Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhopal Working Journalist Union Bhopal ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-13050-2017
(BHOPAL WORKING JOURNALIST UNION BHOPAL (SHEKHAR) M.P. UNIT Vs THE STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 06-11-2017
Shri Paresh Pareek, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Dhagat, GA for the respondents/state.
Heard.
The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-
1. That the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to 4 to ensure that the proposed meeting dated 26.8.2017 by the respondent No.5 and 6 be immediately stopped if the same is convened by using the banner and name of IFWJ and legal action be taken against them for unauthorized use of the banner and name of the IFWJ. It is further prayed that in case the meeting is convened by the respondent No.5 and 6 than the expenses occurred be recovered from them being the same issued by the authorities from the public exchequer in the interest of justice.
2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice.
3. Cost of the petition may also be granted in favor of the petitioner.â The meeting on which injunction was prayed for was held on 26.8.2017. At this point of time, this court cannot put the clock back and grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Apart from this, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is a genuine union of journalists whereas the private respondents are using the union in their name. Such action on the part of the said respondents is bad in law.
In the opinion of this court the said inter se dispute between the petitioner and the private respondents herein cannot be the subject matter of adjudication in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
So far the question of recovering the expenses from the private respondent etc. is concerned, that can be determined after proper adjudication by the court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any ingredient on which writ petition can be entertained, is available in this petition. Faced with this, Shri Pareek prays for and is granted permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach appropriate forum. Petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty prayed for. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE MKL