1. The back ground facts concisely are as follows:
1.(i) A Scheme Decree in O.S.No.234 of 1994 was passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, as regards administration of A.V.C. College (Autonomous), situate in Mannampandal in Mayiladuthurai. Then and there the members have been filed execution applications before the said Court for specific reliefs and they are agitating their respective rights with respect to the administration. The relevant factors are that on 30.9.2008 the second petitioner was suspended from Membership with effect from 1.8.2008 for a period of one year and 3rd petitioner was also suspended on 13.8.2008 from the membership for a period of one year and the said suspensions are subject matter of challenge in E.A.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur filed by the first petitioner and E.A.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, filed by the third petitioner. W.P.Nos.20171 of 2008 and 20569 of 2008 filed by the second and third petitioners respectively were dismissed of by this Court on 29.9.2008 directing the learned Sub-Judge, Thiruvaruru to dispose of the applications pending before him, within the time already stipulated.
1.(ii) The petitioners conducted A.V.C. Education Committee Meeting on 10.3.2009 and the first petitioner became the Secretary of the Educational Committee. The said circumstances necessitated the filing of E.A.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.234 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, for administration of A.V.C. Education Committee seeking for interim injunction restraining the present petitioners herein from disturbing the functioning of the respondents herein as A.V.C. Education Committee members except under due process of law.
2. In the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent the following allegations are found:
2.(i) The petitioners (Respondents 1 and 2 herein) are acting as Secretary and Treasurer respectively in A.V.C. Education Committee, that out of 9 members in the said committee 6 vacancies are there, the petitioners and the college principal are the said committee members; that since the period of the first petitioner would end with 9.3.2009, as per bye-law, 3 members are essential to convene the meeting and hence on 27.2.2009 the petitioners convened meeting and the passed a resolution to the effect that the present committee members should continue till the filling up of six vacancies and in pursuance of which the petitioners are acting as such; that even though the first respondent (first petitioner herein) was suspended from Membership on 30.9.2008 who filed E.A.No.13 of 2008 challenging the meeting held on 7.5.2008 and it was transmitted to Thiruvarur Sub-Court and re-numbered as E.A.18 of 2008 and the same is pending; that the second respondent (second petitioner herein) was also suspended for one year with effect from 1.8.2008, likewise third respondent (third petitioner herein) was suspended for a period of one year from 13.8.2008, that second and third respondents filed W.P.Nos.20171 of 2008 and 20569 of 2008, which was dismissed on 29.9.2008 and there had been no appeal;
2.(ii) that E.A.No.24 of 2008 has been posted to 11.3.2009; that the respondents have no right to convene the Education Committee Meeting; that on 11.3.2009 a publication had been made by them stating that on 10.3.2009 they convened a meeting in the college premises in which first respondent was elected as Committee Chairman, and the the earlier resolutions were set aside; that on 10.3.2009 was holiday for the college and on that date no meeting was held and the said meeting is non-est; that the continuance of the respondents as members in the committee is not sustainable; that they are not entitled to disturb the administration by these petitioners and hence they have to be injuncted from interfering with the administration and management of the college by these petitioner and an interim injunction may be granted to that effect.
3. The said petition was filed on 11.3.2009, and the respondents/petitioners have endorsed as no caveat is pending. But the office put a note that Caveat No.11/09 was pending stating that the Caveator strongly apprehends that the respondent may file some suits or application and obtain exparte interim orders behind the back of Caveator from convening the meeting.
4. Learned principal Sub-Judge heard the petitioners and passed an order of Ad-interim injunction in the following lines:
"Heard. Mr.S. Narayanan filed vakalat for Respondents. Documents perused. Prima facie case made out in favour of the petitioners. Hence Ad-interim injunction granted till 16.3.09. Counter by then."
The above said order has been challenged by these petitioners before this Court. It is stoutly contended that it is a cryptic order without any reasons.
5. Mr.K.V. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order made is a non-speaking one, that it does not reflect the application of mind on the part of the Presiding Officer, that it does not have any reason for grant of the Order which fails to comply with the requirements as per settled legal principles; that it has to be treated as non-est, that when execution applications filed by the petitioners challenging the alleged suspension orders, the respondents could not come before the Court with E.A.No.1 of 2009 describing them as defacto members and when a member was under suspension, a resolution could not be passed as per bye-laws and that the order has to be set aside.
6. Repelling the above said contentions, Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would state that no question of bias would arise in this matter and there is no allegations in any of the proceedings including the grounds of this Civil Revision Petition that the Presiding Officer was biased against the petitioners and the contentions in E.A.No.1 of 2009 of the petitioners are nothing but parts of their contentions in the Writ Petition proceedings and the continuance of the first respondent even after his period was over, was akin to the resolutions passed on 1.9.95 and 17.6.95, extending the secretaryship to one S. Balasubramaniam, whose period was already over by 18.6.95; that the order passed by the Court below does not bristle with any infirmity and only after ascertaining the prima facie case in favour of these respondents, the Court had granted Ad-interim injunction and that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable.
7. It is the bottom-line contention of the petitioners that the resolution passed by the respondents was not in accordance with Bye-law No.29 of the Rules of Management, which provides that three memebrs of whom the principal shall be one, shall form quorum for the committee in deciding academic matters and in all other subjects any three members of the committee will form the quorum. As far as the present E.A.No.1 of 2009 is concerned, these petitioners have to file their counter and it is for the Court below to come out with a conclusion with necessary observations and findings and this Court could not sit in the enquiry over the matters which are covered in E.A.No.1 of 2009 and the same has to be done by the Scheme Court alone. If any observations are rendered by this Court as regards the conduct of the committee meeting or the validity of the resolutions or the pendency of the suspension orders, would badly affect the proceedings before the Court below and the parties would also be prejudiced while they project their respective claims before it. This Court has to find out whether the order challenged before this Court is a lawful one and whether it conforms to the statutory requirements to satisfy the well settled principles on this subject.
8. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and this Court that when a Court or Tribunal hears application for interim injunction and if the Court intends to grant Ad-interim injunction, it has to bear in mind the balance of convenience and the prima facie case made out in favour of the petitioners, that the order should contain the reasons for grant of injunction, that if the order is not granted, what prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and even if the interim order was passed, whether it would harm the interests of the respondents for certain period, that the urgency in the matter for grant of interim injunction exparte without issuing notice to other side and that the said order shall be an outcome of a meticulous scrutiny of the documents placed before the Court. In short, the principles settled in this regard expect that the application of mind of the Presiding Officer be reflected in his order of Ad-intereim Injunction. If it does not fulfil the statutory requirements or the guidelines by the superior Courts, then it is liable to be set aside and in this regard, under the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court can interfere with the same under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court shall also be cautious in exercising such jurisdiction and see whether there was any abuse of process of law and the Courts below have transgressed their powers or whether they acted beyond their jurisdiction or they do not properly exercise their jurisdiction conferred on them.
9. The respondent have already filed Caveat No.11 of 2009 and it was endorsed on the execution application. On that date Mr.S. Narayanan, Advocate filed Vakalat for the respondents. It is stated in the reply affidavit that since the advocates were boycotted the Courts on 11.3.2009, the first petitioner herein appeared before the Court, presented the Vakalat and represented before the Court that time may be granted for filing counter. But however, the presiding officer did not heed to his request but was going on writing order and that the court has been continuously extending the interim order. When a Caveat is filed in a proceeding, it is incumbent upon the Presiding Officer to hear the other side and then to pass an interim order. In this matter, the procedure has been deviated and without hearing the other side, the interim injunction order has been granted which is not at all legally sustainable.
10. Patently the Interim Injunction order passed by the Scheme Court in E.A.No.1 of 2009 does not contain any reasons for grant of injunction in what way prima facie case was made out has not been described. Further, there is no consideration with regard to the balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners. After following the Supreme Court's decisions on this subject, this Court has elaborately dealt with the responsibilities and duties cast upon the trial Courts at the time of granting exparte injunction orders and legal consequences of passing orders which do not contain reasons and that when the mandatory duty on the part of the trial Court is found violated, this Court can exercise its revisional powers under
Article 227 of Constitution of India and interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. In 2002 (1) CTC 458 [Rt Rev Dr.V. Devasahayam, Bishop in Madras CSI and another v. D. Sahayadoss and 2 others] operative portion of the judgment goes thus:-
"11. ... ... ... As already referred to by me, in the case of granting injunction without hearing the opposite party, it is mandatory on the part of the trial court to record the reasons for its opinion for granting such injunctions. When the said condition is violated, I am of the view that in order to do justice between the parties, this Court can interfere by exercising revisional powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned order which is bereft of reason and laconic cannot stand a moment's scrutiny as ruled in Morgan Stanley Mutual fund v. Kartick Das, 1994 (4) SCC 225."
11. The Supreme Court also analysed the powers of the High Courts in dealing with the reliefs to be granted under
Article 227 in 2002 (1) SCC 319 (Ouseph Mathai and others vs. N. Abdul Khadir). The following are the guidelines:
"4. It is not denied that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are extraordinary and discretionary powers as distinguished from ordinary statutory powers. No doubt
Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said article as a matter of right. In fact power under this articles casts a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party."
12. When the lower courts exceed their limits and their authority, for ensuring statutory or legal duties, the High Court has got power to interfere.
13. The order challenged before this Court, in the considered view of this Court, does not conform to the statutory requirements and the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court has got supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the same and hence the said order deserves to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside.
14. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai is directed to dispose of E.A.No.1 of 2009 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Ggs To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai