ABUL AHSAN Vs. PABNA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner on 18-4-95 instituted Other Class Suit No. 104 of 1995 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Pabna Sadar (subsequently transferred to the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Sujanagar, Pabna and as Other Class Suit No. 157 of 1995) praying for a declaratory decree that the letter dated 15-4-95 issued by the Ministry of Commerce dissolving Executive Committee of Pabna Chamber Commerce and Industry is illegal, void and of in legal effect. The application for temporary injunction was also filed thereunder for restraining defendant No. 2 (respondent No. 1 herein) from taking over the charge of the Office of the said Chamber of Commerce and Industry, pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court issued a notice for showing cause within 3 days as to why the temporary injunction as prayed for would not be granted. On 24-4-95 defendant No. 2 filed written objection against the prayer for temporary injunction. On 29-4-95 the plaintiff filed an application for mandatory injunction against defendant No. 2 for a direction to hand over charge of the said Chamber of Commerce and Industries to its Exec Committee before hearing of the suit. On 14-6-95 the plaintiff filed another application praying for temporary injunction against defendant No. 2 for restraining him from altering the membership list and from making any new member of the Organisation and the trial Court passed an order maintaining status quo in that respect until further order. On 25-6-95 the Court heard both the petition. On 27-6-95 by order No. 14 the application for mandatory injunction was rejected and by order No 15 of the same date the application for tempo injunction was also rejected. Then the plaintiff preferred Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 1995 before learned District Judge, Pabna on 28-6-95 against order No. 14 dated 27-6-95 for rejection of the prayer for temporary mandatory injunction. The appeal was allowed on 8-8-95 and after setting aside the order appealed against the case was sent back on remand for rehearing of the application for temporary mandatory injunction. On 14-8-95 the plaintiff filed two applications under Order 6 rule 17 read section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint and the application for mandatory injunction. The trial Court allowed those applications and accordingly, the plaint was amended for incorporating a prayer for decree for mandatory injunction. On 1-11-95 the trial Court allowed the prayer for temporary mandatory injunction by order No. 38 in the following terms: ....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED].... Against that order defendant No. 2 preferred Misc. Appeal No. 66 of 1995 and the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court. Pabna heard the appeal and dismissed the same on 22-11-95 and affirmed the order appealed against where after defendant No. 2 moved the High Court Division under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in revision. On 14-12-95 in presence of the plaintiff a Single Bench of the High Court Division issued a Rule in Civil Revision No. 4829 of 1995 and also stayed operation of the impugned order of temporary mandatory injunction pending disposal of the Rule, fixing the same to be heard on 21-1-96. Against the order of staying the operation of the impugned order of temporary mandatory injunction pending disposal of the Rule by the High Court Division the petitioner has sought for leave by this petition.

(2.) Syed Ishtiaq Ahmed learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Pabna Chamber of Commerce and Industry is a Trade Organisation. Its affairs are conducted by an elective body as per rules framed under the Trade Organisations Ordinance, 1961 and its present committee being headed by the petitioner as its President was elected on 6-11-94 for three years from its first annual general meeting held on 18-12-94. Upon certain allegations raised against the former committee, the Deputy Commissioner, Pabna on 4-10.93 appointed one Magistrate, First Class to hold an enquiry into those allegations of financial irregularities, preparation of faulty voter list, etc. in connection with the said Trade Organization. Upon a report submitted thereto the Deputy Commissioner on 18-4-94 recommended to the Ministry of Commerce for appointment of an Administrator and dissolution of the Executive Committee of the said Trade Organisation. On 20-12-94 the present committee received a letter from the Ministry of Commerce to the effect that the committee had been dissolved because they had failed to give any reply to the show cause notice, issued earlier. On 22-12-94 the petitioner gave reply to the said letter stating, inter alia, that no such show cause notice had been served upon them. The petitioner on 4-1-95 further explained their position and as a result the Ministry of Commerce having been satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner by their letter dated 5-2-95 allowed the present Committee to perform its normal functions with a direction to hold its election on due date. Thereafter suddenly the petitioner received the impugned letter dated 15-4-95 from the Ministry of Commerce and Industries regarding dissolution of the present committee and appointment of respondent No. 1 as its Administrator and cancellation of the letter issued on 5-2-95 which ultimately led the petitioner to institute the suit. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Judge of the High Court Division erred in law in granting the impugned order of stay and has virtually decided the merit of the case. i.e., the effect of section 10 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961 and thereby granted the whole relief to respondent No. 1 before the hearing of the Civil Revision. The learned Counsel further submitted that on 14-12-95, the date of passing the impugned order the learned Judge of the High Court Division stayed operation of the impugned order for three days upon the petitioners prayer and accordingly after filing the Civil Misc. Petition No. 233 of 1995, the petitioner obtained from this Division an order of stay of the operation of the impugned order which is still in force. The learned Counsel ultimately prayed for a continuation of the order of stay, already granted by this Division pending disposal of the Civil Revision which has already been fixed by the High Court Division to be heard on 21-1-96.

(3.) Mr. AF Hassan Ariff learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the Caveator has not consented to this submission on the ground that the order of stay is likely to convey a signal to the High Court Division in a pending matter.