 others under suspension. Hence respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right to institute the suit. Regarding averments in paragraphs 7 to 12 of the affidavit it is contended that Rule 13 of the Bye-law provides the procedure for presenting accounts in the General Council and once it is accepted, the Bye-law does not provide for its review by any other Committee. Petitioner No.1 denied the averments in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the affidavit and contended that there was no such undertaking made by him (to remit the amount). Allegations in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the affidavit are also denied and it is contended that the affidavit does not disclose how M/s.Thomaskutty & Co., happened to audit the accounts or what all records were given to them for that purpose. Regarding the averments in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the affidavit it is contended that petitioner No.1 did not make any such admission (regarding liability to pay any amount). Regarding the averments in paragraphs 19 to 23 of the affidavit apart from denying the allegations it is contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had no locus standi to convene any meeting as claimed in paragraphs 19 to 23 of the affidavit. The averments in paragraphs 25 and 26 are also denied and it is contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right to take the alleged action (against petitioners). It is contended in the objection that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no case that the said actions (against petitioners) were taken as provided by any Rule of Ext.P5, the Bye-law.

Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 also filed similar objection (Ext.P4) challenging maintainability of the suit and the application for injunction. They contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no right or authority to file the suit, Rule 28 of the Bye- law empowered the General Secretary to authorise other Secretaries or President to appear in his place. The General Council met on 16.05.2010 as provided under Rule 11(1) of the Bye-law and approved recommendation to place respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 others under suspension (the suit was filed on 17.05.2010). Because of the decision of the General Council, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are estopped from claiming to be office bearers of the Sabha. The term of office bearers expired on 09.12.2009. The State Executive Committee extended the period by another three months. That term expired by 09.03.2010. The General Council met on 19.05.2010 and extended the term for another three months. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and others were suspended on 16.05.2020. As regards the accounts of the Sabha it is contended that the General Council which met on 16.05.2010 approved the accounts and it cannot be reviewed by any other Committee.

(3.)BOTH sides produced documents in support of their respective contentions. Learned Munsiff found from the relevant records that a prima facie case is made out against petitioners, balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents and that if injunction is not granted, respondents will be put to irreparable loss and injury. In the appeal that order has been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge.
It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that this is a case where relevant aspects of the issue were not considered by the courts below. While learned Munsiff has exercised his jurisdiction in a wrong manner, appellate court has refused to exercise its jurisdiction. Failure to consider relevant aspects concerning grant of temporary injunction amounted to jurisdictional error which is to be corrected by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the decision in Koishore Kumar Khaitan v. Praveen Kumar Singh ([2006] 3 SCC 312) where it is held that failure to state reasons (for passing the order) is a jurisdictional error. Learned counsel contends that the Sabha being a registered Society and in view of Rule 28 of its Bye-law, only the General Secretary of the State Committee could sue or be sued on behalf of the Sabha. The Bye-law does not provide for the post of acting General Secretary as respondent No.2 claimed to be. In the absence of General Secretary, only the President of the Sabha, in case he is authorised by the State Committee as provided under Sec.9 of the Act alone could sue or be sued on behalf of the Sabha. In the present case the Sabha is stated to be represented by respondent No.2 as acting General Secretary which post does not exist. There is no case that respondent No.3, the President was authorised by the State Committee to institute the suit. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the observations in paragraph 5 of the decision in I.C. Bose Road Tenants' Association v. Collector, Horah (AIR 1977 Calcutta 437). It follows that there is no proper representation for the Sabha in which case it must be taken that the Sabha is not a party to the suit. Hence the suit itself is not maintainable. Further contention is that the courts must be slow to interfere in the matter of internal administration of a registered Society. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Shamsuddin Ahmed v. Charu Chandra Biswas (AIR 1934 Calcutta 621), Suryanarayana Rao v. Subrahmanyam (AIR 1940 Madras 902), A.S. Krishnan v. M. Sundaram (AIR 1941 Bombay 312), T.P. Daver v. Lode Victoria (AIR 1963 SC 1144) and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Dharam Singh (AIR 1981 Delhi 157). These decisions say how far and when the court could interfere with the administration of a club or other registered body which is to function in accordance with its bye-laws. It is contended that alleged removal of petitioners from the respective offices in the meeting held on 24.04.2010 was not in accordance with Rule 40 of the Bye-law and hence the removal is prima facie illegal and without authority. Petitioners continued to be duly elected office bearers of the State Committee whose term of office was extended by the General Council in the meeting held on 16.05.2010. In such a situation learned Munsiff was not justified in granting injunction against petitioners. Further contention is that though various allegations regarding falsification of accounts and swindling of funds of the Sabha are alleged by the respondents, the accounts were approved by the General Council in its meeting held on 16.05.2010. In such a situation no other body could review the accounts. Though relevant records were produced to show that the meeting of the General Council on 16.05.2010 approved the accounts, that has not been taken into account or given due weight by the courts below. Learned counsel contended that in a suit for injunction it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove a prima facie case, balance of convenience and that if injunction is not granted, irreparable injury will be caused to him. Reliance is placed on the decision in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh ([1992] 1 SCC 719) where it is held that plaintiff has to prove existence of a prima facie case and that non-grant of injunction must result in irreparable injury to the party seeking relief. Balance of convenience must be in favour of grant of injunction. The court should cautiously look into the probable injury to both parties. According to the learned counsel, lakhs of members of the Sabha are being affected on account of the order of injunction in so far as petitioners who are elected office bearers of the Sabha are not able to function as such in view of the order of the court and hence under no stretch of imagination it could be said that balance of convenience is in favour of respondents. On the other hand, order of injunction causes irreparable injury to the petitioners and members of the Sabha. It is also contended by learned counsel that there was an attempt on the part of some of members of the Sabha to prevent convening of the General Council meeting on 16.04.2010. They filed W.P(C) No.13260 2010 in this Court and there was an order of "stay" issued in that case on 16.04.2010 against convening of meeting for two months. The said order was not communicated to any of petitioners as found by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated November 18, 2010 in Cont. Case (C) No.556 of 2010. Learned counsel submitted that a reading of the said order would show that even before filing the Writ Petition, a contempt petition was prepared against petitioners. In such a situation it could not be said that meeting of the General Council held on 16.05.2010 was illegal. Learned counsel contended that the order of 'stay' could affect validity of the election only from the date on which the order was communicated to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision in Gasco Carriers (P) Ltd. v. Thomas (1994 [2] KLT SN 19 (Case No.25) where it was held that the order of injunction would take effect only from the time the order is communicated to the party. In the circumstances learned counsel contended that meeting of the General Council and the decisions taken on 16.05.2010 should stand. Learned counsel requested to interfere and correct the mistake committed by the courts below in exercise of power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.