IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13260 of 2010(O) -------------------------- O.S.NO.467 OF 2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MANU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, "SON'S VIEW", VIKAS NAGAR-111, PATTATHANAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. ASHOK KUMAR, 45 YEARS, S/O.PONNUTTY, NEDIYAKUNNATH VEEDU, BHAVANA NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA PULAYAR MAHA SABHA(KPMS), REGD, NO.S.13/1970, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, T.V.BABU. 2. PUNNALA SREEKUMAR, GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE COMMITTEE, KPMS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., NANDAVANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. T.S.REJIKUMAR, SECRETARY, DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KPMS, KOLLAM-RESIDING AT "AMMA VEEDU", KALLELI BHAGOM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. K.SASIDHARAN, CONVENOR, ADHOC COMMITTEE, KPMS, KOLLAM RESIDING AT KUZHINJAVILA THAZHATHIL, VELLIMON P.O., CHERUMOODU, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : PLAINT IN O.S.NO.467/09 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM EXHIBIT P2 : PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT P3 : ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT ON 09-07-2009 IN I.A.NO.2728/2009 IN O.S.NO.467/2009 EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT P5 : I A NO.1539 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.467/2009 EXHIBIT P6 : I A NO.1539 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.467/2009 EXHIBIT P7 : I A NO.1629 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.467/2009 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13260 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Warring groups in the Kerala Pulayar Maha Sabha (for short, “the KPMS”) are before me in this writ petition. Plaintiffs who claimed to be members of the KPMS filed O.S.No.467 of 2009 in the court of learned Munsiff, Kollam seeking various reliefs including a declaration that clause 38(2) of the bye law of the KPMS is illegal, to set aside the order dated 08-06-2009 issued by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 dismissing the Kollam Area Union of KPMS and injunction against conduct of elections at the State and District level without properly electing office bearers of Kollam Area Union. Along with the suit petitioners filed Ext.P2, application for temporary injunction seeking reliefs in the same line. Learned Munsiff after hearing the parties dismissed Ext.P2, application vide Ext.P3, order dated 09-07-2009 observing that an omnibus stay as prayed for cannot be granted but directing that election if any conducted shall be subject to the final orders to be passed in the suit. Petitioner filed this writ petition on 12-04-2010 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondent No.1 (KPMS) not to conduct State/District level conventions for the purpose of electing office W.P.C.No.13260 of 2010 : 2 : bearers until orders are passed on Ext.P5 (an application for appointment of a receiver filed in the court of learned Munsiff) and such other reliefs this court deemed fit. By way of interim relief a direction was also prayed for to the KPMS (respondent No.1) not to conduct State/District level conventions for the purpose of electing office bearers until the learned Munsiff passed orders on Ext.P5, application. When the writ petition came up for hearing in this court on 16-04-2010, this court ordered notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 and while directing the writ petition to be posted after vacation and further ordered that “there shall be an interim stay for two months”. It is the complaint of petitioners that notwithstanding the said order being communicated to the respondents on time they, in flagrant violation of the said order conducted State level convention. On account of that, petitioners have already initiated proceeding against respondents in contempt and the matter is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge. Request of learned counsel for petitioners is that interim order passed by this court on 16-04-2010 may be keep alive till 17- 06-2010 when Ext.P5, application is coming up for hearing before learned Munsiff. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the contention raised by petitioners and stated that the interim order passed by this court was obeyed by respondent No.1 and an affidavit also has been filed in that way before the learned Single W.P.C.No.13260 of 2010 : 3 : Judge who is considering the proceeding in contempt. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that no State level convention was conducted at the instance of respondent No.1 and if at all any such convention was conducted it is at the instance of respondent No.2 with which respondent No.1 has not associated. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that writ petition itself is mischievous, reliefs prayed for could not have been granted, not say about the interim relief in the light of Ext.P3, order which has become fianl and further contends that the order of stay has not been communicated to respondent No.2. According to the learned counsel there was no injunction restraining respondent Nos.1 and 2 from conducting the election and in the nature of the interim relief prayed for, no stay also could have been granted. Conventions have already been conducted. In so far as the order of stay was not communicated question of its violation and consequently contempt of proceeding did not arise. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has a contention that if at all such an order was necessary, the proper course open to the petitioner was to move the Vacation Judge in the very same case and request for appropriate orders with notice to the respondent No.2 which was not done and instead behind the back of respondent No.2 the writ petition was filed and an interim order was been obtained on 16-04- 2010. It is also the contention of learned counsel that in the nature W.P.C.No.13260 of 2010 : 4 : of the reliefs sought for, an order of stay was not possible since there was nothing to be stayed. 2. The relief prayed for in the writ petition as aforesaid is to prevent respondent No.1 from conducting the State/District level conventions until Ext.P5, application is disposed of by the learned Munsiff. Respondent No.1, according to learned counsel for respondent No.2 is a break up group and respondent No.2 represents the real, original association. 3. It is seen from the writ petition that challenge is not against Ext.P3, order of learned Munsiff refusing to grant temporary injunction as prayed for in the suit but the prayer is only to postpone State/District level conventions until Ext.P5, application is disposed of by the learned Munsiff. 4. It is true that instead of relief in the form of an injunction, this court granted a 'stay'. But that order cannot be ignored or disobeyed so far as it remained in force. What was meant is that the conduct of the State/District level conventions was prevented for a period of two months from 16-04-2010. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.2 the order being in the form of stay without communicating the contents of petition respondent No.2 could not have understood the purport of application as well as impact of order of stay. This contention is resisted by learned counsel for petitioners stating that a notice was W.P.C.No.13260 of 2010 : 5 : sent by the lawyer concerned to respondent No.2 stating about the relief sought for as well as the order of stay issued by this court. It is also the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that it is sufficient that respondent No.2 had information about the order of this court. These matters are not required to be gone into in this petition as that matter is pending consideration of learned Single Judge in the contempt proceeding. Whether respondent No.2 has disobeyed the order dated 16-04-2010 is a matter pending consideration before the learned Single Judge in contempt proceeding. If respondent No.2 has conducted convention and election in disobeyance of the order dated 16-04-2010 issued by this court, such convention and election can have no legal validity and has to fall. I leave that matters to be decided in that proceedings. 5. So far as relief sought for in this writ petition is concerned, it is open to the petitioners to approach the civil court where the suit and Ext.P5, application is pending and seek appropriate relief if they are otherwise entitled. There is no reason why this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution interfere with a matter which is pending consideration before the civil court and particularly as the parties can move appropriate application before that court which is competent to pass appropriate orders having regard to the facts and W.P.C.No.13260 of 2010 : 6 : circumstances of the case. Therefore relief prayed for in this writ petition cannot be granted. 6. So far as alleged disobeyance of the order of stay dated 16-04-2010 and conduct of elections subsequent thereto allegedly in disobeyance of the order is concerned, the order of stay granted by this court cannot be without any consequence. Hence I direct that question whether the convention and election conducted by respondent No.2 after 16-04-2010 is valid and should stand or has to fall will depend on the finding of this court in the contempt proceeding and whether such convention and election were conducted in disobeyance of the order dated 16-04-2010. Resultantly with the direction and observation made above this writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-