Gauhati High Court
Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha vs Bireswar Sinha & 10 Ors on 16 March, 2017
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM &
ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRP 46 of 2017
NIKHIL BISHNUPRIYA MANIPURI MAHASABHA
.....Petitioner
Vs
BIRESHWAR SINHA & 10 ORS.
....Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA Advocates for the Petitioners : Mr. Biswadev Sinha, Mr. N. Thapa : Mr. M. Gogoi.
Advocates for the Respondents : Mr. Pradip Sen Deka, : Ms. P. Bhattacharya, : Mr. A. Bhattacharya, Ms. A. Boruah.
Date of hearing : 15.02.2017, 23.02.2017 and
: 06.03.2017
Date of Judgment : 16.03.2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
1. Heard Sri Biswadev Sinha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Pradip Sen Deka, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.01.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No. CRP 46 of 2017 Page 1 of 10 5/2016, thereby upholding the order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 93/2015 (in T.S. No. 13/2012), by which the order of injunction dated 03.01.2013, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 36/2012 arising in T.S. No. 13/2012 was vacated.
3. This case has a chequered history. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case are as follows:-
a. The petitioner i.e. Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha is a Society formed in or about the year 1932 and duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its own constitution for managing its affairs and its Elections are held under the said Constitution and its last valid Office Bearers for the period of 3 years from 15.02.2009 to 14.02.2012 were elected Annual General Meeting held in the year 2009. It is projected that the respondents are total strangers and rank outsiders and with an intention to oust the duly elected office bearers filed several criminal cases. Later on, by holding a separate meeting on 29.05.2011, formed another Society under the name and style of Bishnupriya Manipuri Samaj Suraksha Samity. The said Society by holding a Jatiya Sanmelan on 07.01.2012 and 08.01.2012, formed a Committee of Mahasabha, which was in gross violation of the Constitution of the Petitioner Society. In order to put an end to the said alleged activities of the Respondents herein, the Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Court of Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar, which was registered and numbered as TS No. 13/2012. The said suit was made over to the Court of Civil Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar for trial. The Respondents herein contested the suit by filing written statement as well as counter-claim. In the CRP 46 of 2017 Page 2 of 10 said suit, the Petitioner Society also filed a petition for ad-
interim injunction, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 36/2012. The Respondents also filed a separate application of rad-interim injunction, which was numbered as Misc. Case 37/2012. The learned Civil Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar, by its order dated 03.01.2013 was pleased to grant ad-interim injunction in Misc. Case 36/2012, restraining the Respondents and their men from using the name and style of the petitioner in any manner till the disposal of the T.S No. 13/2012 and by a separate order dated 03.01.2013, dismissed Misc. Case No. 37/2012 filed by the respondents.
b. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents continued to disturb them for which the petitioner could not hold the election of its office bearers for the nextr term after 14.02.2012 and, as such, by convening a General Meeting on 29.12.2011, extended the term of the then existing Executive Committee for a period of further 1 year. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the letter dated 01.12.2012, written by the respondent No.1 to project that although the respondents admitted in the said letter that they had formed Bishnupriya Manipuri Samaj Suraksha Samity, but they were falsely representing themselves as Central Committee of the Society of the Petitioner. The Petitioner Society made arrangements to hold its 44th Tri-annual Genral Meeting on 22.12 2012 and 22.12.2012. The respondents had voiced their objection before the Registrar of Societies, but the same was rejected by the said Registrar and allowed the erstwhile Committee of Petitioner to hold its General Meeting as scheduled. It is projected that the General Meeting was held on schedule and the newly elected office bearers took over charge on 27.01.2013 and information to that effect was furnished to the Registrar of Societies.
CRP 46 of 2017 Page 3 of 10c. Thereafter, the respondents and others filed a writ petition before this Court, which was numbered as W.P.(C) No. 272/13, inter-alia, seeking a direction to the Registrar of Societies to declare the Petitioner as a defunct body with a further prayer to allow the writ petitioner therein to hold the office of the Society. This Court, by an order dated 01.11.2013, directed the Registrar of Societies to look into the grievances of the said writ petitioners and to take necessary steps to convene a General Meeting to hold the election of the office bearers of the Petitioner Society within a period of 60 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein filed a writ appeal, which was numbered as W.A. No. 425/2013. The said appeal was allowed by order dated 17.12.2013.
d. The respondents along with others thereafter filed a Misc. Case in W.P.(C) No. 272/13 for restoring the process of their so-called meeting scheduled on 07.01.2014 and the said case was numbered as Misc. Case No. 3826/13. This Court disposed-of the said Misc. Case by order dated 03.01.2014. The operative part thereof is as follows:-
"It is admitted by all the sides that the Mahasabha is the apex body of the Bishnupriya Manipuri community and such dispute relating to holding of office of the Mahasabha is certainly not desirable keeping in view the larger interest of the community.
Considering the larger issue involved, Court would not like to terminate the proceedings on a technical ground. Moreover, for the same reason, at this stage, I am also not inclined to enter into the merit of the challenge to the proceedings of the meeting held on 22nd and 23rd December, 2012 in which meeting, the Central Executive Committee headed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was elected.CRP 46 of 2017 Page 4 of 10
Though the Registrar had issued notice on 02.03.2012 to hold the general meeting as per terms and conditions of the notice, response of the Registrar regarding the proceedings of the said meeting is not available. The Court would like to have the views of the Registrar on the proceedings of the said meeting.
Coming to the proposed meeting on 07.01.2014, it is true that the order dated 01.11.2013 based on which the said meeting is being convened is no longer in existence but keeping in view the greater interest of the Mahasabha and the community it represents, the Court is of the view that the said meeting may be held as scheduled independently and without any reference to the order of this Court. Let the Executive Committee represented by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 be also allowed to participate in the said meeting. The Registrar shall remain present in the said meeting and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the meeting is held peacefully and in a cordial manner.
Let the elders of the community sit together and deliberate upon the issues confronting the community. This Court hopes and expects that all the stake holders will rise above their individual and group interests and take decisions which are for the good of the Mahasabha and for the community. Whatever decision that may be taken in the meeting on 07.01.2014 shall be placed before the Court by the Registrar along with his views thereon.
Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the views of the Registrar regarding the meeting held on 22nd and 23rd December, 2012 as well as the proposed meeting on 07.01.2014 be placed before the Court by the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam on the next date. In the meanwhile, the present arrangement may continue.CRP 46 of 2017 Page 5 of 10
WP(C) No. 272/2013 be listed for further consideration on 06.02.2014.
This disposes of the Misc. case".
e. Thereafter, this court by a common order dated 24.02.2014, disposed-of W.P.(C) No. 272/2013, CRP No. (I/O) 93/2013 and CRP (I/O) 94/2013. By the said order, the matter was remanded back to the Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, for decision in T.S. No. 13/2012 and by the said order, the interim injunction granted by the learned civil court was allowed to continue, granting liberty to the parties to apply for modification. It would be pertinent to mention here that by the said order dated 24.02.2014, it was directed that the learned trial court would decide the civil suit, as far as possible, within a period of six months. Subsequently, the petitioner Society and 2 others, who had filed W.P.(C) No. 914/2014, withdrew their said writ petition, which was allowed by order dated 11.03.2014 and they also withdrew their W.A. No. 53/2014 [arising from W.P.(C) No. 272/13], as having become infructuous.
f. On matter being remanded back to the civil court, the respondents herein filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ad-interim injunction, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 93/2015. The said Misc. Case No. 93/2015 was allowed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar by order dated 17.05.2016. On the perusal of the said order, it appears that the learned trial court had relied on the order dated 03.01.2014, passed by this Court in M.C. No. 3826/2013, thereby allowing the election to be held on 07.01.2014 in the presence of the Registrar of Societies and the District Administration at Guwahati. In that view of the matter, the learned trial court, held that the earlier Executive Committee formed on 15.02.2009 was replaced by the Executive Body CRP 46 of 2017 Page 6 of 10 formed on 07.01.2014, the injunction order granted for the protection of the earlier Executive Committee seemed no longer necessary and under the changed circumstances, the injunction order granted on 03.01.2013 in Misc. Case No. 36/2012 was vacated by the said order dated 17.05.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 93/2015.
g. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 5/2016, which was dismissed by order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC), Cachar, Silchar. The aforesaid orders are in challenge in the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by the order of ad-interim injunction dated 03.01.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 36/2012, the respondents were restrained from using the the name and style of the petitioner in any manner till the disposal of the T.S No. 13/2012 and by a separate order dated 03.01.2013, the Misc. Case No. 37/2012 filed by the respondents was dismissed. Moreover, it was strenuously urged that in their writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 272/13, the respondents herein had made an admission by stating in paragraph 5 that "... In this situation the people of the entire Bishnupriya Manipuri community represented by the Suraksha Samiti aforementioned had called a Bishnupriya Manipuri Jatiya Sanmelan and being authorized by the people's convention elected a new Committee with Bireswar Sinha (i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) as President and Rathindra Sinha (i.e. Respondent No.1 herein) as General Secretary and they took over the office of the Mahasabha."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned courts below committed patent error in appreciating the facts and arrived at a totally perverse conclusion. It is submitted that the General Meeting held on 07.01.2014, was never adjudicated by this Court and also that CRP 46 of 2017 Page 7 of 10 this Court did not take cognizance of the said election, otherwise this court would not have ordered injunction order dated 03.01.2013, as passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 36/2012 to continue, as was done by the common order dated 24.02.2014. It was further stated that the order dated 03.01.2014, which was passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 3826/13 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 272/13 got merged with the final common order dated 24.02.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 272/13, CRP (I/O) No. 93/2013 and CRP (I/O) No. 94/2013.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the term of the Executive Body elected for the period of 3 years from 15.02.2009 to 14.02.2012, which as allegedly extended for 1 further year i.e. upto 14.02.2013 was over. Hence, the election held in the General Meeting held on 07.01.2014 was otherwise valid and had nothing to do with the meeting of the Jatiya Sanmelan of Bishnupriya Manipuri Samaj Suraksha Samity, held on 07.01.2012 and 08.01.2012. It is submitted that ideally speaking, the 3 year term of Executive Committee elected on 07.01.2014 was over on 06.01.2017. Thus, there was no infirmity in the orders passed by both the learned courts below because in the suit the reliefs are with regard to the meetings held on 15.02.2009, 07.01.2012, 08.01.2012 and the Executive Body for preservation of which the suit was filed was no longer valid.
7. In course of argument, the learned counsel for the respondent had produced a copy of letter bearing No. RFS. 93/2013-14/539/674 dated 29.01.2014, by which the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Assam had submitted its report containing 23 sheets before this Court. Therefore, by order dated 15.02.2017, the said report was called for and accordingly, the Registry of this Court has tagged the record of Misc. Case No. 3826/13 as well as W.P.(C) No. 272/13 with the record of this case, which contains the said report filed on 03.02.2014. This court, in order to appreciate the election held in the said General Meeting dated 07.01.2014, has perused the said report. As per the CRP 46 of 2017 Page 8 of 10 said report, the General Meeting and Election of the Petitioner Society along with Executive Body of other two societies as held at District Library Auditorium, Guwahati at 11.30 a.m. on 07.01.2014 in the presence of the Registrar of Firms & Societies, Assam. Along with the said report a photocopy of the attendance register is also filed. No infirmity in the said meeting could be culled out.
8. It appears to this Court that the election of the office bearers of the Executive Body of the Petitioner Society was duly held and, as such, by the dint of the leave granted by this Court by the herein before referred common order dated 24.02.2014, the respondents had applied for modification of the ad-interim order of injunction dated 03.01.2013. The learned trial court had passed a well reasoned order, which was up-held by the learned first appellate court. Therefore, the said order vacating the injunction is backed by concurrent finding by both the learned courts below. There is no material to show that the said orders are perverse. This court is of the view that the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court are not found to have exercised its discretion arbitrarily or perversely. Hence, by applying the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Wander Ltd. V. Antox India Ltd., (1990) Supp SCC 727, this revisional Court would be slow in upsetting the said order by substituting its view over the view taken by the learned courts below.
9. Furthermore, this court is of the view that on the date when the election was over, the term of the Executive Body/ Committee for the period from 15.02.2009 to 14.02.2012 was over, the term which was extended by 1 year was also over by 14.02.2013 and the moreover, the further 3 year term of the newly elected Executive Body/ Committee, which was elected on 07.01.2014 is deemed to have also expired on 06.01.2017. There is no material available to suggest that the General Meeting was not properly conducted on 07.01.2014.
CRP 46 of 2017 Page 9 of 1010. Hence, this court is not inclined to interfere with (i) the order dated 17.05.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 93/2015 (in T.S. No. 13/2012), by which the order of injunction dated 03.01.2013, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 36/2012 arising in T.S. No. 13/2012 was vacated and (ii) order dated 06.01.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No. 5/2016, thereby dismissing the appeal. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed at the motion stage.
11. This order shall not prejudice any of the parties in trial of the suit and, as such, the learned trial court shall decide the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein.
12. The record if W.P. (C) No. 272/13 along with M.C. No. 3826/13 was tagged with the record of this case as per the note dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned Registrar (Judicial). The same is released and returned back.
JUDGE Mkumar CRP 46 of 2017 Page 10 of 10