PUNNALA SREEKUMAR Vs. KERALA PULAYAR MAHA SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the respondents in I.A. No.3122 of 2010 and defendants in O.S. No.685 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain petitioners from acting as General Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Organising Secretary, respectively of the Kerala Pulayar Maha Sabha (hereinafter referred to as "the Sabha"), a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act"), engaging in the administration of the Sabha as such office bearers, convening meetings, collecting contributions or using its letter pads, seals, flags and for such other reliefs. Respondents also prayed for an order of prohibitory injunction in the same line vide I.A. No.3122 of 2010. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides granted temporary injunction. PETITIONERS challenged that order in C.M.A. No.54 of 2010. Learned Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has confirmed the order of injunction. The said order and judgment are under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1, as aforesaid is the Sabha. RESPONDENT No.2 claimed to be the acting General Secretary of its State Committee and respondent No.3, its President. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 were elected as General Secretary and President, respectively of the State Committee of the Sabha in the election held on 10.12.2006. RESPONDENTs claimed that the Bye-law (Ext.P5) of the Sabha permitted General Secretary to receive funds and utilise it for the affairs of the Sabha in accordance with the relevant rules of the Bye-law. Petitioner No.2 used to keep the minutes book, account books and he was entrusted with the responsibility to receive amount relating to renewal of membership. Petitioner No.3 was to renew the membership. Petitioners worked against interest of the Sabha. Petitioner No.2 made false entries in the various records as per direction of petitioner No.1 and misappropriated its funds. The State conference of the Sabha met in May, 2008. Verification of the accounts revealed that balance cash in the hands of petitioner No.1 was Rs.2,55,929.98 as against the stipulation in the Bye-law that petitioner No.1 shall not keep cash in his hand more than Rs. 2,000/-. The same was the situation when the State committee met on 21.08.2009. The State Secretariat of the Sabha met on 06.12.2009 and the accounts were verified by a Sub Committee appointed by it. The Sub committee reported that petitioner No.1 had received Rs.1,00,000/- from the Ernakulam District Committee of the Sabha for which only a temporary receipt was issued and no official receipt was issued. That amount was not accounted in the accounts of the Sabha. On 10.10.2008, it was revealed that a sum of Rs.2,20,397/- was given to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Samyuktha Samithy but there was no authorisation to petitioner No.1 to make any such payment to that Samithy. A sum of Rs.33,630/- received from the Irinjalakuda Union of the Sabha was not accounted. Rs.1,24,175/- was seen transferred to the account of Panchami on 31.07.2009 but not seen remitted in the accounts of Panchami. Entries were made in the accounts of the Sabha that a sum of Rs.57,720/- and another sum of Rs.1,28,789/- were spent for organising branches of the Sabha at Malabar but actually only Rs.5,000/- was spent for the said purpose. Accounts of the Sabha were got audited by M/s.Thomaskutty & Co., Chartered Accountants and the audit revealed a deficit of Rs.8,20,646.75. The State Committee of the Sabha met on 19.03.2010. At that time petitioner No.1 produced receipts for remittance of Rs.1,24,175/- to the accounts of Panchami on 19.03.2010 and assured to settle the balance and remit the amount in the account of the Sabha. While so, some expelled members of the Sabha filed O.S. No.417 of 2010 against the Sabha in the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner No.1 refused to sign vakalath (for and on behalf of the Sabha) even after respondent No.3, the State President wanted petitioner No.1 to do so. Petitioner No.1 refused to sign the vakalath to invite orders against the Sabha from court. Petitioners did not attend meeting of the State Committee held on 01.04.2010. That meeting decided that petitioner No.1 was liable to remit Rs.5,10,000/- to the Sabha. Petitioner No.1 attended the meeting of State Committee of the Sabha on 08.04.2010. He undertook to remit the amount on or before 15.04.2010. That fact was recorded in the minutes of the Sabha but petitioner No.1 took away the minutes book. Petitioners tried to assault other office bearers of State Committee of the Sabha. Petitioner No.1 did not remit the amount as he had undertaken in the State Committee meeting. In view of the threat from petitioner No.1 to other office bearers of the Sabha, the State Committee decided to convene its meeting at Ernakulam. Accordingly the State Committee met at Ernakulam on 24.04.2010. That meeting was attended by 30 out of its 43 members. Petitioners arrived at the meeting place and created commotion. They snatched some of the records. Police interfered and petitioners and their men went away from the place of meeting with the records they snatched. Police registered a case against petitioners and others in connection with that incident. The State committee (which met on 24.04.2010) decided to remove petitioners from the respective offices they held. RESPONDENT No.2 was elected as acting General Secretary. On 05.05.2010 registered letter was sent to the petitioners informing them about decision of the State Committee in its meeting on 24.04.2010 and calling upon them to hand over the records they had unauthorisedly taken away. RESPONDENTs apprehended that petitioners might interfere with the administration of the Sabha in their assumed capacity as General Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Organising Secretary, collect funds, using letter pads, seal, etc., and hence the suit and application for injunction.

(3.) BOTH sides produced documents in support of their respective contentions. Learned Munsiff found from the relevant records that a prima facie case is made out against petitioners, balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents and that if injunction is not granted, respondents will be put to irreparable loss and injury. In the appeal that order has been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge.