JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.
(1) Plaintiff in both suits is Bharat Sevak Samaj (For short ‘BSS’). Suit No. 2187188 has been filed through Shree Ram Tiwari as General Secretary of B.S.S. and in this order. l. willdescribe.plaintiff of this suit as B.S.S.(T) Suit No. 2200/88 -has been filed through Sheo Stiankar Singh (for short ‘Singh’) as General Secretary of B.S.S. and in this order I will describe plaintiff of this suit as B.S.S.(S).
(2) B.S.S. is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was registered in the year 1952. Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru was its founder President and Shri Gulzari Lal Nanda was founder Chairman of B.S.S. As the name itself suggests, it was service oriented organisation. The B.S.S. has laudable objects. Its object are to find and develop avenues of voluntary service for the citizens of India; to promote national sufficiency and build up the economic strength of the country; to promote the social and moral well being of community and to mitigate the privations and hardships of its less favored sections; to draw out the available unused time, energy and other resources of the people and divert them into various fields of social and economic activity and to take all steps necessary for the fulfillment of the said objects, it is unfortunate that such a service oriented organisation has disputes as to who has the right to manage its affairs. Plaintiff in both suits claims this right.
(3) Bss has four classes of members-(i) Ordinary; (ii) Active; (iii) Life workers and (iv) Institutional. Persons who are enrolled as members of the Life Workers’ Body (Bharat Sevak Mission) as per its constitution, become ‘Life Workers’. Member whose work and I or conduct is prejudicial to the objects of the Samaj, is liable to expulsion in accordance with the Rules framed by Central Administrative Committee. The organisational set up consists of (i) General Council (ii) Central Board (iii) Administrative Committee (iv) Life Workers Body (Bharat Sevak Mission). The General Council lays down the policy of B.S.S. and the Bharat Yuvak Samaj and it consists of Members as provided in the Constitution of B.S.S. The constitution also provides that the Central Board will consist of the .President, the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, the General Secretary, the Treasurer and the Joint Secretaries of the Central Samaj, the Chairman of each of Pradesh Branches and such other members as may be nominated by the President. The Board is to receive reports of the Administrative Committee and approves the budget of the office of B.S.S. It is provided that members of the Board will hold office for two years and the Board will normally meet at least once every quarter.
(4) The overall administrative control vests in the Administrative Committee. The constitution provides that the Administrative committee will be set up by the Chairman to deal with the day to day work and will consist of the President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman. General Secretary etc. and not more than 13 members to be nominated by the Chairman. The term of office of members of the Committee is two years. The constitution also provides that Shri G. L. Nanda. Founder or the Bharat Sevak Samaj, shall be a permanent member of the Bharat Sevak Samaj, the General Council, Central Board and Administrative Committee.
(5) The President and the Chairman are chosen by the General Council and are to hold office for a period of two years. The President is the Head of the organisation and in his absence, the Chairman is to preside over the meetings of the General Council, the Central Board, and the Administrative Committee. The Chairman has been given powers to appoint Vice-Chairman, General Secretary, the Joint Secretaries and other office beavers, except the Treasurer, as and when the vacancies occur. The General Council is required to meet once a year.
(6) B.S.S. (T), in its suit has claimed a decree for declaration that defendant No. I (Sheo Shankar Singh) has ceased to be the General Secretary and a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants from claiming themselves to be office bearers of the plaintiff and from using the name of Bss in any manner whatsoever and from receiving or seeking donations from public or grants from government etc., and from interfering in the working of the plaintiff and its constituted bodies.
(7) Briefly the case of BSS(T) is that defendant No. I, Singh was appointed as the General Secretary and defendant No. 2 Bishnu Dutt Tyagi, was appointed as the Joint Secretary of Bss by its Chairman Swami Hari Narayan (for short ‘Swami’) and with passage of time. defendants I to 3, engaged themselves in activities prejudicial to BSS. It is also alleged that the group headed by Singh has been interfering and acting illegally to create confusion between the Central Samaj and its branches and Singh and Tyagi. pursuant to their anti-organisation designs, have been issuing circulars unauthorisedly calling meetings which were later on cancelled by the Chairman as not having been called in consultation with the Chairman and the President. It is further alleged that Tyagi issued a circular letter informing all the members that a meeting of the General Body will be held on 16[17th July 1988 without the consent of President, Chairman and the Administrative Committee having fixed the date or having decided to hold a meeting. Swami addressed a letter to Singh on 13th May 1988 pointing out that he was acting contrary to the constitution provision. because he had no right to call such meetings and was directed against convening the said meeting. Certain other allegations have also been made but these are not relevant for deciding these applications. Further ease of the plaintiff is that Singh and Tyagi were removed as office bearers by the orders of the Chairman. Singh was removed on May 18, 1988. Consequent to the removal of Singh Shree Ram Tiwari was appointed as General Secretary on 19-5-88. Mahesh Sharma and S. S. Walia (Life worker) were appointed as Joint Secretaries of B.S.S. by the Chairman.
(8) Singh filed a suit No. 611188 in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, for declaration that he was illegally removed and sought an injunction restraining B.S.S. and its Chairman Swami not to interfere with his working as the General Secretary and an ex-parte order was passed on Jane 21, 1988 by Shri S. S. Bal, learned Adj restraining defendants therein from interfering in working of Singh as General Secretary to B.S.S. After obtaining the ex-parte stay. Singh and Tyagi issued a notice informing that meeting of General Council will be held on 6th and 7th July 1988. On application of B.S.S.(T) an ex-parte restraint order was passed by Shri S. S, Bal on July 5, 1988 restraining Singh from holding any meeting on 6th July 1988. By order made by Shri Bal, on July 6, 1988 Shri Singh was restrained to hold any meeting till the next date namely. July 18., 1988 On July 8, 1988 by yet another ex-parte order of Mr. S. S. Bal, learned A.D.J. restrained Swami and B.S.S. from holding meeting on July 9. 1983 or on any other date till further orders. The “order dated July 8. 1988 was passed on application of Singh dated 7th July 1988. inter-alia. claiming that they had already held a meeting on 6th July 1988 in which they had elected Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha. Minister of Textiles as- President and Shri Satendra Narayan Sinha. Member of Parliament as Chairman. Singh also asserted that in the said meeting it was resolved that he will continue to be the General Secretary. On 18th July 1988 the case. was adjourned to 27th July 1988 when it was adjourned to 28th July `1988. On July 28. 1988 Singh made a statement that he does not want to proceed with the suit and wants to withdraw it. In view of statement of Singh. suit was dismissed as withdrawn by orders made by learned A.D.J.onJuly28,1988.
(9) B.S.S.(T) says that Singh & Tyagi had no power to call any meeting; Singh had engaged himself in a coup and held some mock proceedings during the pendency of the suit, while his right as a General Secretary was in controversy and they made a statement on 28th July 1988 withdrawing the suit without seeking permission to file a fresh suit and the effect of It is that Singh is estopped from asserting that he was removed illegally or to challenge his removal. It also says Shri Singh printed statutory forms showing the name of Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha as President on which Swami addressed a letter to Shri Mirdha, asking him whether he had .actually associated himself with the said .group and to this Shri Mirdha replied in negative. Subsequently defendants changed the statutory forms thus omitting the name of the President and putting the name of Shri Satendra Narayan Sinha, defendant No. 4, as National Chairman and mentioning the name of Shri Gulzari Lal Nanda, as the founder Chairman. On the basis of aforesaid averments, it is claimed that defendants of Suit No. 2187/88 are all usurpers and their claim to be office bearers of B.S.S. is unsustainable in law and facts and they have no right to interfere in the working of B.S.S. and mislead its members and members of the General Council.
(10) By ex-parte orders made by me on September 8, 1988 on. I.A. 6130/88 which was filed Along with Suit No. 2187/88 for grant of temporary injunction, defendants were restrained from interfering in the working of the plaintiff and disturbing the meeting of the General Council scheduled to be held on 12th September 1988.
(11) B.S.S. has filed a counter suit (Suit No. 2200188) impleading Swami Har Narayananand, Shree Ram Tiwari, B. I. Bhardwaj and Mahesh Chand Sharma as defendants and claiming declaration that the President and the Chairman of B.S.S. were duly and validly elected in the meeting held on 6th July 1988 and injunction restraining defendants from holding out themselves as functionaries of B.S.S. and interfering in the management and affairs of B.S.S.
(12) Briefly the case of B.S.S(S) is that for the last many years there was unfortunately no election of the various bodies of the Samaj for the primary reason that Jeevan Lal Kapoor Commission (retired Judge of Supreme Court of India) was appointed by the Central Government to enquire into the working and affairs of the Samaj and the Commission sat for about 18 to 20 years and all this finished sometime in 1987. In this view of the matter the Administrative Committee in its meeting on 10th January 1988 decided that elections should be conducted to elect the President and the Chairman. A meeting of the Central Board was held on 9th May 1988 wherein it was decided that elections to these two posts by the General Council be done on 6/7th July 1988 extendable latest by 16th July 1988 and accordingly preparation of Elections were done which is a enormous organisational process. All General Council members were informed and invited by letters, telegrams etc. to be available at the time of elections. Accordingly, elections for the post of Chairman and President took place on 6th/7th July 1988 and Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha and Sh. S. N. Sinha were elected unanimously as President and Chairman respectively. All public functionaries sent their greetings and all national newspapers reported the election of the Chairman and the President. The President and the Chairman have taken over charge of their respective posts and are discharging their functions since then.
(13) It also says that Swami was earlier Chairman and was enjoying the position for the last more than 15 years on account of there being no elections and was informed of elections scheduled or 6th July 1988 but he did not participate. He has started a campaign informing all members that he is still the Chairman and the elections of 6-7-1988 are of no effect in law and everybody in the. country should ignore these elections. The case of B.S.S.(S) further is that a reference to letter dated 24-8-1988 written by defendant;, to all members and Pradesh Chairman shows that Swami has written that the General Secretary and Sh. V. D. Tyagi, Joint Secretary of B.S.S. have no authority to call a meeting since they were removed on 18-5-1988. This fact is claimed to be totally illegal since the General Secretary and the Joint Secretary inder the Constitution, are not elected members but are out of the Life workers body and cannot be so dismissed. The vacancy can be filled up only on its occurrance. The defendants have issued a notice dated 23rd August 1988 that a ‘General Council’ will meet on 12th September 1988. It is claimed that the proposed meeting is illegal and the defendants have no right to meet as the General Council of B.S.S.
(14) Along with the aforesaid Suit, I.A. 6170/88 was filed by B.S.S.(S) praying that defendants be restrained (i) from holding any meeting on 12th September, 1988 ; (ii) from interfering in the working and management and affairs of B.S.S. and (iii) restraining Swami from holding himself out to the members of B.S.S. and public at large as a Chairman of B.S.S. The suit and the application came up for hearing on September 8, 1988. Council for defendant No. 2 was present and defendant was present in person and it was directed that result of the meeting to be held on 12th September 1988 will not be circulated by the defendants to the other constituents of the Samaj. T.A.6491/88 in Suit 2187188 is defendants’ application under order 39 Rule
(15) Cpc for vacation of order of injunction dated 8th September 1988.
(16) The question for determination in all these applications is which of the two meetings of General Council viz 6th July 1988 or 12th September 1988 is prima facie, legal and valid and answer to this question will also determine as to which of the two groups has a right to manage the working and affairs of B.SS. B.S.S.(S) claims that President and Chairman elected in meeting of 6th July 1988 represent the real organisation and they have a right to manage the working and affairs of B.S.S. while B.S S.(T) claims that the President and Chairman elected in meeting held on 12th September 1988 have such rights. Before determining these questions it may be noted that the case of B.S.S.(T) is that in the elections held on 12th September, 1988 Sh. Gulzari Lal Nanda was unanimously elected as President and Swami was unanimously elected as Chairman. It says that, pending decision of the Central Government on the report of Jeewan Lal Kapoor Commission, was the main reason due to which elections could not be held earlier. It was on 10th June 1987 when Government of India resumed financial assistance and grants for the activities of the Samaj and cleared the Samaj of any mismanagement, that the process of holding elections was started and ultimately elections were held on 12th September 1988. It is also claimed that meeting of 12th September 1988 was attended by prominent public leaders including Shri C. M. Panigarhi, Shri Gopinath Dixit. Sh. S. N. Mishra and Shri K. N. Singh. It is further claimed that Dr. G. S. Dhillon and Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha have communicated their views in favor of Nandaji and Swamiji for their re-election. B.S.S.CT) also claims that no meeting of Central Board or any other authority was held on 9th May 1988 and the defendants on their own claim to have held a meeting on 9-5-8S which was neither authorised nor constitutional nor was any such meeting convened by the President and/or the Chairman and neither was the same presided by any of them. The alleged meeting was an anti-organisational move on behalf of Singh to usurp power and was declared null and void by Shri Gulzadi Lal Nanda and his decision was confirmed by Central Board in its meeting held on 11th September 1988. It is claimed that the Administrative Committee meeting was held on 10th January 1988. 7th June 1988 and 5th July 1988 and in the meeting of 7th June, 1988, it was decided to hold the meeting of General Council to elect the President and the Chairman on 7th August, 1988 but meanwhile Singh obtained an injunction and ultimately after dismissal of the suit, the meeting of General Council was held on 12th September 1988. There case is that no meeting of the General Council was held on 6th July 1988 as alleged by the defendants nor such meeting could have. been held in view of the injunction granted by the Civil Court and also as no date for such meeting was fixed by the Administrative Committee, President and the Chairman of B.S S.
(17) Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts which emerge from pleadings of the parties in both the suits,-I will first consider the question of validity or otherwise of meeting dated 6th July 1988. There is no dispute that a meeting of the Administrative Committee was held on 10th January 1988 which was presided by Sh. C.M. Panigrahi. B.S.S.(S) has filed copy of the minutes of the said meeting in which it is, inter-alia, recorded that General Council meeting will be held latest by 30th April, 1988. B.S.S. (T) disputes the correctness of the said minutes and relies upon minutes of administrative committee meeting held on 7th June, 1988. B.S.S.(T) has filed copy of minutes of meeting dated 7th June, 1988 which shows that Sh. Panigrahi had also attended this meeting as well. In the minutes of meeting dated 7th June, 1988 it is recorded that minutes of meeting held on 10th January 1988 were ‘not properly written by their General Secretary which fact was confirmed by .Sh. Panigrahi who had presided over the meeting of 10th January 1988, in absence of the Chairman by his approval. B.B.S(S) does not admit the correctness of the said minutes. For present purposes I will assume that proceedings of Administrative Committee meeting held on 10th January 1988 are correctly recorded in the minutes filed by B.S.S.(S). Nothing. however, hinges on that as admittedly meeting of General Council did not take place by 30th April 1988.
(18) In the minutes of the meeting held on 7th June, 1988, it is inter-alia. recorded that :- “The Chairman appraised the Committee the grave situation and the circumstances in which he was compelled to remove Shri Sheo Shanker Singh from the General Secretaryship of the Samaj. The Committee appreciated the action and observed that the so called meeting of the Central Board which was held on 9th May 1988 cannot be legal or Constitutionally binding as this was previously cancelled by the Chairman had already declared void by the President of the Satna. Therefore, there is no need of taking any noticed Of it, as that was only a get together of few individuals. There was suggestion from some members that the Chairman may reconsider to associate Shri Sheo Shanker Singh again if he realises his mistakes and irregularities. The Chairman Swami observed that he has full sympathy and affection for him but the circumstances were so grave that was necessary to preserve deseipline, dignity and prestige of the Organisation. But still he will consider for taking his co-operation. The Committee decided to hold a regular meeting of the Central Board in the first week of July according to the convenience of the President and date would be fixed with his consent. The Committee also considered to hold the meeting of the reconstituted General Council to meet the Constitutional requirements and to lay down further policy of the Samaj in the end of July or 1st week of August, 1988. The date should be fixed at the convenience of the President. Shri Nandaji.”
It is a common case. of the parties that by his letter dated May 18, 1988 the Chairman had removed Singh front the post of General Secretary of the Organisation with immediate effect. The receipt of the letter dated May 18, 1988 is not denied by Singh. It is an admitted document (Exhibit Pl3). B.S.S.(S), however, disputes the power of the Chairman to remove the General Secretary.
(19) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned counsel for B.S.S.(S) and defendants in Suit No. 2187188, submitted that General Secretary and Joint Secretary are very important posts which are held by seasoned life workers; more than 20 years ago. one T. Ramachandra was the General Secretary; M. M. Wakhara and Sheo Shankar Singh were the senior and junior Joint Secretaries respectively ; on resignation of Ramachandra. Wakhare was promoted to his post and Singh took the post of Wakhare; thereafter Wakhare also resigned as General Secretary and Singh being the next in rank became the General Secretary and. because of vacancy created by Singh Tyagi was appointed as Joint Secretary and since then & Tyagi have continued in their respective posts being full time life Mission Workers. The substance of argument of learned counsel is that Singh & Tyagi have come up the ladder rung by rung and as -such, the Chairman has no power to remove them. The power to appoint General Secretary the Joint Secretaries and other office bearers as per clause 18(b)(ii) of the Constitution of B.S.S., vests in the Chairman. The said clause reads as under :– 18(B)(II): The Chairman will appoint Vice-Chairman of whom one will be designated as the “Senior Vice-Chairman”. He will also appoint General Secretary, the Joint Secretaries and other office-bearers, except the Treasurer, as and when the vacancies occur. The General Secretary or one of the Joint Secretaries shall be a Life-Worker/whole time worker.”
(20) In view of the aforesaid clause, the argument that Singh and Tyagi came up the ladder rung by rung is of no conssquence. If Chairman appoints a junior person on availability of a senior posts, it cannot be said to be a case of promotion as contended by the learned counsel. No order has been placed on record to show that it was case of promotion which otherwise too is not in consonance with he aforesaid clause.
(21) It was neither seriously disputed nor can it be disputed that power to appoint carries with it the power to remove as well. Mr. Rohtagi, however, contended that the words ‘as & when the vacancies occur in aforesaid clause 18 show that the Chairman does not have absolute power to appoint an officebearer and such a power can be exercised only when a vacancy occurs either by resignation or death and the Chairman cannot create a vacancy by removal of an office-bearer and then appoint some other person. I cannot accept the contention. The contention if accepted will mean that an office-bearer cannot be removed even if he acts against the interest of the organisation. It is also not possible to accept the contention that, for all intends and purposes, the appointments of office-bearers is for life. The clause shows that the only requirement is that the General Secretary or one of the Joint Secretaries shall be a Life worker/ whole-time worker. The clause 8 which provide that member whose work and/or conduct is prejudicial to the objects of the Samaj) shall be liable to expulsion from the Samaj in accordance with the rules framed by Central Administrative Committee, has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case, as Singh and Tyagi were removed not as members but as office bearers of the Samaj.
(22) The scheme of the constitution of B.S.S vests numerous powers with the Chairman including power to set. up the Administrative Committee and nominate certain members to the said committees and the Chairman of the Pradesh Branches are to be appointed by the President, on the advise of the Chairman and as such the power to remove office bearers fit in the scheme of the constitution of the Samaj. Furthermore Singh had challenged his removal but the suit was unconditionally withdrawn. Removal of Singh has also been approved in the meeting of the Administrative committee meeting held on 5-7-1988 and presided by Shri Gubari Lal Nanda in which it is recorded that removal was under competence of the Chairman.
(23) The next aspect to be considered is when and who decided that General Council meeting should be held on 6th/7th July 1988. Admittedly the date 6th July 1988 was not fixed in consultation with or concurrence of the President or the Chairman. The case of B.S.S.(S) is that in the meeting of Central Board held on 9th May 1988 it was decided that General Council meeting should be held latest by 16th/17th July 1988 as such it was held on 6th July 1988. At once the question arises whether Central Board was empowered to fix date of holding General Council meeting. Assuming it was, did any meeting of Central Board take place on 9th May 1988 and was it legal. If the answer to those questions is in affirmative the next question would be as to what was decided in the meeting of Central Board on 9th May 1988.
(24) Parties are at variance on all the aforesaid questions. B.S’.S.(T) relying on clauses Ii and 16, says that the only power of the Board is receive .reports of the Administrative Committees and approve the budget of the office of he Central Samaj and the other powers including day to day work and execution of policies and programmes of the Samaj, vest in the Administrative Committees. It says that power to fix date of General Council meeting vests in the President, Chairman or the Administrative Committee and the Central Board has no such power. The scheme of the constitution of B.S.S. shows that stand of B.S.S.(T) is prima facie correct but for determining the questions involved in thee application. I will assume. that Central Board had the power to fix date of General Council meeting and proceed to decide other questions.
(25) B.S.S.(S) says that meeting of Central Board was held on 9th May 1988. It is disputed by B.S.S.(T). It is not the case of B.S.S.(S) that date of 9th May 1988 was fixed in consultation with the President or the Chairman or it was fixed by the Administrative Committee. According to it such consultation is not necessary. I cannot accept. Under the scheme of constitution of B.S.S. such consultation is implicit. The meeting of 9th May, 1988 appears to have been fixed without such consultation but it cannot be said that the meeting was in fact not held. From the minutes of Central Board meeting dated 9-5-1988 placed on record by B.S.S.(S), it is evident that neither President nor Chairman nor Vice-Chairman attended the meeting. The Administrative Committee meeting dated 7th June, 1988 was attended by Swami as Chairman and Mr. M. M. Jacob as Vice-Chairman besides others. The meeting of 5th July, 1988 was attended by Mr. Nanda and Swami besides others. Letter dated 2nd May 1988 (Ex. P-4) from Sh. Nanda to Swami shows that notice for the meeting of 9th May, 1988 was issued. But soon thereafter by letter dated 13th May, 1988 (Ex. P/2) Swami wrote to Singh that “there was no meeting of the Central Board held on 9-5-1988 as that was already cancelled because the meeting was not called with consultation of the President and the Chairman.” No reply was sent to this admitted document Ex. P/2.
(26) Under the Rules the meeting was required to be presided by the President and in his absence by the Chairman. It was neither presided by the President nor by the Chairman. From the letter dated 16-5-1988 of Shri Nanda to Swami, It appears that the President declared the meeting of 9th May, as null and void as it had been called inspite of the fact that the Chairman had cancelled it. It is also so recorded in the minutes of the Administrative Committee dated 7th June, 1988, confirmed in meeting of Administrative Committee dated 5-7-1988 presided by Mr. Nanda. The meeting dated 9th May, 1988 cannot be held to be legal and valid simply because some members met in pursuance thereof. In my view this meeting was rightly not called as a valid meeting by the President and the Chairman.
(27) Assuming the meeting of 9th May, 1988 was valid, the next question would be as to what was decided in this meeting. The stand of B.S.S.(S) is that in this meeting it was inter-alia-decided that “the meeting of the General Council of the Samaj be held latest by 16th & 17th July, 1988 at B.S.S. Nehru Seva Kendra to :–(a) Elect the President and Chairman of the Samaj to fill the vacancies, (b) to amend the constitution; (c) to perform all other functions of the General Council”. A copy of minutes of the meeting dated 9-5-1988 has been placed on record by B.S.S.(S). Mr. Mukul Rohtagi. learned counsel, has also shown me the register containing the minutes of meeting dated 9th May, 1988.
(28) The case before me is that as the General Council meeting was decided to be held latest by 16th & 17th July, 1988 it was called for 6th July, 1988. The further case of B.S.S.(S) is that it was not decided in the meeting of 9th May, 1988 that General Council meeting be held on 16th/l7th July, 1988 nor was any notice issued for meeting of General Council to be held on 16th/17th July, 1988. During the course of hearing on 1st March, 1989, Mr. Rohtagi on instructions of Tyagi state that the notice was issued by defendants for any meeting of Genera] Council to be held on 16th/l7tb July, 1988. On 2nd March, 1989 I directed that the record of Suit No. 611188 entitled Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. Swami Harnarainnan and another from the court of Sh. S. S. Bal, Additional District Judge, Delhi, be summoned.
(29) The summoned record reveals a different picture. A copy of minutes of meeting dated 9-5-88 filed in the said case shows that the meeting of the General Council was decided to be held on 16th & 17th July, 1988 and not latest by the said dates. The record further reveals that specific averment was made in Para 9 of the plaint of the said suit that the resolution was to hold meeting of the General Council on 16th/17th July, J9S8. Counsel submitted that there was typographical error in the plaint and copy of minutes filed in the court of Sh. Bal. Counsel says that the original minutes show that the decision was to hold general council meeting latest by 16th! 17th July, 1988. Either it is a case of typographical error or of manipulation of minutes and of taking different stands at different times in different courts, to suit ones convenience. The former is understandable but later is most deplorable. Let me test it.
(30) Had it been a case of typographical error, in Para 10 of the plaint of the summoned record, Singh will not make an averment that :- “That in pursuance to this decision, a notice was issued by defendant No. 2 through its General Secretary Shri V. D. Tvagi for holding a meeting of the All India General’ Council of Bharat Sewak Samaj.e. supreme body of the Samaj on 16th and 17th July, 1988 to consider the various points discussed in the meetings referred to above informing the members about the agenda proposed to be considered in the said meeting”.
(31) Similar averment is again made in Para 18 of the said plaint. Assume ail this is on account of typographical error but what about notice dated 10th May, 1988 filed by Singh in the court of Mr. Bal, stating that meeting of General Council will beheld on 16th & 17th July, 1988. This notice is not consistent with the plea of typographical error now taken on behalf of B.S.Si(S), Singh, Tyagi and other defendants of Suit No. 2187/8S. On 1st March 1989, a statement was made that no notice for meeting of 16th & 17th July, 1988 was sent. It was obviously a wrong statement. During course of hearing, when asked to .admit or deny the notice signed by Tyagi informing members that the meeting of the General Council will be held on 16th & 17th July, 1988 the endorsement was made that “Signatures admitted”. I may note that in Suit 2200/8, B.S.S. (S) says that in meeting of 9-5-88 it was decided that elections to those two posts by ‘General Council be done on 6/7th July 1988 extendable latest by 16th July, 1988. It is not so stated in the minutes filed by B.S.S.(S) itself. This is altogether a new version of what transpired in the meeting of 9th May, 1988. It may also be noticed that in admitted letter dated May 13, 1988 (Ex. P. 2), sent by Swami to Singh, it is stated that he had seen a circular letter signed by Tyagi addressed to all members of the General Council, Central-Board, Administrative Committee, Pradesh Chairman and Secretaries and Life Workers regarding holding the meeting of the General Council on 16th and 17th July, 1988. No reply to this admitted letter was sent.
(32) Therefore aspects of the case clearly show that the plea of typographical error is wholly misconceived and totally untenable. It is clearly a case of abuse of process of the court by taking different stands in different courts at different stages with a view to suit one’s convenience. It is highly deplorable. The injunction is an equitable relief in the discretion of the court. A parly seeking injunction has to approach the court with dean hands. BS.S(S) and defendants in Suit No. 2187/88. have not done so. Their hands are tainted. It follows from the above discussion that original minutes shown to the court were manipulated. It is evident that when Suit No. 611/88 was filed, the meeting of General Council was fixed for 16th & 17th July, 1988. Notices for this meeting were sent. After filing the suit and obtaining ex-parte injunction, a notice dated 18th July, 1988(Ex. P.5) was issued intimating members that meeting will I be held on 6th &7th July, 1988. On 5th July, 1988, Additional District Judge.. passed order restraining Singh from holding any meeting on 6th July, 1988. On 7th July, 1988 Singh filed an application stating that the meeting and elections have taken place on 6th July, 1988 and when the purpose is served the suit is withdrawn on 28th July, 1988. Who decided to proponed the date from 16th & 17th July, 1988 to 6th July, 1988, is not known.
(33) It is not the case that after 9th May, 1988, Central Board again met and decided that General Council should be held on 6th July, 1988 but as meeting had been held on 6th July, 1988, manipulation of minutes was done by substituting the words latest by for the words, ‘on’. There was no decision to hold General Council on 6th & 7th July, 1988 or latest by 16th/l7th July, 1988. It follows from above that meeting of 6th July 1983 is not legal, valid and of any consequence. It has to be ignored. B.S.S.(S) or defendants in Suit No. 2187/88 cannot claim a right to manage the affairs of Bharat Sevak Samaj on the basis of meeting held on 6th July, 1988.
(34) Mr. Safaya, learned counsel for B.S.S.(S) and defendants in Suit No. 2200188 submits that in reality there was no meeting on 6th July, 1988 and if at all only mock proceedings were held. Reference has been made by learned counsel to two notices dated 18th June, 1988 (Ex. P-5 and P-10) issued by Singh, one staling that General Council meeting will be held on 6th or 7th July, 1988 at Nehru Sewa Kendra, 3ye Pass Road, Mehrauli at 10 A.M. and the other stating that meeting of the General Body of the Life Workers Mission will be held on same dates, at same time and at same place. These notices were issued by Singh after his removal. Mr. Safaya draws an inference from these two notices that meeting of Life Workers Mission Was projected as a meeting of General Council and submits that how otherwise Two meetings were held or could be held on same date, same time and same place. It appears to be so. The notice Fx. P-5 does not even state that meeting of 16th & 17th July, 1988 is being proponed to be held on 6th July, 1988.
(35) Mr. Safaya further submits that B.S.S.(S) has claimed that on 6th July, 1988 Mr. Mirdha was elected as President but he has disassociated himself from the alleged meeting and election of 6th July, 1988. Council has placed reliance on two letters one dated July 10, 1988 and the other dated 11th September, 1988. These letters purport to bear the signatures of Mr. Mirdha and do support the contention of the counsel. Although these letters have been denied by the other group but in .absence of any other document filed by them contradicting what is stated in these letters in my view, reliance can safely be placed on the said letters for determining prima facie case. It was open to B.S.S.(S) to file any document to show that the said letters do. not reflect the correct picture particularly when it is their claim that Mr. Mirdha was elected President in the elections held on 6th July 1988, and has taken over charge as a President and is discharging his functions since then. I! may also be noticed that in the letter heads being used by this group, name of Mr. Mirdna as President has been omitted although it appears that his name appeared in letter heads for some time. The documents filed by B.S.S.(S) also show the names of Shri M. M. Jacob and Sh. C. M. Panigrahi as Vice-Chairman and Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh as National Chairman. But from the documents filed by B.S.S.(T) it is clear that Mr. Jacob ‘and Mr. Panigrahi were present in meeting of Administrative Committee of 7th June 1988 presided by Mr. Swami and Mr. Panigrahi was present even on 12-9-88 when General Council was presided by Sh. Nanda.
(36) Counsel for the parties have also relied upon the massages sent by various public functionaries including the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister and the Speaker, on elections of 6th July 1988 and 12th September 1988. It is not possible to place reliance on the said documents as these functionaries do not go into the questions of inter-se disputes between the rival groups on validity of these meetings nor are they expected to go into these questions nor is it ordinarily possible.
(37) The only objection to the General Council meeting of 12th September 1988 is that such a meeting having already been held on 6th July 1988, in which President and the Chairman were elected, no meeting could be held validly on 12th September 1988. There is no substance in this objection. In view of my conclusion that meeting of 6th July 1988 was not valid. The fact that elections were not held for 15 years for reasons good, bad or indifferent is also not relevant in view of the elections having been now held on 12th September 1988. The meeting of 12th September, 1988 was legal and valid. In these elections, Sh. Gulzari Lal Nanda and Swami Harnarayanand were elected President and the Chairman respectively and, in my opinion, they represent the real organisation and this group has a right to manage the working and affairs of Bharat Sewak Samaj. In substance plaintiff Bharat Sewak Samaj in Suit No. 2187188 represents this group and plaintiff Bharat Sewak Samaj in Suit No. 2200/88 represents the other group.
(38) The expression of opinion in this order is prima facie and will have no effect on merits of controversy in the suit.
(39) For the reasons aforesaid, defendants, namely, Sheo Shankar Singh, Vishnu Dutt Tyagi, Ravinder Gupta and Sateadra Narayan Sinha are restrained from using the name of Bharat Sewak Samaj and from interfering with the affairs, working and management of the said Samaj, in any manner whatsoever, and from receiving or seeking donations from public or grants from government or any other authority in the name of the Samaj and from representing to be the office bearers of Bharat Sewak Samaj, till the decision of these suits. Accordingly, I.A. 6135/88 in Suit No. 2187/88 is allowed and I.A. 6170/88 in Suit No. 2200/88 & I.A. 64911,88 in Suit No. 2187188 are dismissed, and order made on September 9, 1988 in Suit No. 2200/88 is vacated. CCP4/89 has been filed by the plaintiff in Suit No. 2187/88. C.C.P.84/88 has been filed by plaintiff in Suit No. 2200/88. I do not consider it expedient to proceed against respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly both these contempt petitions are dismissed.
DEFENDANTS of Suit No. 2187188 will also pay costs of these applications to the plaintiff. Counsel’s fee Rs. 3,000.00 .