CIVIL REVISION NO.2770 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 20, 2008 Jasmel Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Shivdev Singh Kang ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G. P. Vashist, Advocate, for the caveator-respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this revision petition to impugn the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who has accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and has reversed the order passed by the Trial Court declining the prayer of the respondent for grant of interim injunction. Respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction, seeking order restraining the petitioner from discharging the duties as officiating President of the Malwa Education Council, Bondli-Samrala, CIVIL REVISION NO.2770 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: District Ludhiana. There apparently is not much dispute on the facts. The respondent is a Member of Malwa Education Council and was duly elected as its President. The Council is a registered body having its own constitution. It has 283 members and is running a college and a school at Bondli, Samrala. Election for the Managing Committee and its Office bearers is held after every three years. The last election was held on 26.3.2006. Dr.Shinderpal Singh, Principal of Malwa College, Bondli, was detailed as a Returning Officer. The Members of the Council filed nomination papers for different posts and, thus, the election was held on 26.3.2006. The respondent was declared elected as a President of the Council whereas the petitioner was elected as Senior Vice President alongwith other office bearers and executive members. The proceedings regarding the elections were recorded by the Returning Officer and the election was duly notified. The respondent claimed that after his election as President, he duly discharged his duties. It appears that some friction arose amongst the Members of the Managing Committee. This has led to some order being passed against Harpal Singh, who was removed from the post of Office Secretary. He was directed to hand over all the records of the Council immediately to the respondent-plaintiff. He, however, did not comply with the said order. All of a sudden, the petitioner, who was Senior Vice President issued a letter on 23.9.2006 to the Vice Chancellor, Panjab University, with a copy to the respondent and all concerned to say that he has assumed and taken over the charge as officiating President of the Council in place of the President. Terming this to be entirely illegal, fraudulent and CIVIL REVISION NO.2770 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: forcibly action, the respondent made a complaint to SSP, Khanna and DSP, Samrala. It then transpired that some signatures had been obtained on few loose pages where it was fraudulently written that the respondent had decided to appoint the petitioner as an officiating President and the respondent would be deemed to have submitted his resignation. This resolution is stated to be a forged document for various reasons as disclosed in the suit. It is in this background that the present suit was filed, seeking order restraining the petitioner from acting as officiating President. In the case set up by the petitioner, it is not disputed that the respondent was duly elected as President of the council on the election which was held on 26.3.2006. The petitioner, however, points out that another resolution was passed whereby the respondent had thanked the Members for electing him as President. It is further disclosed that the respondent stated that he was not in a good health and was having domestic problem and as such, he wanted to be President for 4 to 5 months and would serve only upto 1.9.2006. The petitioner claims to be appointed as officiating President for which no specific approval was required. This so called resolution is treated as his approval and resignation of the respondent, according to the petitioner. The Trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application for temporary injunction and thereafter the respondent filed an appeal against the same. The Appellate Court has found prima-facie case in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and has reversed the order, restraining the petitioner from officiating as CIVIL REVISION NO.2770 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: President of the Council, which he has impugned through the present revision petition. It is, thus, seen that the petitioner has also conceded that the respondent was in fact elected President of the Council for three years term. A resignation from an elected post can not be assumed on the basis of some implied action or conduct. It has to be specifically tendered and required to be accepted before it can be given effect to. The resolution, which has been relied upon by the petitioner, to say that the respondent had expressed his desire to work as a President for 4 to 5 months and the same be assumed as his resignation with effect from 1.9.2006, certainly would be a plea which is too far fetched for being accepted on any reasonable basis. The case set up by the petitioner that the respondent wanted to work as a President only for limited duration does not sound logical. The respondent was unanimously declared elected whereas the petitioner was so declared as Senior Vice President. These proceedings were recorded in a proceeding register. The resolution, which is relied upon by the petitioner, is on an ordinary register, not on which the earlier proceedings were recorded. The signatures of the respondent as a President of the Society are also found in between the names of various Members. If this resolution had been recorded in the normal course of official business, the signatures of the respondent, who was President, were bound to be either at the start or end of the list of the signatories. These were more appropriately required to be endorsed at the start of the list of signatories. The Appellate Court has rightly not considered the resolution dated 26.3.2006 produced CIVIL REVISION NO.2770 OF 2008 :{ 5 }: by the petitioner to be a valid document. It has further been observed that the President could be removed only by due process of law or if he had offered his resignation, which was accepted in accordance with law. The respondent instead of being anywhere near to accepting this position, has lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioner. This may have not led to his prosecution and is sought to be cancelled but would certainly reflect the intention of the respondent that he never intended to resign. The Appellate Court is justified in saying that prima-facie case is seen in favour of the respondent and also that balance of convenience is in his favour since he is a duly elected President. The impugned order, as such, would not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Mr.Sehgal, however, would say that the interim order, as granted in favour of the respondent, would mean that main relief itself has been allowed in his favour as an interim measure. This, according to the counsel, is not permissible and in support he has relied upon the case of Balwant Singh Vs. Avtar Singh, 2003 (3) PLR 854. The counsel has also relied upon Shri Ramesh Chander Vs. Shri Suresh Bhasin and others, 2005 (2) PLR 1 in support of this submission. The main prayer in the suit is for grant of injunction restraining the defendant from discharging the duties as officiating President whereas as an interim measure the petitioner has been asked not to perform the duties as officiating President during the pendency of the suit. The effect of the order is that the respondent CIVIL REVISION NO.2770 OF 2008 :{ 6 }: would perform the duties of President and indeed it only means that President continues to be the respondent and he alone would discharge the duties of the office of President as such. In the facts of this case, no other interim arrangement is possible. A person who has prepared a fraudulent document can not be permitted to function as officiating President. The will of the electorate has to be given effect to. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, no other interim order possibly could have been made. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and would dismiss the revision petition in limine. May 20 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE