R.Jayasimha Babu, J.: Plaintiff in the suit has become the victim of the very rule, which he introduced into the bye-laws of the association which inter alia enables the Executive Committee to convert the membership of a full membership to that of an associate member with lesser rights, if the activities of the members are found to be detrimental to the interest of the association in the view of the Executive committee.

2. Though the plaintiff had been the President of the Association for 18 years, during the last year, he did not hold that office. Those who were on the Executive Committee having formed the view that the plaintiff was required to explain his conduct with reference to certain matters had caused the issue of a show cause notice, wherein, several allegations were made against him, two of which, according to the plaintiff, were vague. To that, he sent a reply in which he rebutted the allegations made, claimed that he was innocent of any wrong doing, stated that his reply was all that was required to put an end to the proceeding that was initiated by the Executive Committee, and had also sought certain documents with reference to two of the charges. The Executive Committee, however, after perusing that reply, proceeded to exercise it’s power under Rule 17-B of the Bye-laws, and made him an associate member with immediate effect. It may also be noticed here that there was no request for a personal hearing in the reply that had been sent.

3. Though the plaintiff had contended that the action so taken against him was vitiated by mala fides, that mala fides having been attributed to one of the office bearers, learned single Judge has found that the action was not vitiated by mala fide. He has noticed the fact that the decision was taken not by one person, but by the Executive Committee consisting of 24 members, 22 of whom were present, and had unanimously voted that the membership of the plaintiff be changed to that of an associate member. The plaintiff has also alleged that despite the language of Rule 17-B of the bye-laws that power could only be exercised by the General Body, and not by the Executive Committee. That argument did not appeal to the learned single Judge. We do not find anything in the language of Rule 17-B of the bye-law, which makes it mandatory for the matter to be placed before the General Body.

4. Learned single Judge was persuaded to stay the resolution passed by the Executive Committee on the sole ground that the principles of natural justice had been violated. The learned trial judge felt that there was vagueness in some of the charges that had been levelled against the plaintiff. We have been taken through the charges, as also the reply given by the plaintiff to those charges. Two of the charges referred to some of the orders that had been made by the plaintiff earlier, and one of the charge refers to complaints received from some persons with regard to certain matters. Besides those two charges, there are several other charges to which the plaintiff had pleaded that he was innocent of any violation of any of the Rules.

5. The Executive Committee of a voluntary association cannot be put on par with a Court or a Tribunal when dealing with the disciplinary matters concerning the membership of the Body. They have a very wide latitude in deciding as to when disciplinary action is warranted, and the extent to which the powers vested in them under the Rules or byelaws should be exercised while penalising the member for the misconduct which the appropriate Body within the association empowered to decide that question, considers him to be guilty. The procedure to be followed by such an association also cannot be that which is normally expected to be followed in a Court, or a Tribunal. Every letter written by the Executive Committee of an association to it’s member calling for an explanation is not to be judged under a lens to find out the possible defects therein for the purpose of holding that the action

Click Here to Read the rest of this document