Leave to amend the date in the prayer clause.
Notice returnable on 15.6.2012.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not have any cause for calling petitioners in their individual capacity books of accounts, balance sheet etc. The petitioners are office bearers of the Association known as Chemist and Druggist Association and respondent No. 3 complained in respect of the practice of obtaining 'no objection' from Association by the druggist and/or dealer and as such the complaint was against the Association and not against individual office bearers. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to approach this court on earlier occasion by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 10039 of 2011 with Special Civil Application No. 6609 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 11639 of 2011, wherein, this Court (Coram: Abhilasha Kumari, J. ) on 20.12.2011, directed the respondents to submit the objection of the petitioners as a preliminary issue. Accordingly, the petitioners put up their objection interalia contending that in view of the proceedings and complaint in the nature of allegation, there exists no justification for directing the petitioners in their individual capacity as organization or business union to furnish its individual data.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited this court's attention to the order impugned in this petition and contended that their exists no cogent reasoning with regard to justification of direction calling for data of individual office bearers when there is no complaint qua individual office bearer like petitioners. The proceedings against Association are still pending and not concluded in any manner.
The Court has gone through the order impugned and prima-facie it appears therefrom that except documentary evidence indicating that the respondents right to call for record, no justification is indicated for calling individual record of the petitioners - the office bearers. The eventuality of individual being held responsible when he is found guilty or responsible for the perpetration of act, contrary to law, then in that eventuality alone, the individual is fastened with penalty and other impediment and restrictions mentioned in the act but for doing that, there has to be particular finding with regard thereto and it is not the stage where the individual record is justifiably called for. This being prima-facie observation of the Court, let there be a status-quo with regard to production of records of individual office bearers - petitioners of this petition.
As this order is passed ex-parte, it goes without saying that it would be open to the respondents individually or collectively to approach this court for vacation/modification of this order with a copy to other side. Direct service permitted.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav Top