IMPORTANT POINT
In a situation where grant of interim relief would tantamount to granting final relief and withholding of interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself, availability of very strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of applicant may persuade Court to grant interim relief.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 39 Rules 1 and 2-Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960-Section 144Y-Election of Officers of Society-Election of Chairman-Election programme notified by Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer and was communicated to all Directors-Appellant filed his nomination and no other nomination was filed till last date-Special meeting for declaration of result was stayed of Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer on plea that out of 8 Directors only 4 were present and declined to declare appellant to be elected as Chairman-Writ petition-Collector meanwhile announced fresh election programme-Interim stay refused by High Court-Appeal-Scope for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution-Court has to see availability of very strong prima facie case while considering such interim relief-Case of appellant was one such case for grant of interim relief-Prayer for grant of interim relief as made was liable to be allowed.
       Held : Ordinarily, this Court in its exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution does not interfere with the orders of interim nature passed by the High Court or Tribunals. This is a rule of discretion developed by experience, inasmuch as indulgence being shown by this Court at an interim stage of the proceedings pending before a competent Court or Tribunal results in duplication of proceedings; while the main matter is yet to be heard by the Court or Tribunal seized of the hearing and competent to do so, valuable time and energy of this Court are consumed in adjudicating upon a controversy the life of which will be co-terminus with the life of the main matter itself which is not before it and there is duplication of pleadings and documents which of necessity shall have to be placed on the record of this Court as well. However, this rule of discretion followed in practice is by way of just self-imposed discipline. (Para 10)
       Ordinarily, the Court is inclined to maintain status quo as obtaining on the date of the commencement of the proceedings. However, there are a few cases which call for the Court s leaning not in favour of maintaining the status quo and still lesser in percentage are the cases when an order tantamounting to a mandamus is required to be issued even at an interim stage. There are matters of significance and of moment posing themselves as moment of truth. Such cases do cause dilemma and put the wits of any Judge to test. Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case - of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent. The present one is a case where we are fully satisfied that a foolproof case for the grant of interim relief was made out in favour of the petitioner in the High Court on the basis of the material available before the Court. There was only one nomination filed which was found to be in order and was not withdrawn. The time appointed for filing nominations, scrutiny and withdrawal was over. There was no contest. Nothing had remained to be done at the meeting of the Committee which was to be convened only for the purpose of declaring the result. Nothing was to be put to vote. Holding of a meeting was only for the purpose of performing the formality of declaring the appellant as elected. (Paras 11 and 12)

Judgement Key Points

The judgment emphasizes that in exceptional and rare circumstances, the Court may grant interim relief that effectively amounts to granting the final relief, especially when the case demonstrates a very strong prima facie case, significant irreparable injury, and a balance of convenience that tilts heavily in favor of the applicant (!) (!) .

It highlights that such relief is warranted only when withholding it would cause substantial injustice or do violence to the principles of justice, and where the injury is immediate and pressing (!) . The Court also considers the conduct of the parties and the presence of compelling circumstances that justify bypassing the usual requirement of maintaining the status quo or waiting for the final adjudication (!) .

In the context of the case discussed, the Court found that the petitioner had established a foolproof case for interim relief because the election process was almost complete, there was only one valid nomination, and no contest remained, making the meeting only a formality for declaring the result (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition by granting the interim relief, effectively allowing the final relief sought, on the basis that the circumstances justified such extraordinary intervention. This approach underscores that in exceptional cases, interim relief can amount to final relief when the facts and circumstances demonstrate that delaying the relief would cause significant injustice (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Leave granted.

2. Tuljabhavani Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Va Prakriya Sangh Maryadit, Osmanabad (hereinafter the Sangh , for short) is a cooperative society falling in one of the categories included in Section 73G of the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960 (hereinafter, the Act for short). Section 144Y of the Act makes special provision for election of officers of such societies. It reads as under:-

"144Y. Special provision for election of officers of specified societies

(1) This section shall apply only to election of officers by members of committees of societies belonging to the categories specified in section 73-G.

(a) After the election of the members of the committee and, where necessary, co-option or appointment, as the case may be, of members to the reserved seats under Section 73-B or whenever such election is due, the election of the officer or officers of any such society shall be held as provided in its bye-laws but any meeting of the committee for this purpose shall be presided over by the Collector or an officer nominated by him in this behalf."

3. Here itself it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant bye-laws of the society as under :-

"Bye-law No. 18.3 : Every year after annual General Body Meeting, in first meeting of Board of Directors, as per provisions of law, Chairman shall be elected for a period of one year. Till the new Chairman is elected, previous Chairman should continue to hold the post.

Bye-law No. 18.11 : Out of total number of elected Directors, if 50 percent plus one Directors (including nominated directors) are present for meeting then, corum (sic., quorum) for the meeting shall be complete."

4. The Sangh has a Board of Directors consisting of eight Directors to look after the management and working of the Sangh. The present Board of Directors which includes the appellant also as a Director was elected on 27.3.2000. The term of the Board is five years but the Chairman is elected every year for a term of one year each. The previous three Chairmen were elected respectively in the meetings held on 12.10.2000, 12.11.2001, 9.12.2002. As the term of the Chairman previously elected on 9.12.2002 was coming to an end, the election of new Chairman, was notified to be held on 14.11.2003 so as to elect the Chairman for the next term of one year. The Collector, Osmanabad was to preside over the meeting called for the purpose. Collector, Osmanabad by his order dated 29.11.2003 appointed Tehsildar, Osmanabad as the Returning Officer. The election programme was notified by Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer on 3.12.2003 as under:-

"Election Programme for the post of Chairman schedule on 11.12.2003

Date Time Stages of Election

11.12.2003 11.00 to Distribution of nomination 12.00 a.m. papers & acceptance of nomination papers

11.12.2003 12.00 noon to Scrutiny of nomination 12.15 p.m. papers

11.12.2003 12.30 p.m. to Withdrawal of nomination 13.00 p.m. papers

11.12.2003 14.00 noon If felt necessary, then voting, counting and declaration of result of election.

(underlining by us)

5. Simultaneously with the notification of the election programme, the Managing Director of the Sangh issued notices to all the Directors informing them of the meeting scheduled to be held at 2 p.m. on 11.12.2003. The election programme was also communicated to all the Directors.

6. On 11.12.2003, at 11.48 a.m. the appellant filed his nomination paper the receipt whereof was issued by the Returning Officer. There was no other nomination filed. On scrutiny the nomination filed by the appellant was found to be in order. There was no withdrawal.

7. At 2 p.m. only four Directors, including the appellant, out of the total eight Directors of the Sangh were present. The Returning Officer awaited for the arrival of other Directors for ten minutes. At 10 minutes past 2 p.m., the Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer drew up the proceedings of special meeting recording all the facts relating to the notification of elec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document