The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar, Trade Unions did not have the authority to pass an order of stay in an election dispute, as the power conferred on him was limited to the registration and cancellation of registration of trade unions.

DIPAK MISRA, J.

The substantiality and sustainability of the order dated November 13, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6124/2007 is in question in this intra-Court : appeal preferred under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. The essential facts which are imperative to be adumbrated are that the petitioner appellant invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated May 8, 2007 passed by the Registrar, Trade Union, M.P., the first respondent herein. In the writ petition it was set forth that the workmen employed in the State Bank of India posted at various branches in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh formed a trade union called SBI Workmen Union Bhopal Circle, Bhopal which is registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short 'the Act'). The Union is affiliated to the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation for short 'the Federation which is also a registered trade union and the apex union for the employees. The union has its constitution and bye-laws and as per the same, the main executive body has been vested with the powers to govern and control the functions of the union. As per the constitution of the union, the Federation has the right and authority to adjudicate all disputes of the members affiliated to the union. The petitioner is a member of the union and, as pleaded by him, the last election was held in May, 2002 and the term of the office bearer expired in May, 2005. There was some dispute as regards the election which led to filing of 40 Writ Petition No. 2665/2002 and an interim order was passed directing not to hold the election. Later on by the order dated October 18,2005, a direction was issued in the aforesaid writ petition to the authority empowered under the law to take necessary steps and hold the election in accordance with law. Despite the aforesaid directions, the respondent No. 2 did not hold the election for the post of General Secretary of the Union though he was obliged to do so. As the second respondent did not hold the election, out of 65 office bearers of the central committee, office bearer convened a meeting to terminate the co-option of the said respondent as General Secretary under clause S 13.2.7 as he was not directly elected General Secretary. The meeting was held on the date fixed and on that day, a unanimous resolution was passed to terminate the co-option of the second respondent, and one Ramendra Nath Hore was co-opted as General Secretary. The option in that regard was sent to the Federation as per Annexure P-3 to the writ petition dated December 26, 2006. Coming to know about the aforesaid situation, the second respondent created documents purported to the effect that the meeting of the working and Central Committee was allegedly held on January 20 and 25, 2006. The notices of the aforesaid meeting were neither issued or circulated amongst the members. There was no quorum to hold the meeting. However, the respondent No. 2 declared the election, framed election rules and suspended four office bearers from primary membership and appointed the Registrar, Trade Unions as Chairman of the Central Election Committee. Various asseverations were put forth how illegalities were committed by the second respondent to aid and assist his associates to win the election. With the connivance and collusion with the Registrar, Trade Unions, the entire process of election was manipulated and all democratic norms were thrown to the wind. It was asserted that the respondent No.2 suspended one Pankaj Saxena from the post of State Secretary; (Chhattisgarh) on December 20, 2006 and thereafter he was also suspended from primary membership on December 25,2006 though under clause 11.6 of the Constitution, the Central Committee alone could suspend the primary membership of a