S SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants/plaintiffs, who were the erstwhile office bearers of the first defendant State Bank of India Officers Association, filed these applications seeking for an order of ad interim injunction restraining the elected office bearers pursuant to the election notification No. 56/26/2008 dated 7. 5. 2008 from holding the office of the first respondent association; restraining them from holding General Body Meeting on 14. 9. 2008 or any other subsequent date and directing the first respondent to hold a proper and valid election to the various officers for the year 2008-2011 by appointing an officer of this court after reviewing the valid electorate of the first defendant in accordance with the byelaws.

(2.) THE applicants have contended that the election to the first respondent for the year 2008-2011 was not conducted in accordance with law and the byelaws of the first respondent. There were bogus postal voting by the members of the first respondent. Several complaints given earlier were not taken cognizance by the second respondent. There was a likelihood of interception and misuse of the postal ballot covers by certain candidates. The applicants understand that there have been large scale irregularities, illegalities and improprieties on the part of the elected office bearers of the first respondent. The applicants received information that a person by name Ramani was often found in General Post Office, Chennai. He was closely known to one of the contestants. The presence of an outsider added spice to the burning issue. Cursory observation of the Ballot Papers would disclose that there is a vast difference in the handwriting found in the declaration form and the Ballot Paper. Therefore, the applicants have sought for the aforesaid reliefs till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) RESPONDENTS 1, 3 and 4 have contended in the counter that the applicants have drawn monies of the first defendant to the tune of Rs. 7. 52 lakhs during the last four days prior to the election results. The applicants have misappropriated the general funds of the first respondent. The present Committee in management is taking steps to call for explanation from the applicants for the aforesaid wrongful withdrawals. 55% of the electorate was covered under direct polling and 45% of the electorate was covered under Postal Ballot in the current elections. The Election Committee was completely dependent on applicants 1, 2, 4 and 5 who were the previous office bearers of the first respondent. Even for despatch of Postal Ballot Papers, the Election Committee was at the mercy of the aforesaid applicants. The Election Committee is the Supreme Body in the matter of conducting elections. They announced the results over-ruling the volume of objections raised by the applicants. The entire polling and counting processes were photographed and videographed. The result of the elections were declared on 7th July 2008 and the newly elected office bearers took charge on 9th July 2008. The outgoing General Secretary Thiru. G. Santhanam had also handed over the keys to the third respondent in the presence of over 100 members and office bearers. They have been functioning as elected office bearers for the last two months. The management also recognized the new team of office bearers and has started negotiating with the respondents. The applicants, fearing exposure about their malfeasance, have come forward with the vexatious suit. The election process was conducted in a free and fair manner. The second respondent, being the Chairman of the Election Committee, got a separate post bag number which was kept separately in the General Post Office to receive the Postal Ballot Covers. The post bag could be opened only by the Chairman of the Election Committee who had the keys of the post bag. It was he who opened the post bag and collected the Postal Ballot Covers for scrutiny and counting. It is not known who Mr. Ramani is. As far as the Postal Ballot Papers are concerned, the Election Committee scrutinised the same and valid votes were counted. The applicants have come out with a totally vague allegations. The General Body Meeting is convened as per the byelaws. The preparation for the conduct of the General Body Meeting is at an advanced stage. The second respondent has no authority to issue the letter dated 18. 8. 2008. If an order of injunction is granted, the respondents would be greatly prejudiced. Therefore, the respondents would pray for dismissal of these applications.