Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58388
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C.SARAVANAN, JJ
Tamil Nadu Minkazhaga Thozhilalar Munnera Sangam, Head office, No.144, Anna Salai, Chenni – 600 002. – Appellant
Versus
Balavenkatesh – Respondent
O.S.A.No.252 of 2025|C.M.P.No.18074 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Richard Wilson, M/s.P.Wilson Associates
For the Respondents: Mr.C.Umashankar for R1, R2 – Not ready in notice, Mrs.Aswini Devi.K, AGP(CS) for R3, R4 to R7 – No appearance, Mr.C.Gauthama Raj for R8
The court concluded that the appointment of an administrator exceeded the necessary legal scope when the challenge was limited to the unilateral removal of an office bearer, affirming that internal elections should follow the organization's bye-laws.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles and provisions related to associations and unions - An application was made for appointing an Administrator to manage the Tamil Nadu Minkazhaga Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, leading to disputes regarding internal elections and authority. The court examined institutional legitimacy and procedural adherence in handling such appointments. (Paras 1-18)
(B) Civil Procedure - The suit challenged removal from office without necessitating involvement in administrative conduct outside established guidelines and procedures. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to bye-laws regarding elections and office bearers. (Paras 6-17)
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose over alleged illegal removal from the position of Circle Secretary by the union's office bearers, prompting a review of the election process for the Sangam as per its bye-laws.
Findings of Court:
The court viewed the appointment of an Administrator to manage Sangam affairs as unwarranted and a departure from the claims made concerning the plaintiff's removal and office holder's legitimacy.
Issues: Whether the suit correctly focused on the removal of the plaintiff from the Circle Secretary post without merit to hold broader elections interceded by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that the suit's scope must align strictly with the plaintiff's claims and cannot encompass unnecessary administrative interventions.
Result: The order dated 23.06.2025 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the initial plaint challenges the removal of a member based on alleged procedural errors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for and against the necessity of an administrator for the sangam's affairs. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. the court observed that the arguments may exceed the legal scope of the original suit. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. the court concluded that unnecessary administrative appointments beyond specified relief are unwarranted. (Para 16) |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order dated 23.06.2025 in A.No.663 of 2025 in C.S.No.21 of 2025 is sought to be assailed in the present Original Side Appeal.
2. The Application in A.No.663 of 2025 has been instituted seeking to appoint an Administrator to take charge of the Tamil Nadu Minkazhaga Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam/ 1st appellant herein and administer the same and to conduct State General Council election to the 1st appellant Sangam as per its bye-laws and as per the directions of the High Court.
3. The suit has been instituted by the 1st respondent Mr.Balavenkatesh seeking the relief for a declaration that the unilateral removal/ termination of the 1st respondent from the post of Circle Secretary, Thanjavur of the 1st appellant Sangam by the 2nd appellant as null and void and non est in law and not binding upon the plaintiff. The second relief is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from functioning as the office bearers of the 1st appellant Sangam. The third relief is for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 and 3 from in any manner interfering with the affairs, operations and running of the 1st appellant Sangam.
4. The cause arose for institution of the suit mainly on account of the letter dated 21.11.2024 issued by the 1st appellant Sangam addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Thanjavur Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, in which the 1st appellant Sangam represented by the General Secretary has stated that the 1st respondent/ plaintiff was transferred from Thanjavur to Karur and for more than 6 months he was not serving at Thanjavur. Therefore, he is not eligible to hold the post of Circle Secretary at Thanjavur as per the bye-laws of the 1st appellant Sangam. Consequently, the 1st respondent herein was relieved from the post of Circle Secretary, which triggered institution of the suit by him. 5. As far as the application in A.No.663 of 2025 is concerned, the relief sought for is to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the appellants 1 and 2 to function as the office bearers and to interfere with the affairs, operations and running of the Sangam. That apart, an appointment of Administrator is also sought for to take charge of the 1st appellant Sangam.
6. The learned Single Judge adjudicated the issues and appointed an Administrator to take charge of the 1st appellant Tamil Nadu Minkazhaga Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam and further allowed the Administrator to conduct State Wide Election for all the 59 Circles across the State of Tamil Nadu and for the State General Council. Along with the appointment of an Administrator, further directions are issued in paragraph No.21 of the order impugned which reads as under:-
21. It would be open to the learned Administrator, to appoint any person in the rank of Retired District Judge as a Co-Administrator who would be entitled to a remuneration of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The learned Administrator is also empowered to decide the inerse disputes between the respective parties in finalising the electoral college of the respective Levels and any other dispute with regard to the conduct of election in the respective levels.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would mainly contend that the suit has been instituted by the 1st respondent challenging his removal from the post of Circle Secretary at Thanjavur. He was removed on account of the fact that he was transferred from Thanjavur to Karur and ceased to work at Thanj
