MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA ALI KHAN Vs. DISTBOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction brought by the plaintiff who was the Secretary of the District Board, Bareilly, against the Board restraining the Board from enforcing their resolution of 8 March, 1933. A relief for a decimation that the plaintiff's dismissal was against law and unenforceable had been claimed, but was withdrawn.

(2.) The Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In appeal it is contended that the decree is wrong. A question has been raised as to whether a suit for an injunction by a Secretary of Local Board, filed in a Civil Court is at all maintainable and whether any relief for injunction can be granted in the face of the provisions of Section 21(b), Specific Relief Act. Under that section a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties or otherwise from its nature is such that the Court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms cannot be specifically enforced. The question whether the contract of service of the plaintiff was dependent on his personal qualifications or the volition of the parties is of some difficulty and I would not express any final opinion on it at this stage of the case because the case can be disposed of without deciding this question.

(3.) Before considering the objections raised by the plaintiff it would be convenient to give briefly the previous history of the matter: Early in January 1933, a proposal signed by 18 members of the Board in the form of a resolution was received by the Board. It suggested that the Secretary and the Engineer had been negligent in the discharge of their duties and guilty of lack of supervision causing disorder in the affairs of the Board and making its finances suffer heavily and that they were incapable and unworthy of the posts they held. The proposal was that they should be called upon to submit replies to the charges against them within 15 days and in case of their not doing so or their replies being unsatisfactory the question of their dismissal should be considered by the Board. There was a further proposal that the post of the Secretary and the Engineer should be combined. On receipt of this resolution the Chairman called upon the persons complained against to furnish explanations. Copies of the charges as well as copies of the draft resolution were handed over to them. The draft resolution together with the explanations submitted were placed before a meeting of the District Board on 15th February 1933. The resolution was considered and it was resolved by the Board that a subcommittee of three member should be appointed to go into the charges and examine the explanations submitted on those charges and to submit a report to the Board before its next meeting on 8 March, and that the matter should come up for final decision on that date. Admittedly 10 (?) days before 8 March 1933, a notice was issued notifying that a meeting of the Board would be held on 8 March 1933. On 1 March 1933, an agenda paper was issued which contained, as the matter for consideration, the draft resolution of the 18 members about the dismissal of the Secretary and the Engineer along with the report of the Sub-Committee, the explanations of the Secretary and the Engineer as well as the report of the Special Officer and the resolution of the Board dated 15 February 1933. A complete copy of the draft resolution as well as a copy of the resolution of the Board dated 15 February 1933, were appended. On 8 March 1933, at a full quorum the Board passed a resolution dismissing the plaintiff.