IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5501 OF 2010 Between:- The A.P., Government Vehicles Drivers Central Association, Rep. by its President Sri G.Adbul Hameed, …Petitioner A n d Rayudu Appa Rao …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5501 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 15-11-2010 in I.A.No.3660 of 2010 in O.P.No.1851 of 2010, on the file of the III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 for ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondent from obstructing the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner’s association, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed O.P under Section 23 of the Act for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner’s association, represented by one Abdul Hameed. According to the petitioner, the association was recognized by the Government and the same was also registered under the Societies Registration Act. The President of the Central Association shall be elected by conducting elections from among the members and the elected President nominates other office bearers of the association and Abdul Hameed was elected as such as President of the petitioner-association. The petitioner contends that in the last elections conducted on 20-04- 2008, the respondent was elected as President and assumed charge and Abdul Hameed was elected as Associate President. The petitioner alleges that the respondent has been indulging in such activities adversely affecting the interest of the members and in collusion with the Treasurer and Secretary, he misappropriated the funds and took unilateral decisions without caring for the President and other office bearers of the district units and the respondent has been postponing furnishing of accounts. The petitioner alleges that in view of the illegalities committed by the respondent, he is not entitled to continue in the post of the President. It is stated that on 19-09-2010, the respondent gave a notice to the members calling for a meeting and all the members including the petitioner attended the meeting at Warangal, but the respondent did not turn up and absconded. As per the bye-laws, the Association President presided over the meeting in the absence of the President and the petitioner conducted the meeting and all the members expressed no confidence in the respondent and accordingly all the members and executive committee passed a resolution removing the respondent as President and electing the petitioner as President and ever since, the petitioner is working as President of the Association. The petitioner alleges that though the respondent was removed as President, he has been interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the association. 4. The respondent filed a counter opposing the petition and alleging that he was elected as President on 20-04- 2008 for a term of three years and the petitioner was not elected as President in the meeting held on 19-09-2010 and the bye-laws have no provision to remove the elected President. 5. During enquiry, Exs.P-1 to P-19 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exs.R-1 to R-10 were marked on behalf of the respondent. 6. The learned Additional Chief Judge, by the impugned order dated 15-11-2010, dismissed the said application, holding that there is no prima facie case established by the petitioner nor any balance of convenience. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 7. While admitting the civil revision petition, by order dated 26-11-2010, this Court directed that status quo obtaining as on that day shall be maintained until further orders. On 31-01-2011, respondent represented that his claim as President of the Association was upheld by the Court below and Government also recognized him as President and held talks with him along with other representatives of Joint Action Committee of employees as recently as on 23-01-2011, but, however, the petitioner taking undue advantage of the order of status quo granted on 26-11-2010 is trying to interfere with the affairs of the association. 8. Admittedly, the respondent was elected as President of the Association on 20-04-2008 and the term of office is three years. The petitioner alleges that the respondent indulged in certain illegal activities detrimental to the interest of the members of the Association and also misappropriated the funds and failed to show the accounts. The respondent denies the same. 9. As rightly held by the trial Court, the said aspect is a matter to be considered during the course of trial. The petitioner claims that in a meeting held on 19-09-2010, the respondent was removed from the office of the President and Abdul Hameed was elected as President. The petitioner did not, however, file the minutes of the General Body Meeting. Admittedly, the byelaws do not empower the General Body to remove the President before the expiry of the term of the elected body. The truth and validity of the alleged removal of the respondent and the alleged election of Abdul Hameed as President of the Association is also a matter to be considered during the course of trial. As matters stand, when the respondent was originally the elected President of the Association for a period of three years and the said period would expire only in April, 2011 and the validity of the alleged removal of the respondent as President and election of Abdul Hameed as President in his place, is yet to be adjudicated upon, as rightly held by the trial Court, it cannot be said that there is either prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. The order of the trial Court, refusing to grant temporary injunction, does not, therefore, call for any interference, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim order of status quo stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd February, 2011 Lrkm.