9.The plaintiff has, in this case clearly, failed to establish the case of mala fides. The Executive Committee has acted in good faith and taken a decision with which the Court may, or may not agree. The standard adopted by that Executive Committee may have been far more strict then what the Court in the given circumstances may have adopted. But those considerations are not irrelevant for the purpose of deciding as to whether the Court can, or cannot interfere with a bona fide decision taken by the Executive Committee.
10.As regards the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, the Court, if satisfied that there has been broad fairness must refrain from interfering with the action taken by the voluntary association of which the plaintiff chose to become a member of his own volition. Natural justice in the conduct of such associations would not have the same degree of rigour, as those principles would have in matters which are required to be adjudicated upon before Courts and Tribunals. In this case, the charges against the plaintiff were made known. The list contains several charges, to most of which, the plaintiff did not feel the need to ask for any further documentation. He had been put on notice that there had been complaints, for which he merely asked for the copy of the complaints. Even if that charges were to be ignored on the ground that the documents had not been made available, nevertheless, the other charges have not been found to be vague even by the learned trial Judge. If the Executive Committee felt persuaded to take action against the plaintiff on the basis of what was before it in the form of the charges made known to him and the reply received from him, it cannot be faulted on the ground that it should have proceeded to hold an enquiry as if it were an adjudicatory forum. We are satisfied that in this case broad fairness has been observed. A voluntary association is entitled to carry on it's affairs in accordance with its own rules. A person becoming member of such a body contracts to be bound by those rules and by the actions taken by those in whom power is vested under the Rules."
15.From the above decisions, it would be quite clear that when a person choses to become a member of a voluntary association of his own volition, and charges were levelled against him, and it is also made known as to the charges, and the reply was also received from him, it cannot be found with fault on the ground that it should have conducted an enquiry, and the natural justice in the conduct of such association would not have the same degree of rigour, as those principles would have in matters which were required to be adjudicated upon before Courts and Tribunals. In the instant case, the second plaintiff was made known of the charges levelled against her by serving the show cause notice, and she has also replied. As per the rules seen above, the Executive Committee which was empowered, has taken a decision to expel her for a period of five years and thus in the instant case, broad fairness has been observed. The first defendant sangam was entitled to carry on its affairs in accordance with its own rules referred to above. Hence the contention of the appellant/second plaintiff's side that the principles of natural justice were not followed strictly by not holding an enquiry cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances, the second plaintiff is not entitled for the interim relief as asked for.
16.At this juncture, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the respondents that since both the appellants have been removed not only from their official position, but also from the primary membership, they have no locus standi to conduct the suit cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the Court has pointed out above that the removal of the first plaintiff was not only in contravention of the rules, but also offending the principles of natural justice, and thus he can well maintain the suit.
17.The plaintiffs have attacked the election dated 26.10.2008 on the grounds that even before the election was conducted, the result was communicated to the Registrar of Societies on 23.10.2008 itself; that 405 fresh members were not allowed to participate in the election; that 21 days notice as envisaged by the bylaw was not given, and thus there was no proper election, and the defendants 2 to 25 should be restrained from functioning or discharging their duties and obligations as office bearers of the first defendant sangam. All these allegations are denied by the respondents. On scrutiny of the available materials, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have made out a prima face case to indicate that the election has not been conducted as contemplated under the bylaws. Rule 9(b) of Chapter 1 of the Rules and Articles of Association reads thus:
"9.Meetings of the General Body ...
9-b) Notice of such meeting with time date and place shall be sent to all the members of General Body at least 21 days before the date of meeting along with the Agenda.
(i) The notice shall be sent by one or more of the following modes viz.,
1.By local delivery; or
2.By post; or
3.By circulating among the members; or
4.By publication through press.
(ii)The notice shall also be affixed to the notice board of the Sangam."
18.From the very reading of the above rule, it would be quite clear that all the members should be put on notice at least 21 days prior to the meeting, and the notice must be sent by any one of the following modes namely by local delivery, by post, by circulating among the members or by publication through press. In the instant case, a publication made in Dinathanthi dated 4.10.2008, whereby a public notice was given stating that the election for the first defendant sangam would be held upto 2.00 P.M. on 26.10.2008. Relying upon this publication, it is urged by the first defendant sangam that the publication through press was one of the modes through which notice could be given, and since the publication was made on 4.10.2008 for the election to be held on 26.10.2008, it was a proper notice. It is pertinent to point out that the said publication in Dinathanthi was made in Tamil. This Court has to agree with the learned Counsel for the appellants that while it was an association of Telugu speaking persons, the publication should have been made in Telugu language also. Hence making a publication in Dinathanthi on 4.10.2008, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not be sufficient. That apart, the defendants have stated that all the members were served with the notice through courier. But no material was placed before the Court to accept the said contention. Thus it would be quite clear that no notice was actually served upon all the members for the said election.
19.Apart from the above, the alleged election also suffers by an incurable defect. According to the respondents, the Executive Committee meeting was held on 4.10.2008 wherein a decision was taken unanimously to hold General Body Meeting on 26.10.2008. Even in the paper publication made on 4.10.2008 in Dinathanthi, the election date is shown as 26.10.2008. The agenda for the General Body meeting dated 4.10.2008, would clearly indicate as to the conduct of election, and this also would clearly indicate that the election was to be held on 26.10.2008. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the nominations were to be made on or before 21.10.2008, and they were to be scrutinised on 22.10.2008. The last date for withdrawal of the nomination was 23.10.2008. It is also a matter of surprise to note that even on 23.10.2008, a communication was addressed by the President Mr.P.S.Jagannath Babu to the Registrar of Societies (South Chennai) wherein it is stated as follows:
"Sub: 85th Annual General Body Meeting 2008 and election to the post of Office Bearers and Executive Committee Meeting reg.
We are pleased to inform you that we have proposed to hold the Annual General Body Meeting 2008 on 26.10.2008 in our premises at 9.00 am as per the notification issued and enclosed herewith for your kind information.
We have issued notification in the Tamil newspaper Dina thanthi on 4th Oct 2008 and also put on the notice board of our premises giving clear 21 days notice period for the Annual General Body Meeting.
We have also sent Annual General Body Meeting notices and the Report to all the members concerned with due acknowledgement.
We also wish to submit that the election process of issuing nomination forms were commenced on 19.10.2008 by the election officers and completed on 21.10.2008 as per the Agenda of the Annual General Body notice.
We also wish to inform you that the scrutiny of the applications were completed on 22.10.2008 and the necessary formalities were completed by the election officers.
IN this connection we wish to submit that the election for the period 2008-2011 for the post of Office Bearers and Executive Committee were duly completed and all the members were elected unopposed.
We are enclosing herewith the certificate issued by the election officers for the completion of election process and also enclosed herewith the final list of the office bearers and Executive Committee Members elected unopposed for your kind information and record.
We are also enclosing herewith the form no VII duly filled in intimating the election of the office bearers and the Executive Committee Members for the period 2008-2001 in connection with the 85th Annual General Body Meeting for your kind information and record."
20.In the case on hand, no notice was issued to the new members, and no publication was made in the language to which the members were conversant and that too, when the election was scheduled to take place. Even as per the case of the first defendant sangam, on 26.10.2008 even before three days that was on 23.10.2008, a communication along with the Form VII was sent as if the Executive Committee members and all office bearers were elected unopposed. All would go to show that the election could not have been conducted in a fair manner as expected in law, and it was neither in accordance with the Rules framed nor in accordance with law. As pointed out by the appellant's side, "elected unopposed" would also indicate an unfair play. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs have made out a case that the defendants 2 to 25 who, according to the first respondent sangam, were office bearers, elected as unopposed and declared cannot be permitted to carry on the affairs of the sangam.
21.At this juncture, the Court has to take into consideration the larger interest of the community for which the Sangam came into existence. The term of office of the office bearers came to an end. Under such circumstances, there arose a necessity for new election of Executive Committee and office bearers. This Court is of the considered opinion that in order to carry on the administration and affairs of the sangam till a new Executive Committee and the office bearers are elected by a proper and fair election, it becomes necessary an interim Administrator has got to be appointed. Accordingly, Mr.Justice J.A.K. Sampath Kumar (retired) is appointed as interim Administrator to look after the administration and affairs of the first defendant sangam, and the remuneration is fixed at Rs.25,000/- per month. The interim Administrator so appointed here is permitted to take charge of the administration forthwith from the defendants and carry on the administration and affairs of the sangam as per the bylaws and in accordance with law till the new Executive Committee and office bearers take charge in an election to be held. The defendants 2 to 25 are directed to hand over the administration and affairs of the sangam and its properties to the interim Administrator appointed above. The interim Administrator can approach the trial Court for necessary directions for the preparation of the electoral roll and for induction of new members in order to conduct an election of the sangam in a fair and proper manner.
22.In the result, OSA Nos.183 and 186 of 2009 are accordingly allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. OSA Nos.184 and 185 of 2009 are dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. OSA 138 of 2009 is dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, and insofar as the first plaintiff, the order of the learned Single Judge granting injunction, is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
nsv
---------------------------------
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
AND R.SUBBIAH, J.
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The matter appears for being mentioned.
2.The learned Counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that at the time when the order was passed appointing an Administrator for conduct of election of the Sangam, no time limit has been fixed, and apart from that, there is a direction to the Administrator to get necessary orders from the trial Court, and since the matter is pending before this Court and also before the City Civil Court, a clarification is required in that regard.
3.After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that since it is a matter pertaining to a Sangam, the election has got to be conducted within a reasonable time. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances, this Court feels that it would be fit and proper to fix six months' time within which election has got to be conducted. Accordingly, six months' time is fixed for that purpose.
4.Insofar as the second contention put forth, no clarification is required in the considered opinion of the Court, since the appeals have arisen challenging the order of the learned Single Judge pending the proceedings in the original side. Under the circumstances, "trial Court" would mean only this Court where the proceedings are pending and where the Administrator is to get directions accordingly.
5.It is also further brought to the notice of the Court that in order to assist the Administrator appointed by this Court, Advocates could be appointed so that work could be done conveniently and also it would be easier. The same is considered by the Court. Accordingly, the following Advocates are appointed whose remuneration is fixed at Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month each payable by the Sangam directly to them.
1.Mrs.Girija Velmurugan, Advocate No.166, Thambu Chetty Street 1st Floor, E11, E12, Chennai 1.
2.Mrs.K.Annamma, Advocate Catholic Centre Room No.10, 3rd Floor Armenian Street, Chennai 600 104.
3.Ms.J.Madhuri, Advocate Flat No.1-A, Bhaggyam Sathya Nivas Door No.27, Gill Nagar Ist Street Extn., Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094.
4.Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate 295, Addl. Law Chambers High Court, Chennai 600 104.
5.Mr.S.Palaniappan, Advocate Chamber No.196 Addl. Law Chambers High Court, Chennai 600 104.
6.The above Advocates can take instructions from the Administrator appointed by this Court, and assist him for the purpose of election as observed in the order.
Dt. 30-9-2009 nsv