BASHIR AHMAD Vs. GHULAM MOHAMMAD SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant was originally elected in the year 1996 for a period of two years as Chairman of the Western Bus Service, General Bus stand Batamaloo (undertaking for short). His term was to expire by the end of October, 1998 and the elections were to fall due by the end of October, 1998. There is no dispute that the elections were not held but the appellant's stand is that in a meeting of the General body held on 28-8-1998 which was attended by 650 members out of 800 members of the undertaking his term was extended for another span of three years. The respondents 1 to 9 opposed his continuation, consequently a suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant. An application was also filed for an interim relief which was disallowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar by his order dated 28-2-2000. However, an interim arrangement has been made which is to hold good till disposal of the suit.

(2.) This appeal arises out of the above said order. It is challenged on the grounds which are summarised hereunder :a) That the affidavits filed before the Court below, denying the re-election of the appellant, have been believed by the Court without granting opportunity of rebuttal to the appellant;b) That the Court has drawn inference against the appellant because of their omission to produce the original minutes of the meeting which would justify re-election but such course has been adopted without asking the appellant to produce the original record ;c) That the Court has not approved of the re-election of the appellant by voice vote and has expressed its opinion on the merits of the case;d) That the trial Court has exceeded its power and authority by entrusting the affairs of the Association to the S.P. Traffic.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents has urged in support of the order the following submissions:i) That according to the assertion of the appellant the election was held in October, 1996 and as such he had to function upto ending October, 1998. Whereas, re-election by voice vote is alleged to have taken place on 25-8-1998 when the appellant had still two months to remain in office and the re-election was not possible unless body was dissolved before expiry of the term.ii) By convention election has to be held by secret ballot and there was no justification for subverting the secret ballot process.iii) There is no provision or convention which would authorise extension of the term.iv) There was no agenda or information which would suggest that the meeting was going to consider the extension of term or re-election.v) The signatures have been forged on the resolution even of respondents 3 and 6 who according to the appellant belong to a different association namely Hilal Group and not only signatories but the passenger buses are also repeated in the resolution to show the number of particpants on a higher side.vi) In the plaint it is stated that elections were held of transporters belonging to Districts Baramulla. Kupwara and Budgam, whereas appellant had filed a suit against the transporters of Baramulla challenging their separation which is sub-judice.