Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11.2 The Plaintiff was deemed "overage" by just 5 months, due to the Club's suspension of the Green Card process. Despite this, the Club accepted INR 62,040/- as penalty charges plus GST, along with ₹1,77,000/-

as registration fees, and the Plaintiff has been paying her annual subscription fees ever since.

11.3 The Plaintiff was issued a Green Card in line with Club policy after meeting all the conditions set by the Club.

16. The AoA of Defendant No. 1 make no provision for a distinct membership category termed 'Green Card' holders. This concept appears to have originated informally, without any legal provision in the Club's governing documents. Records indicate that the idea of Green Cards was first introduced in 1981, as evidenced by the Club's newsletter from 9th January, 1982. However, there is no record of any corresponding approval or discussion in the minutes of the General Committee, the AGM, or any EGM. The absence of such formal recognition prima facie raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the Green Card system. A perusal of the White Paper, 2014 would reveal that Green Cards were a means to allow overage dependents to continue using the Club's facilities. This directly contradicts Article 13(3a and b) of the AoA which strictly limits the use of Club facilities by dependents to the ages of 13 to 21. Therefore, prima facie the Green Card system itself operates outside the legal framework of the Club and creates an unauthorized class of users that undermines the structured membership principles outlined in the AoA. Pertinently, the key issue here pertains specifically to the issuance of Green Cards to overage dependents. The Naidu Committee Report, commissioned by the Club's Administrator, clearly held that no policy existed under which Green Cards could lawfully be issued to dependents who had crossed the age limit. Consequently, the issuance of the 125 Green Cards to these "overage"

19. However, this argument fails to withstand scrutiny. While it is true that certain bye-laws reference Green Card holders, these bye-laws were introduced by the General Committee through Resolution 3(a) dated 3 rd August, 2016. The mere fact that the bye-laws acknowledge the existence of Green Card holders does not, by itself, legitimize the practice of issuing Green Cards, particularly where such issuance is in clear violation of the Club's foundational document, the Articles of Association. It is crucial to recognize that the AoA is the superior governing instrument, and any bye- laws or resolutions adopted by the General Committee cannot operate outside or override the express provisions of the AoA. The Plaintiffs' reliance on the bye-laws does not address the central issue: issuance of Green Cards to overage dependents in violation of the AoA, which strictly limits dependent access to the Club to those between the ages of 13 and 21. Therefore, while the General Committee may have introduced bye-laws acknowledging existence of Green Card holders, this in no way confers a special status or cures the illegality of the practice under the AoA. The bye- laws merely reflect the General Committee's recognition of an informal practice that was already in place; they do not, and cannot, elevate that practice to one in conformity with the Club's constitutional framework. It is not in dispute that the General Committee had been issuing Green Cards for some time; and the introduction of bye-laws by the same body does little to validate the practice when it was never within the scope of the AoA to begin with. In essence, the Plaintiffs' argument overlooks the fact that internal resolutions and bye-laws cannot substitute or bypass the need for formal compliance with the AoA. Therefore, issuance of Green Cards was illegal and outside the scope of the AoA.

30. Upon a specific query from this Court, the Club, through an affidavit, furnished data regarding applications from dependents who had crossed the age of 22 (overage dependents) and sought the issuance of Green Cards during the period between the suspension of the 2007 policy and the commencement of the 2019 policy. According to the affidavit, the Club received 31 such applications during this intervening period, of which 30 were ultimately included among the 125 individuals whose Green Cards were granted under the 2019 policy and subsequently terminated. Furthermore, after the 2019 policy took effect, 76 overage dependents applied for Green Cards and were granted the same, but all of these, too, have been terminated. Additionally, the affidavit reveals that 19 overage dependents applied before the suspension of the 2007 policy and were later granted Green Cards under the 2019 policy, which have also been terminated. This leaves only one instance where a Green Card issued during the intervening period has not yet been cancelled. The Plaintiffs cannot derive any legal claim to parity or establish any valid custom or practice based on such isolated and inconsistent instances. A solitary surviving Green Card issued during the transition period is insufficient to create a legal precedent, custom, or enforceable right for the Plaintiffs. Moreover, the practice in question lacks the consistency and formal acknowledgment required to transform it into a binding custom.