ORAL ORDER

The petitioner had approached this Court yesterday seeking interim orders on the ground that the Trial Court before which a suit was filed questioning the order of suspension passed against the petitioner by the respondent-Sangha, did not take note of the urgency in the matter. It was pointed out that the order of suspension comes in the wake of action sought to be initiated by some of the members of the Executive Committee seeking a vote of ‘No Confidence’ against the existing office bearers. It was submitted that although there is no express provision for suspension of membership, nevertheless, it was done only to prevent the meeting which is scheduled to be held on 09.09.2024. 2. Today, the respondent appeared before the Court and sought for urgent hearing.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar, appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier, in a suit filed by one of the members of the respondent-Sangha, the issue as to whether an order of suspension can be passed by the Sangha was considered and it was held and declared that issuance of showcause notice to the plaintiff and recommendation for his termination without holding enquiry by the Executive Committee is illegal and without jurisdiction. It was also declared that termination order issued by the respondent-Sangha is bad in law. It was also submitted that though a Regular Appeal was filed by the respondent-Sangha in RFA No.85/2014, however, the same was withdrawn by filing a memo on 10.06.2015. Learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that this Court has taken note of the urgency in the matter and has permitted the petitioner to participate in the meeting and cast his vote on 09.09.2024.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri M.R.Rajagopal, appearing for the respondent-Sangha on the contrary, submitted that this Court has already permitted the petitioner to participate and cast his vote in the meeting scheduled to be held on 09.09.2024 but he requested that the Court may consider directing the vote cast by the petitioner to be kept in a sealed cover and if necessary, directions may be obtained at the hands of this court to count the vote cast by the petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that in matters involving Societies, which are supposed to run on democratic principles, when action is sought to be taken by some of the members against the existing Committee or office bearers, if they pass such orders of suspension, it would be clearly undermining the democratic principles. Nevertheless, since the petitioner sought for an interim prayer to permit him to participate in the meeting and thereafter the matter may be considered on merits, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interim orders already passed by this Court is required to be continued while permitting the petitioner to participate in the meeting and cast his votes on 09.09.2024. The question as to whether the respondent could pass an order of suspension of membership of the petitioner can be considered on merits by the Trial Court.

6. Any observations made in this order shall not prejudice the case of any of the parties before the Trial Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.