SENTHILVEL Vs. P N RETHINAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE back ground facts concisely are as follows: 1.(i) A Scheme Decree in O.S.No,234 of 1994 was passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, as regards administration of A.V.C. College (Autonomous), situate in Mannampandal in Mayiladuthurai. THEn and there the members have been filed execution applications before the said Court for specific reliefs and they are agitating their respective rights with respect to the administration. THE relevant factors are that on 30.9.2008 the second petitioner was suspended from Membership with effect from 1.8.2008 for a period of one year and 3rd petitioner was also suspended on 13.8.2008 from the membership for a period of one year and the said suspensions are subject matter of challenge in E.A.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur filed by the first petitioner and E.A.No,24 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, filed by the third petitioner. W.P.Nos.20171 of 2008 and 20569 of 2008 filed by the second and third petitioners respectively were dismissed of by this Court on 29.9.2008 directing the learned Sub-Judge, Thiruvaruru to dispose of the applications pending before him, within the time already stipulated. 1.(ii) THE petitioners conducted A.V.C. Education Committee Meeting on 10.3.2009 and the first petitioner became the Secretary of the Educational Committee. THE said circumstances necessitated the filing of E.A.1 of 2009 in O.S.No,234 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, for administration of A.V.C. Education Committee seeking for interim injunction restraining the present petitioners herein from disturbing the functioning of the respondents herein as A.V.C. Education Committee members except under due process of law.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent the following allegations are found:

(3.) MR.K.V. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order made is a non-speaking one, that it does not reflect the application of mind on the part of the Presiding Officer, that it does not have any reason for grant of the Order which fails to comply with the requirements as per settled legal principles that it has to be treated as non-est, that when execution applications filed by the petitioners challenging the alleged suspension orders, the respondents could not come before the Court with E.A.No.1 of 2009 describing them as defacto members and when a member was under suspension, a resolution could not be passed as per bye-laws and that the order has to be set aside.