C KUPPUSWAMY Vs. D HARIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent made in A1 25063 of 2006 dated 26.6.2006 as arbitrary and illegal, the petitioner has brought forth this writ petition.

(2.) The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

(3.) From the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, it could be seen that the second respondent filed a suit in O. S. No.517 of 2000 pending on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, claiming to represent the plaintiff Trade Union and seeking for a declaration that the plaintiff Union Office Bearers alone are entitled to use the name of the plaintiff's Union "the Tamil Nadu Construction Employees Welfare Central Union, with the Registration Number 2333/mds, having the registered office at No.69, East Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015" and for consequential injunction. In that suit, the petitioner is arrayed as second defendant, and it was being contested by all the defendants by filing the writ statements. Pending the disposal of the same, the second respondent filed I. A. No.1434 of 2000 for interim injunction. The said I. A. was dismissed on merits by the said Court by an order dated 8.1.2001. Against that order, the second respondent filed an appeal in CMA No.68 of 2001 before the appellate forum. The same was also dismissed in the year 2002. Thereafter, the second respondent filed a revision before this Court in CRP No.614/2003, and it was also dismissed. Thus, all the Courts have held that the second respondent has not made out a prima facie case for interim order pending disposal of the suit. Subsequently, the suit was posted in the special list on 31.1.2005. However, the second respondent took adjournment for number of hearings. When the matter was posted, the second respondent completed his chief examination on 22.3.2006. On 12.4.2006, the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has passed an ex-parte decree against the petitioner. Thereafter, an application to set aside the ex-parte decree has been filed in I. A. No.8671 of 2006, and the same was posted for enquiry. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was permitted by the first respondent to enroll new members as well as renew the existing applications of the workers in the Board. However, at the instigation of the second respondent, who was expelled from the Union for improper activities, the first respondent has passed the impugned order by which the petitioner and others who are the defendants in the suit, have been forbidden from being eligible to present applications on behalf of the the construction workers. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.6.2006, is challenged.