N MADANNA Vs. M SIVA NAGI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the original plaintiffs challenging the judgment and order dated 24.11.1998 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool in C.M.A.No.24/1998. By the impugned order, the lower appellate Court has reversed the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool dated 3.8. 1998 passed on I.A.No.1423/1998 in O.S.No.419/1998.

(2.) I have to note at this stage itself that the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.419/1998 for injunction along with I.A. No. 1423/1998. On this I.A., they prayed for an injunction against defendants 1 and 2, restraining them from interfering with the discharge of the functions of the petitioners as duly elected office bearers of Kodumur Taluk unit of NGO Association, pending trial of the suit. The Principal Junior Civil Judge allowed the said I.A. No. 1423/1998 by granting an order of injunction as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendants 1 and 2 have preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.24/1998. By the impugned order, the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool has set aside the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Kurnool, by dismissing the I.A.No.1423 of 1998. It is these circumstances, the plaintiffs have Filed the present C.R.P.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the impugned order of the lower appellate Court is illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the Petitioners are duly elected on 8.2.1998 as per the results declared by the Returning Officer on that day. It is only with political reasons, the State Unit of N.G.O's Association has decided to dissolve the Kodmur N.G.O.'s Association, without even following the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that, at any rate, the State Unit has no power or authority to pass the order of dissolution, which was not even communicated to the petitioners. He further submitted that, when the election is declared, if any person is aggrieved, such person has to resort to Article 85 of the Constitution of Association, by filing an election dispute and the State Unit of the association absolutely has no power or authority to pass the order dated 3.6.1998. He further submitted that the said order has not even been communicated to the petitioners, who are duly elected members of the committee and such an action of the respondent No. 2 is highhanded and arbitrary, and it is also one without jurisdiction. Therefore, on the basis of such an order, neither the defendants 1 and 2, nor even the alleged ad hoc committee has any authority to interfere with the discharge of the functions by the petitioners and other duly elected members and in these circumstances, if an injunction is not granted, the petitioners would be put to great loss and hardship. Moreover, neither the State Unit, nor the District Unit has any power or authority to remove the elected body, except by filing an election dispute in terms of Article 85 of the Constitution of the Association. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.