This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21.09.2017 passed in I.A.No.12889 of 2017 in O.S.No.4923 of 2017 on the file of the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2., The Trial Judge has granted an ex-parte injunction restraining the conduct of election for the post of President The Association of Surgeons of India 2018, Election of President ASI 2019 and one post each for Executive Committee Members from Gujarat and West Bengal State Chapters of ASI for 2016-2018. The Election Notification was issued on 25.07.2017. The voting is to begin on 01.10.2017 and it would end on 15.11.2017 and the results are to be declared on 16.11.2017. Even though the election notification was issued as early as on 25.07.2017, the 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.4923 of 2017 on 21.09.2017 before the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and the trial Court has granted an order of interim injunction restraining the conduct of election. In view of the intervening holidays, the revision petitioner could not move the very same Court for vacating the interim order and has instead invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, when the order passed by the trial Court suffers from an apparent irregularity, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 can very well be invoked.
3. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner as well as Mr.V.Kubendran for M/s Rank Associates for the 1st respondent.
4. Without going into the merits of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of.
5. Admittedly, the election process has commenced with the issuance of notification on 25.07.2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Court have consistently held that when once the election process has commenced, the same shall not be interfered with by issuance of orders of stay or injunction. This fundamental principle has not been kept in view by the Court below. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is also a contestant for the post of President. He has been canvassing for votes. He is aware of the issuance of notification. He had moved the Court literally at the last moment and got an order of injunction. In any event, the balance of convenience would not lie on the side of the plaintiff. This is because, by granting an interim order, the election process has been stalled. As already pointed out, the interim order was granted on 21.09.2017. The order copy was issued on 22.09.2017. Thereafter, holidays have intervened from 23.09.2017. Courts re-open on 03.10.2017. The voting process is scheduled to commence on 01.10.2017. If interim order has not been granted and the election process was allowed to go on, the validity of the results can very well be challenged later also. But the irreparable injury that would be caused to the revision petitioner by stalling of the election cannot be undone, if the interlocutory application is found to be lacking in merits later. Thus, balance of convenience does not lie on the side of the plaintiff. The Court below has placed reliance on Document No.10, which is the Judgment in O.S.No.5007 of 2016. The said Judgment is the outcome of a collusive arrangement. The conduct of the person who submitted to decree has been adversely commented upon by this Court in a collateral proceeding. In any event, the question of granting interim order when the election process has already commenced, does not arise at all. Therefore, this Court sets aside the order dated 21.09.2017 passed in I.A.No.12889 of 2017 in O.S.No.4923 of 2017 by the XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and the I.A.No.12889 of 2017 filed by the 1st respondent stands dismissed.
6. However, the plaintiff has expressed his apprehension regarding the fairness of the election process. In order to allay the same, this Court appoints Honourable Justice K.Chandru (Retd.), former Judge of this Court as an Election Observer. He shall be paid a remuneration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for his services. The Hon'ble Observer can appoint a person of his choice to assist him in the discharge of his work. The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the Hon'ble Observer for such appointment. The revision petitioner is directed to extend the Honourable Observer all the facilities required by him. It would be open to the Hon'ble Observer to raise an additional claim, to cover any unanticipated work of expenditure.
7. Mr.V.Rajendran, Consultant, Cyber Society of India (Cell.9444073849), is appointed an an expert to assist the Hon'ble Observer and he shall be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- for his services.
8. The revision petitioner shall make the said payment to the Hon'ble Observer as well as the said Expert before the commencement of the voting.
9. It is made clear that the dismissal of the said Interlocutory application No.12889 of 2017 or the allowing of this Civil Revision Petition will not have any bearing on the merits of the contentions raised by the plaintiff and the main suit shall be heard and disposed of independently without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order passed in this Civil Revision Petition. It is further directed that the revision petitioner shall accord the Hon'ble Observer due courtesies keeping in view the dignity of the high Office which he held with conspicuous distinction.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.09.2017 rg Note:(1) Issue on 28.09.2017 (2)Issue order copy to Mr.V.Kubendran for R1 To The XII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J rg CRP.(PD)NO.3726 of 2017 and CMP No.17295 of 2017 27.09.2017