LAWS(GAU)-2016-2-60

MUKUL DAS, S/O LATE LAKSHMI DAS, R/O KAMAKHYA GATE, DURGASAROBAR, Vs. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY,

Decided On February 16, 2016
Mukul Das, S/O Late Lakshmi Das, R/O Kamakhya Gate, Durgasarobar, Appellant
V/S
Union Of India, Represented By The General Manager, N.F. Railway, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 406/2014 of the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati has challenged the appellate judgment and order dated 10.12.2015 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 17/2015 of the court of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the learned first appellate court set aside the prohibitory injunction granted by the learned trial court on 30.03.2015 in Misc. (J) Case No. 460/2014 arising out of the aforesaid title suit.

(2.) Present petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 406/2014 challenging the election of the defendants No. 5 and 6 as the President and the Secretary to the Zonal Executive Committee of NF Railway All India SC & ST Railways Employees' Association, Maligaon. According to the plaintiff, the election was scheduled to be held on 18.10.2014 but the Adhoc Zonal Committee postponed the election at the last minute and thereafter issued a notification on 17.10.2014 for holding the election on 01.11.2014. The Adhoc Committee also made changes in the Electoral Roll at the last minute and the subsequent election notification dated 17.10.2014 is contrary to the provisions of the bylaws holding the field. According to the plaintiff, the election held on 01.11.2014 leading to election of the defendants No. 5 and 6 was illegal and were liable to be so adjudged by a decree of declaration and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from circulating and giving effect to the newly elected body by election notification dated 01.11.2014. A mandatory injunction was also prayed for in the suit directing the defendants No. 3 and 4 to appoint a new Adhoc Zonal Executive Committee for conducting election to constitute the election. In the aforesaid suit, an application was also filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for ad-interim injunction for restraining the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 from circulating and giving effect to the newly elected Zonal Executive Committee (ZEC) out of the election held on 01.11.2014 and for restraining the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 from discharging any duties as the President and the Secretary respectively of the newly elected body. A prayer for mandatory injunction has also been prayed directing the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 to appoint a new Adhoc ZEC for conducting election to constitute regular ZEC of All India Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Railway Employees' Association, NF Railway Zone till disposal of the suit.

(3.) On being summoned, the opposite parties No. 5 and 6 appeared and submitted objection. Railway authorities also submitted objection against the injunction prayer. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the pleadings based on affidavit, the learned trial court by his judgment and order dated 30.03.2015 granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants No. 5 and 6 from discharging their duties as the President and the Secretary of the newly formed ZEC till the suit is finally disposed of on merit. However, from perusal of the aforesaid order it does not appear as to whether the learned trial court was satisfied as to existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. Be that as it may, the defendants No. 5 and 6 challenged the aforesaid order of temporary injunction before the learned first appellate court vide Misc. Appeal No. 17/2015 and the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.12.2015 set aside the order of injunction passed by learned trial court in Misc.(J) Case No. 460/2014. This first appellate judgment and order dated 10.12.2015 has been called in question in the present revision petition.