Kerala High Court
Social Justice Foundation vs Ajith Kumar K on 16 June, 2025
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 1
2025:KER:42294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947
FAO NO.128 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 IN
I.A.NO.58/2024 IN OP (TRUST) NO.107/2006 OF II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER 1:
SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION
THIRUVALLOM ENGINEERING COLLEGE CAMPUS
VANDITHADAM, THIRUVALLOM,
THRIUVANANTHAPURAM-695027,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY K RAMACHANDRAN,
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE KUTTAN CHETTIAR,
THENGUVILA VEEDU, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695026
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 TO 7:
1 AJITH KUMAR K
AGED 57 YEARS
T.C 29/416, KAVARADI JUNCTION, PETTAH P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024
2 L.C.DASAN
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR,
SAMANJANA, POLICE STATION ROAD, NEMOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
3 L SURESH BABU
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 2
2025:KER:42294
AGED 57 YEARS
VILAYIL VEEDU, AZHOOR PERUMKUZHI P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305
4 K JAYACHANDRAN
SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION, THIRUVALLOM P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695027
5 SWAMIRAJ
TC 20/1091, MNRA-11, MANASANAGAR, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
6 J GOPINATHAN
AGED 77 YEARS
AMBALASREE, T C 25/1760, NETHAJI BOSE ROAD,
KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501
7 S KUMARESAN
V V HOUSE, VANIYAR STREET, BALARAMAPURAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501
8 RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 69 YEARS
EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
FOUNDATION, S/O SAMI CHETTIYAR,
VISAKH T C 50/1567, THALIYAL KARAMANA P.O,
MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695009
9 K BHUVANDRAN CHETTIYAR
AGED 73 YEARS
CHAIRMAN, SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION M G COLLEGE
OF ENGINEERING PREMISES , VANDITHANAM,
THIRUVALLOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695027
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ, R1 TO R3
SRI.R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA)
SMT.E.S.SONI
SMT.SREERAJA V.
SMT.LAXMI PRIYAA N.P.
SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN R1 TO R3
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 3
2025:KER:42294
SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV, R4 & R8
SRI.S.SUJIN, R5 & R7
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16.06.2025, ALONG WITH FAO.25/2025, 31/2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 4
2025:KER:42294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947
FAO NO. 25 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2024 IN IA
NO.62/2024 IN OP (TRUST) NO.107/2006 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER 1:
SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION
M.G.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PREMISES, ANDITHADAM,
THIRUVALLOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695027
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
K RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE KUTTAN
CHETTIAR, THENGUVILA VEEDU, AMBALATHARA,
POONTHURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695026
BY ADV SHRI.SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 - 8:
1 AJITH KUMAR K
AGED 57 YEARS
T.C 29/416, KAVARADI JUNCTION, PETTAH P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024
2 L.C DASAN
AGED 70 YEARS S/O LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR, SAMANJANA,
POLICE STATION ROAD, NEMOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
3 K.JAYACHANDRAN
SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION , THIRUVALLOM P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695027
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 5
2025:KER:42294
4 SWAMIRAJ
TC 201/1091, MNRA-11, MANASANAGAR, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
5 J GOPINATHAN
AGED 77 YEARS, AMBALASREE, T C 25/1760,
NETHAJI BOSE ROAD, KOWDIAR P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
6 S KUMARESAN
V V HOUSE, VANIYAR STREET, BALARAMAPURAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501
7 RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 69 YEARS, EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL
JUSTICE FOUNDATION
S/O SAMI CHETTIYAR VISAKH T C 50/1567,
THALIYAL KARAMANA P.O., MANACAUD VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
8 K BHUVANDRAN CHETTIYAR
AGED 73 YEARS, CHAIRMAN, SOCIAL JUSTICE
FOUNDATION, M G COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PREMISES ,
VANDITHANAM, THIRUVALLOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695027
9 L SURESH BABU
AGED 57 YEARS, VILAYIL VEEDU, AZHOOR, PERUMKUZHI
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ, R1, R2, R9
SRI.S.SUJIN, R4
SMT.NITA.N.S.
SRI.R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA)
SMT.E.S.SONI
SMT.SREERAJA V.
SMT.LAXMI PRIYAA N.P.
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16.06.2025, ALONG WITH FAO.128/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASE, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 6
2025:KER:42294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947
FAO NO.31 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2025 IN IA
NO.72/2024 IN OP(TRUST) NO.107/2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT - II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER 1:
SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION
M.G.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PREMISES, VANDITHADAM,
THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695027
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
K RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE KUTTAN
CHETTIAR , THENGUVILA VEEDU,AMBALATHARA,
POONTHURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695026
BY ADV SHRI.SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 - 8:
1 AJITH KUMAR K
AGED 57 YEARS, T.C.29/416, KAVARADI JUNCTION,
PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024
2 L.C.DASAN
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR,
SAMANJANA, POLICE STATION ROAD, NEMOM P.O ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020
3 K JAYACHANDRAN
SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION , THIRUVALLOM P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695027
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 7
2025:KER:42294
4 SWAMIRAJ
TC 20/1091, MNRA-11, MANASANAGAR, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
5 J GOPINATHAN
AGED 77 YEARS, AMBALASREE, T C 25/1760,
NETHAJI BOSE ROAD, KOWDIAR P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
6 S KUMARESAN
V V HOUSE, VANIYAR STREET, BALARAMAPURAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501
7 RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 69 YEARS, EDUCATIONAL DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL
JUSTICE FOUNDATION, S/O SAMI CHETTIYAR VISAKHY
T C 50/1567, THALIYAL KARAMANA P.O., MANACAUD
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
8 K BHUVANDRAN CHETTIYAR
AGED 73 YEARS, CHAIRMAN, SOCIAL JUSTICE
FOUNDATION M G COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
VANDITHADAM, THIRUVALLOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695027
9 L SURESH BABU
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR,
VILAYIL VEEDU, AZHOOR PERUMKUZHI P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 693505
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ, R1, R2, R9
SRI.R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA)
SMT.E.S.SONI
SMT.SREERAJA V.
SMT.LAXMI PRIYAA N.P.
SRI.S.SUJIN, R4
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16.06.2025, ALONG WITH FAO.128/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 8
2025:KER:42294
JUDGMENT
[FAO Nos.128/2024, 25/2025, 31/2025] Dated this the 16th day of June, 2025 Since the disputes involved in these three FAOs are common, connected and concern the same parties, they are considered and disposed of together.
2. Appellant Social Justice Foundation is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955. It runs an Engineering College by the name MG College of Engineering at Vandithadam, Thiruvananthapuram. The object of the organization is the social, economic and educational upliftment of its members who belong to Vanika Vysya Community. In furtherance of the said object, the Society decided to commence educational institutions, hospitals, training centres. The society had been functioning in accordance with the bye laws evolved at the time of its registration. Later when disputes arose regarding the conduct of the election and allegations regarding mismanagement and misappropriation of funds of the society cropped up, some of the members moved District Court, FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 9 2025:KER:42294 Thiruvananthapuram filing O.P.(Trust) No.107 of 2006 seeking to frame a scheme in respect of the functioning of the society. On 10.04.2008, the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, framed a scheme which was challenged before this Court and pursuant to the remand and fresh consideration ordered by this Court, a scheme was framed as per judgment dated 12.01.2012. Even after the settlement of the scheme dispute and discord continued among the members and the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, had been moved time and again concerning various aspects of running of the society, especially regarding membership and the conduct of elections. The FAOs at hand are appeals arising from orders passed by the District Court in three such I.As filed concerning membership and elections.
3. While FAO No.128 of 2024 is filed by the Society challenging the order dated 14.10.2024 in I.A.No.58 of 2024 in O.P. (Trust) No.107 of 2006 on the files of the 2 nd Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, FAO No.25 of 2025 and FAO No.31 of 2025 are filed by the society challenging the orders dated 02.12.2024 and 07.01.2025 in I.A.No.62 of 2024 and I.A.No.72 of FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 10 2025:KER:42294 2024 respectively filed in O.P.(Trust) No.107 of 2006.
4. To put the present FAOs in context, it may be relevant to narrate some events that immediately preceded the filing of the same. In the year 2021 before the term of the Governing Body was to expire, disputes cropped up once again among the factions and a batch of I.As. (I.A.Nos.08/2021, 19/2021, 22/2022, 29/2022 and 34/2022) were filed before the District Court. The same were disposed of by a common order dated 22.07.2022. Suffice to say that subsequent to the said common order as well as an interim order dated 29.09.2022 of this Court in O.P.(C) No.1584 of 2022, parallel elections were conducted on 18.10.2022 and 18.12.2022. The appellant society along with Sri.K.Jayachandran filed I.A.No.45 of 2022 seeking a temporary injunction inter alia restraining the respondents from acting or claiming as office bearers of the society. Restraint was also sought from using the office seal and other records and from causing obstruction to the normal functioning of the Governing Body members elected on 04.12.2022. The said I.A. was allowed by the District Court vide order dated 07.02.2023 and a temporary injunction was granted till disposal of I.A.No.42 of 2022. FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 11
2025:KER:42294 The said order granting temporary injunction was challenged before this Court by filing FAO No.24 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 13.07.2023, the operative portion of which is relevant to be reproduced:
"To sum up, though the Court was right in declining to recognise the election conducted by the appellants wherein the appellants claim to have been elected, whether the constitution of the governing body constituted by the respondents in the appeal - petitioners in the I.A satisfies the mandate under Clause 31 of the bye-laws, needs to be considered.
In the light of the above, the following orders are passed.
1. The finding in the impugned order refusing to recognise the election purportedly conducted by the appellants, is confirmed.
2. The Court shall decide whether the governing body consisting of the respondents satisfy the mandate regarding the strength as stipulated under clause 31 of the bye-laws and pass fresh order on the application accordingly.
3. If the Court finds that the governing body does not satisfy the mandate regarding strength, the Court shall order conduct of a fresh election to be held in accordance with the bye-laws.
4. If fresh elections are to be ordered in terms of clause (3) above, prior to such conduct of election, all pending applications in connection with the membership of the Society shall be heard and final orders passed.
5. Till orders are passed by the Court as above, the respondents herein, who are the petitioners in the I.A, are appointed as receivers for management of the Society and administration shall be done on collective decision. However, any policy decisions shall be taken only with the permission of the Court.
6. The receiver shall immediately take all steps for collection/recovery of all outstanding dues.
7. It shall be deemed that the appointment of FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 12 2025:KER:42294 receiver is made by the District Court."
5. Thereafter, the District Court rendered order dated 12.04.2024 inter alia allowing I.A.No.45 of 2022 and dismissing I.A.No.42 of 2022 as infructuous. The court considered the question whether the election conducted on 04.12.2022 declaring 18 persons as office bearers of the Governing Body is in accordance with the scheme prepared by the court and concluded that the declaration of election as per the election schedule dated 12.09.2022 and declaring 18 persons as the office bearers of the Governing Body was legal and proper and it complies with the mandate laid down under the scheme. The said order of the District Court dated 12.04.2024 was challenged before this Court in FAO No.101 of 2024. This Court disposed the said FAO vide judgment dated 02.09.2024 with the following directions:
"In the above circumstances, interest of justice requires that the appeal is disposed of with the following directions.
1) The question whether Clause 31 mandates that the Governing Body should have 21 members, is left open.
2) Prior to the elections that are admittedly scheduled to December of this year, the court below shall decide on the pending applications for renewal of membership in the Society, copies of which are already before the court, and issue necessary directions to the FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 13 2025:KER:42294 Society/returning office. Such orders shall be issued within three weeks so as to facilitate the smooth conduct of the election. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions."
6. Subsequently, I.A.No.58 of 2024 was filed by the respondents before the District Court seeking to pass orders on the renewal applications filed before the District Court and thus seeking compliance of the directions of this Court in judgment dated 02.09.2024 in FAO No.101 of 2024. The District Court proceeded to consider the said I.A. and as regards the upholding of the election, it was concluded that since finding regarding the same rendered earlier had not been interfered with or set aside by this Court in its judgment dated 02.09.2024, there was no reason to revisit the same. As regards the question concerning quorum, which this Court had left open in judgment dated 02.09.2024 in FAO No.101 of 2024, the District Court concluded that since the conclusion arrived at in its order dated 12.04.2024 that a quorum of 18 persons of office bearers of the Governing Body is legal and proper and the same would suffice and satisfy the mandate of the scheme had not been interfered with by this Court in the FAOs filed, there was no reason to take a different view on the said question. The District Court thus FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 14 2025:KER:42294 confined the question to be considered pursuant to the directions of this Court in judgment dated 02.09.2024 in FAO No.101 of 2024 to the pending applications for renewal of membership in the society and the orders to be issued to the society or the returning officer regarding such applications. After hearing both sides in detail on the said question, turning down the objections put forth by the appellant herein, the District Court vide order impugned in FAO No.128 of 2024 inter alia allowed the renewal applications. The appellant has filed FAO No.128 of 2024 aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2024 in I.A.No.58 of 2024.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3 in FAO No.128 of 2024 inter alia contending that there is no cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order in I.A.No.58 of 2024 and that the appellant has in para 1 to 25 of the FAO only made reiterations of the contentions that had already been found unsustainable by this Court and stands settled by judgments in FAO Nos.24 of 2023 and 101 of 2024. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the District Court had considered all the duplicate application forms as well as the receipts evidencing receipt of membership fee FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 15 2025:KER:42294 which contains the seal of the society and had found that those applications have been filed within the time prescribed by the byelaw for condoning the delay in submitting the renewal application and also that as per the byelaw those members had paid the arrears of membership fee within time. The District Court had specifically observed that the appellant, who is the respondent in the I.A., had not raised any objection pointing out either that the duplicate applications containing the seal of the society or the receipts which too contain the seal of the society are not genuine. The District Court had taken note of the fact that the period of non payment of the subscription fee, falls within the time exempted by the Supreme Court considering the covid pandemic situation and the District Court ordered that the said applications are to be considered and their prospective membership should be renewed before conducting the election. It is submitted by the said respondents in the counter affidavit that the order of the District Court in I.A.No.58 of 2024 does not call for any interference. A petition numbered as I.A.No.3 of 2024 was also filed by respondents 1 to 3 invoking Order 40 Rule 1 CPC seeking to appoint a receiver.
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 16
2025:KER:42294
8. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 5 and 7 in FAO No.128 of 2024 inter alia stating that the previous election conducted on 19.10.2020 was without any dispute and the Governing Body which was elected for 2 years thereafter had been functioning without any regard to the bye law and therefore after the completion of the tenure, serious complaints were raised regarding the administration of the society, particularly regarding the decisions taken by the persons in power to disqualify the majority members for the purpose of making the Governing Body under their hold. It was in this circumstance that this Court had occasion to interfere in the matter and by the judgment in FAO No.101 of 2024, this Court had noticed that the Governing Body constituted is strictly in accordance with clause 31 of the byelaw and further that in elections proposed to be held attempt was to keep large number of members outside the organisation. Therefore, this Court had issued specific directions to consider the pending applications for renewal of membership in the society and the District Court was directed to consider such applications pending for renewal of membership. The District Court had upon due consideration of the contentions, found that 16 FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 17 2025:KER:42294 persons who had paid the subscription fee and submitted applications could not be inducted as members since their names are not entered in the register of membership furnished by the Receiver. It was also found that as regards the 104 names specified and enumerated the impugned order, which concerned persons whose renewal applications were pending, were to be enlisted since their applications are in order and they are to be allowed to participate in the activities of the society and also their names are to be included in the voters list. It is stated by the said respondents in the counter affidavit that the order which is challenged by the appellants in this FAO is valid and sustainable and calls for no interference.
9. Coming to FAO No.25 of 2025, the same had been filed by the society challenging the order dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.62 of 2024 of the District Court in O.P.(Trust) No.107 of 2006. The said I.A. was filed alleging that illegal steps were being taken by the General Secretary and the returning officer with malafide intention to prevent the majority of members from participating in the elections for 2024 - 2025 and thereby to conduct the election of FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 18 2025:KER:42294 the trust as done by them during 2022 to 2024. It was contended that the valuable right of 120 members, amounting to two third majority in the trust membership, to participate in the General Body meeting and to take decision including policy matters were illegally denied. It was contended that even though at the time of hearing I.A.No.58 of 2024, the society did not have a case that any steps had been taken to conduct the elections of the Governing Body of the trust for the years following year steps were taken in haste. The said I.A. thus sought the following three prayers:
"(i) The General Body Meeting of the First defendant trust convened after 01.01.2021 and the decisions taken in those meetings without permitting to participate majority of the members are void and illegal.
(ii) Restraining the counter petitioner from conducting the election of Governing Body of the 1st defendant trust for the year 2024-2026 without participating all the eligible members including the 120 members specified in the order in IA No. 58 of 2024 of this court dated 14.10.2024.
(iii) Appointing an officer of the court as returning officer to conduct the election of the Governing body of the 1st defendant trust for the period 2024-2026."
10. The District Court had heard both parties in detail in I.A.No.62 of 2024 and held as follows:
FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 19
2025:KER:42294 "In view of the above circumstances, I am of the view that the declaration of election by the returning officer as per his proceedings dated 15.11.2024 is declared to be null and void. Hence following orders are passed In the result:
a. IA No. 62 of 2024 is allowed.
b. The declaration of result of the election made by the returning officer as per his proceedings dated 15.11.2024 is non est in the eye of law and it is declared as null and void.
c. The respondent is directed to conduct proper election within two months taking into consideration of the directions contained in the order in IA No. 58/2024.
d. Needless to say, the order in this IA shall be subject to the orders which would be passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the appeal challenging the order in IA No. 58/2024.
e. The parties are free to submit a panel of returning officers to this court for the conduct of the election. f. The office bearers of the respondent trust can continue their office till the completion of the election or till any subsequent order passed by the court in future, but they shall not take any policy decision touching the administration of the trust."
The above order dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.62 of 2024 is impugned in FAO No.25 of 2025.
11. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1, 2 and 9 in the said FAO wherein it has been inter alia submitted that as is clearly discernible from the judgment of this Court in FAO No.101 of 2024 and in R.P.No.1087 of 2024, as well as from the Order of the District Court in I.A.No.58 of 2024, the intention of the FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 20 2025:KER:42294 courts was that before the conduct of the election that is scheduled to be conducted in the year 2024, all the members who were excluded illegally have to be included in the election process. Hence, a specific direction had been issued in the said Judgments/ Order to conduct the election after including the members who were excluded from the membership of the society in the voters list. It had been specifically directed by this Court in FAO No.24 of 2023, to the effect that prior to the elections that are admittedly scheduled in December of this year, the Court below shall decide on the pending applications of renewal of membership in the society. The said judgment had been rendered as early as on 13.07.2023. The attempt of the respondent in I.A.No.62 of 2024 was to subvert the said specific direction and hence it was submitted that the order dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.62 of 2024 was valid, legal and perfectly justified, thus calling for no interference.
12. FAO No.31 of 2025 has been filed by the society challenging the order dated 07.01.2025 in I.A.No.72 of 2024 whereby the District Court had appointed a returning officer from among a panel of three persons. It has been alleged that the said FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 21 2025:KER:42294 appointment was made by the District Court overlooking the objection filed by the appellant stating that I.A.No.58 of 2024 is under challenge before this Court and that petitioners in the I.A. had no locus standi to file the application as the first among them was not included in Table A mentioned in the order in I.A.No.58 of 2024 and that the second among them even though included, his membership could not be renewed as he was already expelled from the appellant society for various disciplinary actions. Thus the I.A. itself was not maintainable. It was also contended that none of the persons mentioned in the panel submitted by the petitioners in the I.A. were eligible for appointment as a returning officer. The first name in the panel was that of a former Receiver of the appellant who had conducted the election in the year 2012 allegedly without complying with the byelaws and that the same had been interfered with by the District Court. The second name mentioned in the panel was that of a returning official of the parallel election conducted by the respondents and the District Court had found the said election to be invalid and the same was upheld by this Court. Thus, on the alleged ground of bias, the second person in the panel was also not FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 22 2025:KER:42294 applicable. It was alleged that the third person named in the panel was a close friend of the 1st respondent and the same disqualified him from appointment. The District Court however had appointed the third person mentioned in the panel as the returning officer and the appellant society in the FAO alleged that the said returning officer has been functioning as per the dictates of the respondents and without following the byelaws and he had thus joined hands with the respondents to defeat the appellant by unethical practices thus making him unfit for the appointment. FAO No.31 of 2025 thus sought setting aside the appointment of the returning officer by the District Court made vide order dated 07.01.2025 in I.A.No.72 of 2024.
13. Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, Senior Advocate instructed by Sri.Sreehari Indukaladharan, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.R.Krishna Raj, Advocate for respondents 1, 2 & 3 in FAO No.128 of 2024 and 1, 2 & 9 in FAO Nos.25 & 31 of 2025, Sri.Sugunapalan, Senior Advocate instructed by Sri.S.Sujin, Advocate, for R5 in FAO No.128 of 2024 and R4 in FAO Nos.25 & 31 of 2025.
14. Before proceeding to the contentions put forth by the FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 23 2025:KER:42294 parties, it would be relevant to have a brief overview of relevant clauses concerning membership and election as per the scheme evolved by the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
15. The scheme envisages three classes of members. The first category is the founder members who had formed the society. The second class of members are permanent members who deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- or upwards. The third category of members are ordinary members. Clause (9) of the scheme relates to the convening of the General Body. It stipulates that there shall be at least one general body meeting which is to be held annually and it shall be convened before the 31 st day of December every year. The quorum of the general body would be 1/3 rd of the total members or 25 members whichever is less. All members shall have equal voting rights and can cast 1 vote each. Clause (10) deals with the conduct of elections to the Governing Body. Five members each have to be elected from their constituencies namely (a) founding members, (b) permanent members and (c) ordinary members. The Governing Body should consist of 15 members. The term of the Governing Body is fixed for 2 years. Clause (11) deals with different classes of FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 24 2025:KER:42294 constituencies. Sub Clause (a) of Clause (11) concerns permanent members who had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- or more to the society. Sub clause (b) deals with founding members whose names are registered in the first 8 pages of the register as on 10.04.2008. Sub clause (c) deals with ordinary members. viz., those members who are not included in the other two category. Each constituency has separate elections and 5 members are to be elected each from the 3 constituencies for the purpose of formation of a Governing Body. Clause (12) concerns the procedure regarding conduct of election. It stipulates publication of voters list along with election notification and final approval of voters list. The decision of the returning officer shall be final with respect to any issues related to election. Clause (13) relates to the formation of the Governing Body. 15 members are to be elected from each of the constituencies, out of which, through discussion, a quorum of 5 shall form the Governing Body. The chairman must be a person from the constituency of the founding members. Clause (17) of the scheme stipulates the quorum of the Governing Body and it would consist of Chairman, Vice Chairman, General Secretary, Treasurer, Financial Director and Educational FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 25 2025:KER:42294 Director.
16. Sri.S.Sreekumar, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant forcefully contended that the impugned order had been rendered by the District Court without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and was in gross violation of natural justice. The proceedings had been rushed through to comply with the time period of three weeks fixed by this Court and no breathing opportunity had been granted to the appellant to substantiate the contentions. The impugned order is thus illegal, unsustainable and fit to be set aside for non compliance with principles of natural justice. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the observation in the impugned order that the respondents filed application for renewal within 6 months from 01.01.2021 and it was on account of covid pandemic that the arrears mounted, is absolutely incorrect. The District Court ought to have called for the records from the society or should have directed the Secretary who is the custodian of records to file an affidavit as to whether the applications had been pending since July 2021. Without doing the said exercise and without obtaining a confirmation whatsoever, the FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 26 2025:KER:42294 District Court had arbitrarily and without verifying the authenticity of the documents produced in a faceless unnumbered petition, picked and chosen some people and directed the appellant to include them in the voters list. The said conclusion arrived at by the District Court is illegal and is liable to be interfered with. It is further contended that the District Court had failed to appreciate and recollect its own proceedings, as it has earlier declined to interfere with the same plea when it was raised in I.A.Nos.51 and 52 of 2023, and to reopen I.A.No.37 and 39 of 2022. The District Court had failed to appreciate the fact that the respondents had filed witness list in I.A.No.45 of 2022, wherein it is evident that all the documents allegedly filed by the respondents are with the respondents itself and not with the society. Thus the contention raised by the respondent that the application was pending consideration was incorrect and baseless. The District Court erred in overlooking the said crucial aspect. The District Court had rendered the order without caring to verify the duplicate application with the original membership register. The District Court had also not verified whether the monthly subscription said to have been received to renew the membership had been FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 27 2025:KER:42294 remitted in the Bank or not. No material evidence whatsoever in this respect was available. The respondents had acted with a very malicious intention and had produced bogus and fabricated applications. The District Court erred in allowing the I.A.No.58 of 2024 without verifying the previous records. The District Court had prepared Table A in the impugned order without perusing any of the records. It was further contended by the Senior Counsel that the cut off date for all membership applications was 10.04.2008 and thereafter the same could have been entertained as mandated under the rules. Thereafter only fresh applications would lie for membership and the question of renewal of membership as sought for does not arise at all. It was also pointed out that once the scheme is approved, then the court becomes functus officio and disputes, if any thereafter, could be entertained only before the competent civil court. Thus the very maintainability of the applications filed by the respondents is doubtful. In so far as I.A.No.37 of 2002, with which the relevant documents had been produced, had already been closed and the prayer for reopening of the said I.A. had also been declined there was no scope at all for FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 28 2025:KER:42294 consideration of the copies of the pending membership renewal applications as sought in I.A.No.58 of 2024. It was submitted that the entire process of the applications and the production of receipts were shrouded in mystery and it is not clear as to how the originals of the receipts were subsequently produced. The receipts had not been issued by the competent treasurer and hence the veracity of the same is also doubtful. It was also contended that as regards I.A.No.58 of 2024, the appellant has been kept in dark regarding the nature of the application and the relief sought. In the proceeding sheet of the said I.A., all that it has been stated was "post along with records". Such an order that has been passed is a nullity and it has been passed without jurisdiction. It could be seen from the records that the payments for renewal were made even in 2021 and even during the covid pandemic. No affidavit/petition or reason has been stated in the court for membership consideration. This Court while rendering the order in the FAO No.101 of 2024 was misled by saying that the applications are pending. Attention was also invited to the minutes dated 7.10.2022 to contend that the question of allowing the renewal applications of A, B and C class members had FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 29 2025:KER:42294 already engaged the attention of the Governing Body in the meeting held on that date. The learned senior counsel thus prayed for allowing FAO No.128 of 2024 and thus to set aside the order in I.A.No.58 of 2024 of the District Court.
17. Per contra, Sri.Krishna Raj Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the FAO contains false and incorrect facts and on merits too, the order impugned does not warrant any interference. It is contended that there had been a concerted effort from the part of the appellant to keep genuine members out of the society and to bring the society under the iron fist of the General Secretary. Scathing allegations have been raised against the manner of functioning of the General Secretary who has represented the appellant society in this FAO. Coming to the merits of the allegations regarding refusal to renew membership and loss of membership, it is contended that a false and incorrect interpretation of Clause 31 of the bye law has been pressed into service so as to further the case of the appellant. The said clause only states that the society is bound to return any amount demanded by the members who have given amounts to society, retaining an amount of FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 30 2025:KER:42294 Rs.1,000/-. On the failure of the society to pay the amount demanded by a member, he has authority to realize the same against the assets of the society. Thus it is clear that any member has authority to demand amounts given to the society less than Rs.1,000/- which the society is entitled to retain. Therefore, the contention that 18 members had become non members because of their failure to return the amount collected in excess of Rs.1,000/- is illegal and made without a proper understanding of the scope and ambit of clause 31. Relying on the relevant provisions of the byelaw produced as Annexure R1(a), the learned counsel vehemently contended that the entire complications had been created in the society since the General Secretary prepared a voters list in collusion with the returning officer refusing to include 146 members and thereby creating a truncated voters list containing only 60 members out of the 206 members of the society. This had been carried out by indulging in an incorrect and false interpretation of clause 31 as stated above. All A class members are now out of membership and though there were 220 members as per the last list, the same had come down to 60 due to the machinations and FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 31 2025:KER:42294 illegal actions of a coterie led by the General Secretary. It is contended that there is no cause or reason to set aside the impugned order of the District Court since the only objection that had been raised by the appellant before the District Court while considering the I.A.No.58 of 2024, which finds mention in para 11 of the impugned order is that the non-inclusion of the applicants had been considered by the returning officer during the last election and he had not included the relevant names in the voters list. The contention put forth was that since the elections held during the year 2022 were not challenged, at present there was no need for considering the renewal applications. All the applications mentioned are available in the records of the court. Appellant had not chosen to produce any records even though they are in possession of the same. Had there been any bonafides on the part of the appellant they could have produced the records and documents to show that arrears are beyond one year. After suppressing the documents available with them and refusing to produce the same, the purported discrepancies pointed out by the appellant in the Table prepared by the District Court after meticulous examination cannot be sustained. FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 32
2025:KER:42294 Table A in the impugned order is valid and it does not show that any applications for renewal had not been filed beyond the one year period. It is contended by the learned counsel that contradictory contentions have been put forth by the appellant with respect to the applications for membership. It is submitted that no applications had been pending for consideration, as the applications had already been refused to be considered by dismissing the same. Since no challenge had been of made the orders dismissing the applications, those orders have become final. The contention that was taken by the appellant before the District Court, which has been reiterated in paragraph 11 of the impugned order that the applications have been considered by the returning officer during the last election and since he has not included their names without considering the renewal applications, there has in effect been a rejection by the returning officer thus rendering the decisions and the list final as they were not challenged. Even though elections were conducted subsequently in the year 2022 the absence of challenge continued. Thus the contention of the appellant is that the applications submitted by the members of the society are not sustainable and at the same time it FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 33 2025:KER:42294 is contended that those applications were rejected by the Governing Body and that the decision of the Governing Body has become final. These contentions are evidently self contradictory and would reveal that the appellant is only trying to wriggle out from the situation that they themselves have created. The learned counsel thus submitted that the FAO is only to be dismissed.
18. Sri.Sugunapalan, Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that the directions in the judgment rendered by this Court in FAOs were binding on the parties. They are thus bound by the remand order passed. The learned senior counsel relying elaborately on the judgments rendered by this Court especially in FAO No.101 of 2024 submitted that only the renewal applications were directed to be considered. The District Court had in due compliance proceeded to carry out the same as is revealed from para 9 of the impugned order. The purported discrepancies in Table A cannot be a reason to interfere with the impugned order as the same, if any, can be rectified later. Any objection regarding duplication could be raised before the returning officer who is duty bound and competent to ensure free and fair election and the same FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 34 2025:KER:42294 would be duly considered by him as and when raised. No ground whatsoever had been raised in the appeal that the District Court had rushed through the proceedings. Ample opportunity was granted by the District Court to all sides. Hence the allegation of denial of hearing opportunity is false and incorrect. Similarly no contention had been raised before the District Court that the renewal applications are bogus. The original applications had been available before the court and hence the order passed is valid and calls for no interference. The FAO is only to be dismissed.
19. I have heard both sides in detail and have duly considered the contentions put forth.
20. As regards FAO No.128 of 2024, I note that the principal grievance and challenge therein concerns the direction of the District Court in its order dated 14.10.2024 while disposing of I.A.No.58 of 2024 that the applications submitted by the applicants in Table A of the said order are to be renewed and that the said applicants should be allowed to participate in the activities of the trust as well as participate in the election. It is relevant to note that the District Court had by proceedings to consider I.A.No.58 of 2024 acting in FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 35 2025:KER:42294 furtherance of the direction contained in the judgment dated 02.09.2024 in FAO No.101 of 2024 wherein it had been directed that prior to the elections that had admittedly been scheduled, the District Court shall decide on the pending applications for renewal of membership in the Society, copies of which are already before the court, and issue necessary directions to the Society/returning officer. It has also been directed that such orders shall be issued within three weeks so as to facilitate the smooth conduct of the election. It is relevant to note at this juncture that a Review Petition numbered as R.P.No.1087 of 2024 had been filed by the appellant society in FAO No.101 of 2024 seeking to review the judgment raising the similar contentions as seen now raised in the appeal. It had been contented in the R.P. that no applications are pending for consideration and that the respondents had admitted the fact that the application for membership was refused to be considered while dismissing the applications. There is no challenge to the above said dismissed application and the same is final. Thus, a direction to consider pending membership applications which are already disposed of is an error apparent on the face of the record which was FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 36 2025:KER:42294 liable to be reviewed. It was also alleged in the R.P. that the District Court in view of the direction of this Court to dispose of the application within 3 weeks was denying the right of the review petitioner/appellant society to submit their version stating paucity of time and that the same amounted to violation of natural justice. The said R.P. was dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2024 stating that what was directed was that the renewal applications, copies of which were before the court are to be considered and that the said direction was issued after noticing the contention of the Review Petitioner/appellant society that no applications are pending before the court. I find merit in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents that the contention of the appellant to the effect that the renewal applications had already been rejected by the Governing Body and the orders passed had become final, in so far as the same had not been challenged by the members of the society, cannot be accepted. The appellant to substantiate the said contention ought to have produced the orders thus passed as well as records to show that notices were issued to the members who submitted the application before rejecting their application calling for FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 37 2025:KER:42294 explanations or details showing that they were afforded a due opportunity of being heard before rejecting their applications for renewal. Had there been any records regarding the said decisions of the Governing Body, the same ought to have been ratified by the General Body and records thereof should have been produced to substantiate the contentions now seen put forth. That no notices were issued by the society to the members before rejecting their applications and that no information was given to them regarding the decision to reject their applications, nor were they intimated about their being removed from the membership, validates the contentions put forth by the respondents. The same also raises questions regarding violation of natural justice of the concerned members if at all there had been any decision by the Governing Body and ratification by the General Body regarding their applications. A perusal of Annexure R1 (a) byelaws/ scheme framed by the District Court reveals that the administration and management of the appellant society had been envisaged to be run based on democratic principles affording due reflection of the will of members. A free and fair process of election had been envisaged FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 38 2025:KER:42294 and the constituencies of members in three classes revealed that each category of members had specific roles to play and had their respective say in the affairs concerning administration and management of the society. The said objectives does not appear to have been served by the manner in which the affairs of the society have been conducted in recent years. It is in this context that the observation of the District Court that justice demands that the applications mentioned in Table A of the order are to be allowed and that the said applications are all valid and to be renewed with effect from 01.01.2021 and that they shall be allowed to participate in the next election and their names shall be shown in the voters list in the ensuing election is to be appreciated. A perusal of the order in I.A.No.58 of 2024 rendered by the learned District Judge reveal that requisite care and caution had been exhibited while sifting through the membership applications and in drawing up Table A and Table B. The learned Judge had validly concluded that the Receiver appointed by the court had submitted the voters list of members during the period 2022 and that the said list showed members who were voters during the election held in 2020. It had been noted that FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 39 2025:KER:42294 above 120 members had submitted their renewal applications during the month of July 2021 and thereafter had requested the Governing Body to renew their applications. The learned District Judge, I note, had after perusal of the applications found that the applications which had been produced before the court in I.A.No.45 of 2022 are duplication of applications submitted before the Governing Body and that it contains the seal of the society/trust thus confirming its reliability. The fact that sealed receipts showing payment of subscription fee by the respective applicants had been also produced was also validly taken note of. The contention that the membership applications are bogus and fabricated though raised in this FAO had never been raised or substantiated by the appellant at any point of time. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 14.10.2024 in I.A.No.58 of 2024, in OP (Trust) No.107 of 2006 of the II Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. FAO No.128 of 2024 is only to be dismissed.
21. As regards FAO No.25 of 2025, I note that District Court had allowed the I.A.No.62 of 2024 filed by respondents 1 and 2 seeking an order to restrain the appellant from conducting the FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 40 2025:KER:42294 election to the Governing Body of the society for the year 2024 to 2026 without participating all eligible members including members specified in the order dated 14.10.2024 in I.A.No.58 of 2024. The District Court while rendering the said order had noted that FAO No.128 of 2024 challenging the order in I.A.No.58 of 2024 had been pending before this Court and had consequently clarified that the order rendered shall be subject to the judgment to be passed by this Court in the said FAO. I find merit in the contention that the judgments of this Court in FAO No.101 of 2024 and in R.P.No.1087 of 2024, reveal the intention of the court to be that before the conduct of the election, all the members who were excluded illegally should be included in the election process. This is reflected from the order of the District Court in I.A.No.58 of 2024 also. It is with the said specific objective that a direction had been issued to conduct the election after including the members who were excluded from the membership of the society in the voters list. This Court had disposed of FAO No.25 of 2025, directing that prior to the elections scheduled, the District Court shall decide on the pending applications of renewal of membership in the society. The order in FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 41 2025:KER:42294 I.A.No.58 of 2024 was in furtherance of the same, the correctness of which was pending consideration in an appeal filed by the appellant themselves. The finding of the District Court that declaration of result of the election made by the returning officer as per his proceedings dated 15.11.2024 is non est in the eye of law and District Court declaring the same as null and void was valid and legal in the facts and circumstances of the case. The contention that the said declaration of results of election during pendency was an attempt to subvert the said specific directions possess merit. Hence the direction issued by the District Court that the respondents in I.A.No.62 of 2024 shall conduct proper election within two months taking into consideration the directions contained in the order in I.A.No.58 of 2024 is legal and justified. It is also noted that the District Court had been careful to temper the relevant order by holding that the office bearers of the society/trust can continue their office till the completion of the election as directed though they shall not take any policy decision touching the administration. Both sides were also duly called upon by the District Court to submit a panel of returning officers for the conduct of the election as directed. In view FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 42 2025:KER:42294 of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 02.12.2024 in I.A.No.62 of 2024 in OP (Trust) No.107 of 2006 of the II Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. FAO No.25 of 2025 is only to be dismissed.
22. As regards FAO No.31 of 2025, I note that the District Court had ordered both parties to submit their respective panel of returning officers for the conduct of elections and while the petitioners in I.A.No.72 of 2024 had submitted a panel, the respondents did not choose to furnish a panel of returning officers. As had been rightly concluded by the District Court, if the appellant had any objection to the persons mentioned in the panel submitted by the petitioners in I.A.No.72 of 2024, they could have filed a separate panel requesting the District Court to appoint anyone among them. Since no such steps were taken by the appellant, it was fit and proper on the part of the District Court to appoint the person mentioned in the third position of the panel as the returning officer. Nothing had been produced either before the District Court nor before this Court, so as to substantiate the contention that the person so appointed as the returning officer is biased, or that there FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 43 2025:KER:42294 was any material to suspect his integrity. In view of the above, the finding of the District Court confirming the appointment of the returning officer is valid and proper. In view of the above I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 07.01.2025 in I.A.No.72 of 2024 in O.P.(Trust) No.107 of 2006 of the II Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. FAO No.31 of 2025 is only to be dismissed.
Accordingly, FAO No.128 of 2024, FAO No.25 of 2025 and FAO No.31 of 2025 are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE csl FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 44 2025:KER:42294 APPENDIX OF FAO 25/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OPC 1584 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.09.2022 Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN FAO 24 OF 2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 13.07.2023 Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.09.2024 IN FAO 101 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure A4 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION IN IA 62 OF 2024 IN OP TRUST 107 OF 2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT THIRUVCANANTHAPURAM DATED 30.10.2024 Annexure A5 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN IA 62/2024 IN OP(TRUST) 107/2006 BEFORE THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06.11.2024 Annexure A6 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN I.A 62/2024 IN OP(TRUST) 107/2006 BEFORE THE II ADDL. DISTRUICT COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 22.11.2024 Annexure A7 AN ORIGINAL ELECTION NOTIFICATION FOR THE YEAR 2024-2026 ISSUED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER DATED 29.08.2024 Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP.C NO 1250 OF 2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 01.10.2020 Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN REVIEW PETITION NO 1087 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18.11.2024 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R-1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RENEWING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 45 2025:KER:42294 26.08.20204 Annexure R-1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION SCHEDULE OF THE SOCIAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION FOR 2024 DATED 29.08.2024 Annexure R-1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE FIRST GOVERNING BODY MEETING DATED 17.11.2024 Annexure R-1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER APPOINTING RETURNING OFFICER DATED 30.08.2022 Annexure R-1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ELECTION SCHEDULE DATED 27.08.2022 Annexure R-1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RETURNING OFFICER DATE 15.11.2024 FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 46 2025:KER:42294 APPENDIX OF FAO 31/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OP C 1584 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.09.2022 Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN FAO 24 OF 2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 13.07.2023 Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.09.2024 IN FAO 101 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN OP.C NO 1250 OF 2020 DATED 01.10.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN REVIEW PETITION NO 1087 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18.11.2024 Annexure A6 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION IN IA 72 OF 2024 IN OP(TRUST) 107/2006 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11.12.2024 Annexure A7 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION TO IN IA 72 OF 2024 IN OP(TRUST) 107/2006 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 03.01.2025 Annexure A8 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 72 OF 2024 IN OP(TRUST) 107/2006 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 07.01.2025 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1-(a) True copy of the relevant pages of the bye-law framed by the additional District Court -II Thiruvananthapuramin OP.107/2006 dated 12.01.2012 Annexure R1-(b) True copy of the relevant pages of the Governing Body meeting dated 23.11.2013 FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 47 2025:KER:42294 Annexure R1-(c) True copy of the order of this Hon'ble Court in Cr.MC No.1130/2017 dated 28.11.2018 Annexure R1-(d) True copy of the order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to appeal (crl) No.2558 -2559/2019 dated 29.03.2019 Annexure R1-(e) True copy of the proceedings of Mr. Ramachandran dated 21.08.2024 Annexure R1-(f) True copy of the proceedings of the Chairman dated 26.08.2024 Annexure R1-(g) True copy of the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents in FAO 128/2024 dated 10.01.2025 FAO NO.128/2024 & conn. 48 2025:KER:42294 APPENDIX OF FAO 128/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 22- 07-2022 DISPOSED OF I.A.NOS.8 OF 2021, I.A NO.19 OF 2021, I.A.NO. 22 OF 2022, I.A.NO 29 OF 2022 AND I.A.NO.34 OF 2022 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OPC 1584 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29.09.2022 Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2023 IN IA NO 45/2022 IN OP (TRUST) 107/2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE -II, THIRUVANATHAPURAM Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN FAO 24 OF 2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 13.07.2023 Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12.04.2024 IN I.A.NO.45/2022, I.A.NO.
42/2022,I.A.NO.51/2023, I.A.NO.52/2023
AND I.A.NO.53/2023 IN OP (TRUST)
107/2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-II, THIRUVANANTHPURAM
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02.09.2024 IN FAO 101 OF 2024 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1-(a) True copy of the relevant pages of the
bye- law framed by the additional
District Court -II Thiruvananthapuram
in O.P 107/2006 dated 12.01.2012