IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 243 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ARAVUKODU KSHETHRAYOGAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAVOOR, PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. A. SUNANDAPPAN, PRESIDENT, ARAVUKODU KSHETHRAYOGAM, PARAVOOR, PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. K. MOHANAN, SECRETARY, ARAVUKODU KSHETHRAYOGAM, PARAVOOR, PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 4. S. PRABHUKUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT, ARAVUKODU KSHETHRAYOGAM, PARAVOOR, PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 5. P.T. SUMITHRAN, TREASURER, ARAVUKODU KSHETHRAYOGAM, PARAVOOR, PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SRI. GEORGE MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. V.R. ASHOKAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, PURATHECHIRAVELI, PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 004. 2. V.S. PRATHAPAN, S/O. SREEDHARAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL, PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 004. 3. K. MOHANAN, ADMINISTRATOR, ARAVUKADU KSHETHRAYOGAM, PARAVOOR, PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 004. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.243 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18 th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.519 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Alappuzha against the petitioners and the third respondent for the following reliefs: “A. Of prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 from interfering with the day to day administration of the 1st defendant Kshethrayogam, without convening its general body meeting for discussing the no-confidence motion placed by the plaintiffs and others on 22.6.2010. B. Of mandatory injunction directing the 6th defendant to take over the administration of the Kshethrayogam and discharge his duties as per its bye-law. C. Of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to convene a General Body meeting to discuss the above said no-confidence motion. D. Such other reliefs which are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice including cost of the plaintiffs.” O.P(C).No.243 OF 2011 2 2. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.2588 of 2010 for an interim mandatory injunction to direct defendants 2 to 5 to convene the General Body Meeting of Aravukad Kshetrayogam to discuss the no- confidence motion against the office bearers. 3. The trial court, by the order dated 28 th October, 2010 allowed the application. On appeal by the petitioners as CMA No.48 of 2010, the court of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha confirmed the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the C.M.Appeal. 4. One of the contentions put forward by the petitioners before the courts below was that in another suit, namely, O.S.No.51 of 2010, filed by some other party, an interim order was passed for election to the office bearers of the Kshetrayogam and an administrator was appointed. The election process is going on and therefore, it is not necessary to grant an interim mandatory injunction O.P(C).No.243 OF 2011 3 in the present suit to convene a meeting of the General Body to discuss the no-confidence motion against the office bearers. That contention was considered by the courts below and it was held that the election to the office of the office bearers is distinct and different from the no-confidence motion moved against them. Going by the by-laws, when a notice is issued for a no-confidence motion against the office bearers, it should be done within 30 days. In the present case, such a notice was issued but no meeting was convened. In that circumstance, the present suit was filed. 5. Another contention raised by the petitioners that interim mandatory injunction could not be issued as that is one of the main reliefs in the suit, was also considered by the courts below and it was held that in the facts and circumstances, an interim mandatory injunction was required. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner O.P(C).No.243 OF 2011 4 referred to Ext.P9 notice and submitted that the notice is illegal. Ext.P9 notice was issued after the appellate judgment was passed. Therefore, that notice was not considered by the courts below. Ext.P9 is not a notice which affects the validity or otherwise of the order and judgment. The rights, if any, of the petitioners on the basis of Ext.P9 are not being considered in this Original Petition. 7. The order and judgment passed by the courts below are legal and proper. There is no jurisdictional error or error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms