The Executive Committee cannot amend membership conditions without General Body approval, rendering unauthorized regulations invalid.

JUDGMENT

1. The defendants 1 and 3 in the suit are the appellants.

The 1^st defendant was a Temple, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants were the President and Secretary of the 1^st defendant. Since the 2^nd defendant is not the present President, he was impleaded in the Appeal as the 2nd respondent, and hence, notice to the 2^nd respondent was dispensed with in this appeal.

2. The plaintiff was admittedly a member of the 1st defendant. As per Ext.A1 Bye-Law, the members have to renew their membership every three years. When the membership of the plaintiff was not renewed by the defendants, the plaintiff filed the present suit for a mandatory injunction to give membership to the plaintiff and to publish the Membership list, including the plaintiff.

3. The defendants opposed the suit prayers, contending inter alia that the membership of the plaintiff could not be renewed on account of the Ext.B12 Rule passed by the Executive Committee of the first defendant that membership of members having certain disqualifications need not be renewed.

4. The Trial court decreed the suit directing the Administrative Committee of the 1^st defendant to include the name of the plaintiff in the Membership Roll within a period of 30 days, failing which the plaintiff is allowed to execute the order through the process of court at the expense of the erring members in their individual capacity. The Trial Court found that the allegations of corruption and misappropriation against the plaintiff are utmost serious in nature, but they are only allegations that have to be unearthed properly and that the decision of the defendants to reject the Application of the plaintiff as per Rejected List showing the reason is not in accordance with the existing legal requirements.

5. The defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court. This Court admitted the Regular Second Appeal on the following substantial question of law.

1. Whether the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court misconstrued and misunderstood Rules 21 and 43 of Ext.A1 By- Law of the 1^st appellant.

2. Whether B12 decision of the Administrative Committee of the 1^st appellant could be construed as Rule made by the committee invoking his power under Rule 43 of Ext. A1.

6. The appeal is of the year 2023 and it was admitted only on 18.10.2024. Since the election to the Executive Committee is proposed to take place in the coming days, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent pressed for an early hearing, and accordingly, this appeal is heard, giving priority.

7. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. T.S Harikumar and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Sri. K.S Hariharaputhran.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.B12 is a Regulation made by the Executive Committee of the 1^st defendant invoking its powers under Rule 43 of Ext.A1 Bye-Law. Clause 43 of Ext.B1 Bye-Law specifically provides that the Executive Committee shall have powers to pass Regulations with respect to the General Body meeting, Committee meeting, Executive Committee meeting, and election. The membership of the members is dealt with under Rule 21 of the Bye-Law, which comes under the heading ‘Election’. Hence, with respect to membership, the Executive Committee of the 1st defendant also has absolute power to pass regulations. The learned counsel further contended that, at any rate, the Executive Committee of the 1^st defendant had passed Ext.B12 Regulations and Ext.B18 Public Notice in which the membership of the plaintiff was denied, and hence, without challenging those orders, a simple suit for an injunction will not lie.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent contended that the Executive Committee of the 1^st defendant does