IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 30.9.2008. CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL O.A. Nos.946 to 948 of 2008 in C.S.No.824 of 2008 1. S.Subramanian 2. M.Rajamanickam 3. E.Prasad 4. N.R.Mohan Rao 5. N.Kumar Applicants vs. 1. State Bank of India Officers- Association, Chennai Circle, rep by its President D.Suresh Kumar State Bank of India Building, 84, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. 2. Election Committee, State Bank of India Officers Association, Chennai Circle, rep by its Chairman K.U.Mohammed Koya State Bank of India Building, 84, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. 3. D.S.Rishabadas, General Secretary, State Bank of India Officers Association, Chennai Circle, State Bank of India Building, 84, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. 4. S.Gomathinayagam, Treasurer, State Bank of India Officers Association, Chennai Circle, State Bank of India Building, 84, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. Respondents For Applicants : Mr.R.Thiagarajan For RR1, 3 and 4 : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam Senior Counsel for Mr.T.V.krishnamachari ORDER
The applicants/plaintiffs, who were the erstwhile office bearers of the first defendant State Bank of India Officers Association, filed these applications seeking for an order of ad interim injunction restraining the elected office bearers pursuant to the election notification No.56/26/2008 dated 7.5.2008 from holding the office of the first respondent association; restraining them from holding General Body Meeting on 14.9.2008 or any other subsequent date and directing the first respondent to hold a proper and valid election to the various officers for the year 2008-2011 by appointing an officer of this court after reviewing the valid electorate of the first defendant in accordance with the byelaws.
2. The applicants have contended that the election to the first respondent for the year 2008-2011 was not conducted in accordance with law and the byelaws of the first respondent. There were bogus postal voting by the members of the first respondent. Several complaints given earlier were not taken cognizance by the second respondent. There was a likelihood of interception and misuse of the postal ballot covers by certain candidates. The applicants understand that there have been large scale irregularities, illegalities and improprieties on the part of the elected office bearers of the first respondent. The applicants received information that a person by name Ramani was often found in General Post Office, Chennai. He was closely known to one of the contestants. The presence of an outsider added spice to the burning issue. Cursory observation of the Ballot Papers would disclose that there is a vast difference in the handwriting found in the declaration form and the Ballot Paper. Therefore, the applicants have sought for the aforesaid reliefs till the disposal of the suit.
3. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 have contended in the counter that the applicants have drawn monies of the first defendant to the tune of Rs.7.52 lakhs during the last four days prior to the election results. The applicants have misappropriated the general funds of the first respondent. The present Committee in management is taking steps to call for explanation from the applicants for the aforesaid wrongful withdrawals. 55% of the electorate was covered under direct polling and 45% of the electorate was covered under Postal Ballot in the current elections. The Election Committee was completely dependent on applicants 1, 2, 4 and 5 who were the previous office bearers of the first respondent. Even for despatch of Postal Ballot Papers, the Election Committee was at the mercy of the aforesaid applicants. The Election Committee is the Supreme Body in the matter of conducting elections. They announced the results over-ruling the volume of objections raised by the applicants. The entire polling and counting processes were photographed and videographed. The result of the elections were declared on 7th July 2008 and the newly elected office bearers took charge on 9th July 2008. The outgoing General Secretary Thiru.G.Santhanam had also handed over the keys to the third respondent in the presence of over 100 members and office bearers. They have been functioning as elected office bearers for the last two months. The management also recognized the new team of office bearers and has started negotiating with the respondents. The applicants, fearing exposure about their malfeasance, have come forward with the vexatious suit. The election process was conducted in a free and fair manner. The second respondent, being the Chairman of the Election Committee, got a separate post bag number which was kept separately in the General Post Office to receive the Postal Ballot Covers. The post bag could be opened only by the Chairman of the Election Committee who had the keys of the post bag. It was he who opened the post bag and collected the Postal Ballot Covers for scrutiny and counting. It is not known who Mr.Ramani is. As far as the Postal Ballot Papers are concerned, the Election Committee scrutinised the same and valid votes were counted. The applicants have come out with a totally vague allegations. The General Body Meeting is convened as per the byelaws. The preparation for the conduct of the General Body Meeting is at an advanced stage. The second respondent has no authority to issue the letter dated 18.8.2008. If an order of injunction is granted, the respondents would be greatly prejudiced. Therefore, the respondents would pray for dismissal of these applications.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the documents produced before this court would establish prima facie that one Mr.Ramani serving in postal department had played a vital role in bogus postal voting. The applicants have produced voluminous documents to show that they had apprehended bogus voting by post even long prior to conduct of the election. Inspite of the fact that they alerted the higher officials of the postal department and the protest raised by them, they could not stall the bogus voting by post. It is his further submission that if the present elected body is permitted to take policy decision in the General Body Meeting, the object of the suit itself will be defeated. The respondents did not adhere to the time tested function of permitting the erstwhile office bearers to submit the financial accounts in the General Body Meeting which is convened. Therefore, he would submit that the respondents will have to be restrained from taking any policy decision in the General Body Meeting.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujam appearing for respondents 1, 3 and 4 would submit that the present committee members have taken a decision to call for explanation from the erstwhile office bearers as to the financial irregularities committed just prior to the date of election. Only to stall such an action contemplated by the new office bearers, the present suit has been filed after about 1-1/2 months from the date of taking charge by the present office bearers on winning the election. It is his further submission that the General Body Meeting which is convened as per the byelaws cannot be stalled at an advanced stage inasmuch as no prima facie case was made out by the applicants and the applications deserve dismissal, he would submit.
6. It is found that only the applicants have formed the Election Committee while they were in office. The Minutes of the Election Committee Meeting held on 3.7.2008 would disclose that the conduct of an election and counting of Ballot Papers were totally transparent. Five members from different team including the contestants were permitted inside the counting circle demarked by ropes. The Ballot Papers were subjected to checks and re-checks by the volunteers by interchanging the checker and re-checker. The Postal Ballot Papers were taken on priority basis for counting. The covers which contained more than three Ballot Papers were deemed as invalid. The entire counting process was photographed. CCTV had been installed in the counting hall with screens put up on the terrace where members were seated. Strict observance of the abovesaid formalities contemplated by the Election Committee in its meeting held on 3.7.2008 was not at all in dispute. The applicants have not denied their participation along with their volunteers during the course of counting of the Postal Ballot Papers. There was no untoward incident during the course of counting. The Election Committee did not choose to reject the postal votes. It is to be borne in mind that the Committee members were appointed by the applicants who were the then office bearers of the first respondent association. There is also no denial of the fact that entire process was videographed. The Election Committee headed by the second respondent had declared the election results. The fact remains that the result was published on 7.7.2008 and the then General Secretary Mr.G.Santhanam had handed over charge on 9.7.2008 to the third respondent. There was a smooth change of guards in the aftermath of the election declared by the Election Committee.
7. The management had recognized the respondents as present office bearers of the first respondent association. The operation of the bank accounts jointly by the General Secretary and the Treasurer of the first respondent has also been communicated to various branches where account of the first respondent is maintained. The General Body Meeting has been proposed to be convened on 14.9.2008. It is contended by the applicants that all preparations had been made for the General Body Meeting scheduled to be held on 14.9.2008.
8. Once the election result was declared and the charges were handed over to the new office bearers, the Election Committee formed for the specific purpose of holding the election on 5.7.2008 will not have a say in the subsequent development that is taking place challenging the election of the office bearers. Therefore, the second respondent has no authority to address either the present office bearers or the erstwhile office bearers about the development that has taken place after the change of guards. In other words, the Election Committee which has been assigned the specific job of holding the election for the period from 2008-2011 becomes functus officio after the smooth take over of office by the present elected office bearers.
9. It is found that the applicants have come out with the present suit only after about 1-1/2 months from the date of taking charges by the present set of office bearers.
10. It is true that the applicants, apprehending rigging of postal votes, sent various communications to the postal authorities and they also suspected the role of one Ramani attached to the postal department in bogus postal voting. What actually is the specific role of the said Ramani has not been disclosed in the pleading. Which office bearer has connection with the said Ramani has also not been disclosed. For the sake of mere suspicion, the General Body Meeting proposed to be held cannot be stalled by this court. If any financial irregularity has been committed by the erstwhile office bearers, the law will take its own course. Therefore, there is no justification in the plea of the applicants to stall the General Body Meeting proposed by the present office bearers. When smooth take over of charge had taken place after the election result was properly published by the Election Committee formed by the erstwhile office bearers, the present office bearers cannot be restrained from holding the office as elected members of the first respondent association. It is not as if the whole election process was shrouded in secrecy. As already pointed out by this court as per the Minutes of the Election Committee, the entire process was completely videographed and screened outside for viewing by the anxious members of the first respondent association.
11. Therefore, the court finds that the applicants have failed to establish a prima facie case for appointing an officer of this court to conduct fresh election. The balance of convenience is found only in favour of the respondents who have taken charge as office bearers of the first respondent. Much hardship will be caused to them if they are restrained from functioning in their capacity as newly elected office bearers.
12. In view of the above, all these three applications stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
Ssk