Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 1025
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
M.R. Pathak, J.
Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC), Arunachal Pradesh and another - Petitioners
Versus
Kalikho Pul - Respondent
CRP No. 22(AP) of 2015
Decided on : 6.10.2015
For the Petitioners:Manjuli Dev, B. Joseph, P. Deb and N. Deb, Advocates.
For the Respondent:P.K. Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, Tony Partin, K. Saxena, Y. Rian, U. Bori and H.K. Jamoh, Advocates.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 151 – Election - Petitioners herein are representing a political party, namely, Indian National Congress Party in its provincial office in the State of Arunachal Pradesh - Sole opposite party a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Arunachal Pradesh from No. 28 Hayuliang Constituency won the last assembly election 2014 on a ticket from the Indian National Congress Party who is a member of the said political party for quite a long period. For certain reasons known to the State Congress Party, the petitioner No. 2, President of Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee by his order number sole opposite party from the said political party for a period of 6 (six) years with immediate effect for anti-party activities under the relevant Article XIX (f) (iv) of Clause A, sub-clause (a) of the constitution of said INC Party. Against the same, Sole opposite party preferred an appeal before the Appellate Forum of the Party which Is still pending for disposal. – Held, Court is of the opinion that the Civil Court, i.e. the Court of learned Civil Judge Capital Complex, Yupia, rightfully and without any jurisdictional error has entertained the Title Suit No. 14 of 2015 of the opposite party/plaintiff, which is presently pending before learned Civil Judge Capital Complex, Further, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Capital Complex, Yupia in Misc. (J) Case does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or do not exhibit any perversity in approach or capricious exercise of the authority. The said Civil Court has the competent jurisdiction to try the said suit in question of the opposite party/plaintiff are this Court did not found any patent illegality or error in the procedure in taking cognizance of the said Title Suit and in passing the order in Misc. (J) Case - Facts of the case and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India, discussed above; do not justify the exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the present case, as prayed for by the petitioners - Petition dismissed.
A suit can be instituted against a private organization for unlawful expulsion or ban if the expulsion or ban affects the civil rights of the individual and is not purely an internal matter of the organization. The key considerations are whether the organization’s rules and procedures for expulsion are violated and whether the expelled member's legal rights are interfered with, such as rights arising from membership that confer civil entitlements.
If the organization’s internal rules provide for a specific procedure, including notice and opportunity to be heard before punitive action, and these procedures are not followed, the affected individual may have grounds to file a civil suit. Such disputes are recognized as civil in nature because they concern rights and interests that are of a private and civil character, especially when membership confers civil rights or privileges.
However, if the expulsion is carried out strictly according to the organization's rules and is within the scope of its internal discipline, and does not violate any civil rights, then the organization may have a valid internal disciplinary process that is not subject to civil litigation.
In summary, a civil suit can be instituted against a private organization for unlawful expulsion or ban if it can be shown that the expulsion was done without following due process, violated the member’s civil rights, or was otherwise illegal or arbitrary. Otherwise, internal disciplinary actions are generally considered within the organization's domain and may not be subject to civil litigation.
[Reference: p_43][Reference: p_42]
M.R. Pathak, J. - Heard Ms. Monjuli Dev, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Saxena learned counsels for the sole opposite party.
2. The petitioners have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order dated 18.06.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Capital Complex, Yupia in Misc (J) Case No. 51 of 2015 in Title Suit No. 14 of 2015 and also for quashing the proceeding of said Title Suit No. 14/2015, presently pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Capital Complex, Yupia on the ground that the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit preferred by the opposite party plaintiff since the matter pleaded by him in the plaint cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Civil court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein are representing a political party, namely, Indian National Congress (INC, in short) Party in its provincial office in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The sole opposite party a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Arunachal Pradesh from No. 28 Hayuliang (Schedule Tribe) Constituency, Anjaw District, won the last assembly election 2014 on a ticket from the Indian National Congress Party who is a member of the said political party for quite a long period. For certain reasons known to the State Congress Party, the petitioner No. 2, President of Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee by his order number APCC/EXP/21/2009 dated 02.04.2015 expelled the sole opposite party from the said political party for a period of 6 (six) years with immediate effect for anti-party activities under the relevant Article XIX (f) (iv) of Clause A, sub-clause (a) of the constitution of said INC Party. Against the same, on 10.04.2015 the sole opposite party preferred an appeal before the Appellate Forum of the Party which Is still pending for disposal.
4. The opposite party in the meanwhile as a plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 14 of 2015 before the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Capital Complex, Yupia; amongst others (I) for a decree of declaration that the said order of his expulsion dated 02.04.2015 issued by the petitioner No. 2 is invalid, void ab initio, without any authority and not liable to be acted upon, (ii) for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff (opposite party herein) continues to remain a member of the Indian National Congress having all the rights, title and interest over the said membership, (iii) to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 02.04.2015, (iv) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) jointly and severally from expelling the plaintiff (opposite party) from the INC Party without following the procedures established by law, constitution & rules of the INC Party and (v) to debar the Speaker of the Arunachal Pradesh State Legislative Assembly from issuing any order declaring the plaintiff (opposite party) as an unattached Member of the said Legislative Assembly and/or if already issued, to declare the same as void ab initio, illegal, null and void. Along with the said Title Suit, the sole opposite party/plaintiff as a petitioner also filed an application being Misc (J) Case No. 51 of 2015 under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of CMI Procedure for grant of necessary injunction.
5. The learned-civil Judge, Senior Division, Capital Complex, Yupia after hearing the Counsel for the opposite party/plaintiff initially passed and ex parte ad interim injunction order on 13.05.2015 directing the present petitioners/defendants not to give effect to the order dated 02.04.2015 passed by the petitioner No.2-defendant No. 2 and stayed the operation of the said order dated 02.04.2015 till the next date fixing 17.06.2015 for service report and the wr
