Limited scope of court interference in the internal affairs of a society and the need for manifest illegality to justify court intervention.

Jayant Nath, J.

CAV 154/2017

Since the counsel for caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

CM(M) 189/2017 and CM Nos. 6240-41/2017

1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to impugn the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the appellate court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the order of the trial court dated 22.12.2016 dismissing the interim application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. Respondent No. 1 is a Society registered under the provisions of the Society Registration Act, 1860 and is running a club in Sainik Farm area. A complaint was received by respondent No. 1 from one of its members making allegations about misconduct against the petitioners on 9.10.2016. On the basis of the complaint, a show cause notice was issue on 10.10.2016. Oral hearing was also given to the petitioner. On 12.12.2016 the petitioners were informed that they have been found guilty of misconduct for indulgence in indecent behaviour with ladies etc and that they have been suspended from using the facilities of the Club w.e.f. 15.12.2016 till 15.3.2017. The petitioners thereafter filed the present suit challenging the said order of the respondent.

3. The trial court in a detailed order noted that there have been complaints against one of the petitioners on earlier occasions where he was suspended and debarred, the basis on which suspension has been made are serious allegations and cannot be ignored and that a person who seeks equity must do equity. The trial court held that the petitioners have failed to establish a prima facie case and in the peculiar circumstances no interim injunction order can be passed against the respondent and the application was dismissed.

4. The appellate court disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioners by its order dated 26.12.2016. In the appeal the appellate court concluded that the injunction application is pending for consideration. It held that on account of heavy burden of work the trial court could not hear the matter, it observed that by declining an injunction one-third of the period for which the petitioners have been debarred from using the respondent club facilities would be completed and hence an interim injunction order was passed in favour of the petitioners restraining the respondent club from prohibiting the petitioners from using the facilities of the respondent club in terms of the letter dated 12.12.2016. The matter was remanded back to the trial court stating that an endeavour will be made to dispose of the application within four weeks from the date of hearing.

5. Against the said order of the appellate court dated 26.12.2016 a petition being CM(M) 14/2017 was filed before this court. This court noted that the appellant court has wrongly concluded that the injunction application is pending before the trial court and has remanded the matter back to the trial court. It also noted that the appellate court had failed to note the parameters for grant of injunction, namely, existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. No findings were recorded on the said parameters. Accordingly, this court quashed the order of the appellate court dated 26.12.2016 and remanded the matter back to the appellate court.

6. By the impugned order the said appeal has been heard and dismissed.

7. A perusal of the impugned order would show that it has rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners on the submissions that principles of natural justice were not followed. The appellate court held that the petitioners were served with a communication dated 12.10.2016 and were given an opportunity to file a written reply. Thereafter the petitioners were given personal hearing before the disciplinary committee on 12.11.2016. It is only after following this procedure, a communication dated 22.12.2016 was issued passing an