MADRAS GYMKHANA CLUB Vs. K C SUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order: 1. Summary of allegation in the common affidavit filed by the respondent herein: 1.(a) The petitioner filed suit to declare the order of suspension of the club dated 27.01.2009 as against the Rules and Bye-laws of Madras Gymkhana Club (hereinafter referred to as "Club"), null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants' club, their men etc., in any manner interfering with the petitioner's continued membership rights of the Club pursuant to the suspension order dated 27.1.2009. He has been a member in the Club for the past 22 years. He had impeccable track record in the Club and he had served as member and captain of golf team of the Club. 1.(b) On 31.12.2008 the Club arranged a New Year eve party in the Club premises. He had casual conversation with Mr.H.M.Belgamwala and Mr.Abishek Gupta, who are closely associated with the second and third respondents, both keen snooker players and one Mr.Abishek Gupta who is also a part of the cricket team. During the said conversation, the petitioner expressed his opinion that the Club, instead of spending enormous money on new year party, could have donated some money to the victims of Mumbai bomb blast and to the benefit of Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka. When he made that statement, Abishek Gupta made unwarranted remarks and abuse him in unparlimentary words. It is only a verbal exchange. H.M.Belgamwala had intervened and supported Abishek Gupta. The petitioner did not give importance to the verbal exchange, however, both the said persons preferred complaint against him to the committee of the Club revelling false and vexatious statements against him. Hence an explanation was called for from him for which he gave reply on 21.01.2009. However, by means of a letter dated 27.01.2009 the Club suspended the petitioner for a period of three months from 27.01.2009. In the said process, principles of natural justice have been violated. Without even issuing show cause notice, the suspension order was made. The suspension order is highly arbitrary, unjust, without following the rules of the club and vindictive. The penalty is also disproportionate, excessive and arbitrary. The suspension order, if allowed would continuously tarnish the petitioner's image and reputation, that will lead to character assassination and cast a stigma forever. Hence a temporary injunction is prayed for, restraining the respondent's Club, its men, etc., from enforcing or implementing the suspension order dated 27.1.2009.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the petitioners herein the following averments are seen: 2.(a) The petition is not maintainable. Almost 2 months have passed since the suspension took effect and there is no urgency to grant any interim order pending suit. On 31.12.2008 the petitioner had been consuming alcohol from 4.30 p.m. in the Club and was in a highly inebriated state soon after the new year eve program started in the evening. He was abusive to the staff as well as other members and behaving in an uncouth manner. Around 10 p.m., the petitioner abused and threatened two members. He wanted to drink more and before the bar man could serve him, the petitioner used filthy language at bar man. He asked one of the staff members by name R.Manoharan asking 'where the coward Vice-President "Thulukkan" was'. He also asked another committee member Mr.Arun Mehra 'where is the terrorist Mirza"'. His behaviour was wholly unacceptable and he further involved in unwarranted activities. On receipt of the complaints from Mr. Abishek Gupta and Mr.H.M.Belgamwala, action was taken against him. 2.(b) By laws Rule 12, dealing with members' conduct prejudicial to the club, empowers the committee to suspend such member for upto a period of three months. If the petitioner was of the view of spending money for Mumbai Bomb blast victims and Srilankan Tamil, he could have raised it before the committee since every one knew of the new year eve is celebrated after much expenses. 2.(c) He also threatened Mr. Gupta that he will shoot him with his revolver. He was trying to play up ethnic and religious sentiments to divert the issue and create a record as if he was the sole champion of the Tamil cause and benefactor of innocent terror victims. The decision to suspend him was unanimous. His past records are not good. He has not come to the Court with clean hands. Hence the petitions have to be dismissed.

(3.) THE petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and the powers of this Court under Article 227 have to be exercised sparingly when any gross injustice and patent violations of elementary principles of law are discernible from the orders or the attitude of the subordinate Courts. This Court has got supervisory power over the affairs of the subordinate Courts.