THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4770 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.10.2011 in I.A. No.2307 of 2011 in Society O.P. No.67 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The petitioner herein filed Society Original Petition No.67 of 2011 before the court below under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 to declare acceptance of nominations of the respondents 4 and 6 for election as office bearers of the first respondent club, by the Election Officers are illegal and arbitrary; that the respondents 2 and 3 are not entitled to conduct elections in view of their resignations as Election Officers and cancellation of the election notification by the other two Election Officers on 30.08.2011; and for consequential relief of appointing a Receiver to conduct election of office bearers of the society, and made I.A. No.2307 of 2011 therein for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from conducting elections to the first respondent club pending disposal of the main petition. 3. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition may be stated as follows: The first respondent is a registered society and the petitioner is one of the members of the said society. Respondents 4 and 6 are its present President and General Secretary respectively. As the term of office of the present office bearers of the society expired, it was decided in the General Body Meeting to conduct elections of the Managing Committee of the society on 4.9.2011, and accordingly, election notification dated 17.8.2011 was issued. Respondents 4 and 6 are keeping an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs, meant for construction work in new Air Conditioned room and outside toilets, with them, and not remitted back the same to the society’s account, which was disclosed in the report of the audit committee dated 12.8.2011, and so they are ineligible to contest in the elections as per clause 4 of terms and conditions of the election notification. But, respondents 2 and 3, the Election Officers, accepted their nominations to contest in the said election. Though respondents 2 and 3 resigned as Election Officers expressing their unwillingness to conduct the elections, respondents 4 and 6, by bringing political pressure on the respondents 2 and 3, are trying to proceed with the elections on 04.09.2011. 4. Respondents 1 to 4 and 6 filed their counter denying the material averments in the petition and stated inter alia that the respondents 4 and 6 are not due an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs and they paid the said amount from time to time to the Contractor/Engineer Sri M.Raghurami Reddy and that they are eligible to contest in the elections, which is clear from the clarification given by the Auditors dated 29.8.2011. Respondents 2 and 3 have not resigned as Election Officers and they are discharging their duties sincerely and willing to act as Election Officers. Election process has been started by the Election Officers. There is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the interim injunction application. 5. Respondent no.5 filed separate counter stating that on 27.8.2011, himself and others gave a representation to the Election Officers stating that nominations of respondents 4 and 6 should be rejected as per the terms and conditions of the election notification, and that the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 made mockery of election process. Apart form Rs.7.00 lakhs, respondents 4 and 6 also misappropriated Rs.1,46,122/-, which is evident from the report of auditors. Respondents 2 and 3 colluded with respondents 4 and 6. Hence, he prayed to stay the election process. 6. The court below, vide the impugned order, dismissed the application holding that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience in its favour. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inspite of resignation by two Election Officers, the respondents are contemplating to proceed with the election; that as per the bye-laws, if a person is due any amount to the club, he is not entitled to participate in the election; that the respondents 4 and 6 are not at all eligible to contest for any post in the elections to the club in view of the fact that they are due an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs to the club; that the documents filed by the petitioner have not at all been considered by the learned Judge, who passed one para order, which needs to be interfered with by this Court, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6 contended that Ex.R4-Auditor report would go to show that the respondents 4 and 6 are not due any amount to the club since the amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs was paid to Contractor and Engineer for the purpose of effecting construction of Air Condition room and toilets, and therefore prima facie the petitioner failed to show that the respondents 4 and 6 are ineligible to contest in the elections, and the court below considering the material on record, rightly passed the order and it needs no interference by this Court. 9. The main relief sought in the Original Petition is that acceptance of nominations of the respondents 4 and 6 by the Election Officer is illegal and that the respondents 2 and 3 are not entitled to contest in the elections in view of their resignations and for further direction to appoint a Receiver to conduct elections. In the Original Petition, the petitioner filed a petition seeking a direction not to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from conducting elections to the first respondent club pending disposal of the main petition as the respondents 4 and 6 are due an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs to the club and restrain the election officer from conducting elections pending disposal of the main petition. 10. There cannot be any dispute that in order to grant an injunction, the three well established principles to be established by the petitioner are- prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The petitioner must show a prima facie case, which is a sine qua non for granting injunction. The entire allegation against the respondents 4 and 6 is that they are due an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs to the first respondent club and therefore they are ineligible to contest for any post in the club. The basis for coming to such a conclusion is the report dated 12.8.2011 submitted by the Auditor. The Auditor, in the first instance, stated that cash balance of Rs.7.00 lakhs was lying with respondents 4 and 6. It appears to be incorrect at this stage in view of the fact that Ex.R4-written clarification by Auditors dated 29.8.2011 would clearly go to show that the Auditors have given a clarification stating that though they have initially mentioned that there was a cash balance of Rs.7.00 lakhs on hand with the President and the Secretary, subsequently, they were clarified by the fourth respondent stating that the amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs was paid from time to time to the Contractors/Engineering M.Raghurami Reddy and the receipt of payment of Rs.7.00 lakhs was also shown in the general body. From this document, it is clear that the amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs was not lying with the President and the Secretary i.e. respondents 4 and 6 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the Engineer gave a receipt as in Ex.R5, no vouchers have been submitted to show that he received the amount. But, it is a matter to be decided in the main Original Petition itself whether the amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs was paid by the respondents 4 and 6 to G.Raghurami Reddy, Contractor and Engineer for the purpose of effecting construction of Air Conditioned room and toilets. Therefore, at this stage, no material is filed to show that the respondents 4 and 6 are having cash of the club during their tenure in the office. In such a case, the question of granting injunction as prayed for does not arise. The court rightly dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 08.11.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4770 OF 2011 08.11.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4770 OF 2011 DATED 08.11.2011 Between: A.Ramesh Babu …Petitioner And The Kurnool United Club & others …Respondents