KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions arise from O.P. No. 477 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as Petitioners and Respondents as in O.P. No. 477 of 2005.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 is the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha (for short, "the Sabha"). Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the Secretary, President and Treasurer, respectively of that Sabha. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are the said office bearers but, impleaded in their personal capacity. Original Petition was filed by 14 members of the Sabha under Section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act") seeking removal of the existing Governing Body of the Sabha, appointing a fresh Governing Body, framing a scheme for management of the Sabha, settlement of accounts and for other reliefs. Petitioners alleged in the Original Petition that there was mismanagement of affairs of the Sabha and that there was no conduct of elections as prescribed by the bye-law. Petitioner Nos. 15 to 22, also members of the Sabha got impleaded in the Original Petition. Respondent No. 6 by then vacated his office in the Sabha. When the matter was pending before learned Additional District Judge there was a settlement of disputes between Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 7. As per that agreement a bye-law making certain modifications to the existing bye-law was drafted and it was agreed that elections be held to the various bodies of the Sabha. Accordingly they filed I.A. Nos. 1832 and 1833 of 2009.I.A. No. 1832 of 2009 was to appoint a receiver to conduct fresh election as per the new bye-law agreed to between Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and I.A. No. 1833 of 2009 was to record settlement. The modified bye-law was appended to I.A. No. 1833 of 2009. Learned Additional District Judge passed a common order dated 01-08-2009 on the said applications. The applications were allowed and Sri. K. Viswanathan (a retired District Judge) was appointed as receiver to conduct the election. The modified bye-law was accepted and order was passed in terms of the compromise. While so, additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 37 sought their impleadment in the original petition vide I.A. No. 2208 of 2009 and filed I.A. No. 2379 of 2009 for review of common order dated 1.8.2009 on various grounds including that there was no publication as required under O.I Rule 8(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Learned Additional District Judge reviewed the common order dated 1.8.2009 vide order dated 21.1.2010(on I.A. No. 2379 of 2009). Learned Additional District Judge observed that though no such publication (under O.I Rule 8(4) of the Code) is necessary when the matter is settled between the original parties to the proceeding settling a scheme and it is accepted, being a public matter it is within the power of court to direct publication about the settlement in appropriate cases and accordingly directed the parties to the Original Petition to effect necessary publication regarding the settlement vide I.A. Nos. 1832 and 1833 of 2009. That publication was made. In the meantime additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 37 filed W.P.C. No. 7009 of 2010 in this Court challenging the common order dated 1.8.2009 on I.A. Nos. 1832 and 1833 of 2009 and the order dated 21.1.2010 on I.A. No. 2379 of 2009. Contention raised was that original Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 had colluded among themselves and settled the matter in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Sabha and hence the compromise is not binding on the Sabha. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition by judgment dated 31.3.2010. The common order dated 1.8.2009 on I.A. Nos. 1832 and 1833 of 2009 and the order dated 21.1.2010 on I.A. No. 2379 of 2009 were set aside and learned Additional District Judge was directed to reconsider the matter afresh as per law after hearing both sides. In the meantime there was I.A. No. 2208 of 2010 to set aside the common order dated 1.8.2009 (that application was allowed on 25.1.2010). Additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 37 were impleaded in the Original Petition as per order dated 21.5.2010 on I.A. No. 2240 of 2009 (additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 21 and 23 to 37 are the Petitioners in W.P.C. No. 24440 of 2010).

(3.) In the light of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 7009 of 2010 learned Additional District Judge took up I.A. Nos. 1832 and 1833 of 2009 for consideration. Original Petitioners filed I.A. No. 1453 of 2010 suggesting certain changes to the agreed, modified bye-law produced along with I.A. No. 1833 of 2010. Learned Additional District Judge heard counsel for all the parties and passed order on 3.6.2010 whereby certain clauses in the modified bye-law were further modified and accepted. The Original Petition was disposed of directing the receiver to conduct election as per the bye-law as further modified. The receiver was also directed to take charge of entire affairs of the Sabha. Certain directions were also issued in the matter of conduct of election. Learned Additional District Judge stated in the order dated 3.6.2010 that modification made to the bye-law agreed to between Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and produced along with I.A. No. 1833 of 2009 was assented to by counsel for all the parties before learned Additional District Judge. Applications were disposed of accordingly. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.6.2010 additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 21 and 23 to 37 filed M.F.A. No. 104 of 2010 while Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 filed M.F.A. No. 105 of 2010 in this Court. In those appeals it was contended on behalf of Appellants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 21 and 23 to 37 that themselves or counsel had not consented to the modification brought to the bye-law agreed to between original Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and appended to I.A. No. 1833 of 2009. In the light of that contention, this Court disposed of M.F.A. Nos. 104 and 105 of 2010 observing that the proper remedy available to the Appellants-Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 and additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 21 and 23 to 37 was to move the learned Additional District Judge by way of review as the order under challenge was stated to be passed on consent of counsel. Accordingly Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 filed I.A. No. 1884 of 2010 while additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 37 filed I.A. No. 1864 of 2010. Those petitions were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge as per order dated 19.7.2010. That common order is under challenge in this Writ Petitions. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 filed W.P.C. No. 23185 of 2010 while additional Respondent Nos. 8 to 21 and 23 to 37 have filed W.P.C. No. 24440 of 2010.