ORDER
1. This application is to vacate the order of injunction dated 3.4.2001. passed in O.A.No.291 of 2001.
2. The suit in C.S.No.249 of 2001 has been filed for a declaration that the meeting conducted by the second defendant on 19.3.2001 and 27.3.2001, purporting to be the General Body Meeting of the Madras Advocates’ Association, Chennai, as invalid and non est in law and the resolutions passed therein are null and void and not binding on the members of the association; for a declaration that the Election Notification dated 28.3.2001 issued by the respondent 3 to 5 claiming themselves to be Election Officers pursuant to the resolution dated 27.3.2001, as null and void; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, particularly, the second defendant from in any way interfering with the functioning of the plaintiff as Secretary and Election Officer of the Advocates’ Association.
3. (a) In the suit, Original Application No.291 of 2001 has been filed for injunction, in the affidavit filed along with the Judge’s Summons, it is stated
that the Advocates’ Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act, under Registration No.20 of 1968; The affairs of the Association are governed by its bye-laws. As per the bye-laws, the Governing Body (Executive Committee) consists of a President, two Secretaries, one Librarian and eleven Members. They are elected by ballot at the Annual General Body Meeting in an election process. The tenure of the office of the President, Librarian and Council Members are ‘until the next election’. The tenure of office of Secretaries is two years; The secretaries retire and continue by rotation and such continuity is maintained in order to ensure that there is no vacuum in the administration of the affairs of the association. There is no provision for terminating the tenure of any of the elected office bearers or the council members before their term actually ends. By-law 25 envisages the conduct of elections by the Secretaries; By-Laws also provide for the General Body Meeting-both ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’. It is only for the council to call for other meeting in terms of the bye-taws. The last election was held on 19.4.2000. Mr.C.T. Mohan, the then continuing Secretary conducted the election as Election Officer and the petitioner was elected as Secretary and the second respondent was elected as President. The petitioner was elected for two years. The tenure of Mr.C.T. Mohan, the other Secretary would come to an end in me next election. If that be so, in accordance with the Rules, 128 members of the Association gave requisition on 7.7.2000 for convening a General Body Meeting. But General Body was not convened. Hence he gave a letter of protest on 18.8.2000 to the second respondent and other officers expressing the unpleasantness, that there was no purpose in merely attending the meeting unless he was permitted to function freely. But, he continued to function as the secretary in all matters concerning the institution. But, he declined to sign the cheques in the absence of proper resolutions. The second respondent unanimously assumed the powers to sign the cheques for expenses along with other Secretary; the petitioner did not abandon his rights.
(b) In or about, December, 2000, the second respondent took up the issue of controversy over the age of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India; The second respondent appeared as counsel for Mr. S.K. Sundaram, Advocate; He also filed a writ of quo warranto against the Chief Justice of India before the Supreme Court; Majority of the members of the association fell that they could not participate in the so called ‘General Body Meetings’ held by the second respondent in the matter of issue of age of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India; The members felt that the very participation in such matters would amount to serious contempt of court; But the second respondent went on to hold meetings as if they were legal General Body Meeting in which he was authorised to file proceedings against the Hon’ble Chief Justice and also as if sanction was accorded to meet the expenses incurred by the second respondent. Resolutions were printed and circulated freely by the second respondent in his personal name. The meetings went on without participation of the Secretaries and the Secretaries did not sign the so-called resolution. Under the circumstances, a meeting of Executive Council was held on 16.3.2001 in which the second
respondent demanded that he must be paid Rs.65,000 (Rupees sixty- five thousand only) to re-imburse the expenses incurred by him in the matter of filing a writ against the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. The Executive Council unanimously rejected that demand and resolved to seek approval before a fresh General Body Meeting with due notice and agenda that was circulated. The second respondent declared that there was a “constitutional impasse”; and that there will be a General Body Meeting of the Association on 19.3.2001 and intimation was displayed on the black boards of the association; There was no agenda mentioned in the intimation. Therefore, the members of the association took it that it was one of the usual meetings. However, the second respondent held a meeting on 19.3.2001 and announced that a resolution was passed dissolving the entire Executive Council by the vote of 52 against 16. That meeting was illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the resolution passed therein was not binding and null and void as it was in violation of the bye-laws. There is no provision in the bye-laws for dissolving the elected council and for terminating the tenure of the office-bearers until their full term of the office expires. The second respondent took a stand and announced that the entire council had been dissolved. The council met on the next date on 20.3.2001 and passed resolution unanimously declaring that the meeting held by Mr. R. Karuppan was illegal and void as well as the resoiution dissolving the council was invalid. The council has also fixed the date 20th April, 2001 for electing a President, one Secretary, one Librarian and eleven Executive Members and authorised the petitioner as the continuing Secretary to be the Election Officer to conduct election. The resolution was published by way of press release and placing it on the notice board, immediately. The election was notified as per the bye-laws on 23.3.2001. But, when the resolution was circulated to the second respondent, he took a stand there he was not the President as on that date. Therefore, it was not necessary to consult the second respondent before deciding about the election. The Election Notification was made by the petitioner, in accordance with the rules. However, the second respondent invited a meeting on 27.3.2001 in the capacity of the “ex- President” for amending the bye-laws and for announcing the election committee and also for appointing Election Officers and to re-consider the resolution. On that date, objections were raised and the meeting could not be held and the second respondent announced that the dissolution of the council as resolved in the meeting dated 19.3.2001 had been re-affirmed and that the Governing Council remained dissolved and a fresh election was notified. Respondents-3 to 5 were appointed as election officers. The dissolution of the Council was not an agenda. The resolution alleged to have been passed on 19.3.2001 and 27.3.2000 are invalid and not binding on the defendants. The stand of the second respondent is that he is only an ‘ex- President. As Secretary he is continuing and he is entitled to hold office for two years from April, 2000 or till the elections are held in the year 2002 or till another election is held and the petitioner is the Election Officer as per the bye-laws. Respondents-3 to 5 could not act as Election Officers. There cannot be a parallel election process.
The resolution created a vacuum in the administration of the association. Such a contingency is not permissible in law.
(c) Therefore, the petitioner prayed for an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, particularly the second respondent from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner as secretary and Election Officer. He also prayed for an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents-2 to 5 from interfering with the petitioner from conducting the election to fill up the posts of President, Secretary, Librarian and eleven Council Members.
4. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, ad-interim injunction was granted as prayed for a period of two weeks.
5. Application No.1843 of 2001 has been filed, to vacate the ad-interim injunction, by the 2nd defendant. In this affidavit, it is stated as follows: The Secretary indulged in activities to sabotage the functioning of the Association and invited dissatisfaction from the members. He claims continuation in the post despite his resignation. The plaintiff has not complied with the mandate of Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C. The plaintiff deliberately sent the copy of the order and documents by post, so that it would not be received till 9th April, 2000. The plaintiff had suppressed the fact and got interim order. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the dissolving of the elected body by general body and forcing election on the plaintiff as well; therefore, he can only seek an injunction restraining enforcement of the resolution against him. The relief claimed in the suit and the interim injunction militates against each other. The general body is supreme. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can move only the general body and he cannot convene executive committee. The executive committee which is a creation of the general body cannot override its creators. No elected body can be allowed to function, if it chooses to defy the mandate ot the general body. Such a situation would be a Constitutional breakdown. The plaintiff’s claim that the bye-laws authorise him alone to be the election officer is not correct. But, bye-laws, in fact authorise only the President to be the election officer and he alone is empowered to nominate three advocates to be the tellers to conduct the election. It is not correct to say that the conventions and traditions have no sanctity and only bye-laws will prevail. It is not correct to say that the President has no power to convene the general body meeting. Under the bye-law 25, the President has discretionary powers in all matters not specially provided for in these rule or in the bye-laws. Ever since the election, the petitioner is attempting to sabotage all activities of the association. He relinquished his duties by the letter dated 18.8.2000. The only duty of the Secretary is to sign the cheques; But, he refused to effect the balance payment after having signed the cheque for Rs.50,000 towards advance payment for air-conditioning the library hall of the association with a view to cause loss to the association. The plaintiff by refusing to heed to the mandate of the general body created an impasse warranting the dissolution of the governing body. His conduct was brought to the notice of all the members through the publication
of the second defendant called, “Flaws”. The act of the second defendant in defending Mr. S.K.Sundaram, subsequent to the filing of the quo warranto is without the support of the vast majority of the lawyers. If it were true, he must participate in the general body and it should be decided only in the general body meeting. No bye-laws stipulate that the secretary should sign the mandate. The use of the stationary would not vitiate the resolution passed by the general body. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the general body without notice and informing the agenda, he ought to have met the general body and notified them before approaching this Court. The petitioner can never be the election officer. The Governing Council as early as June, 2000 had resolved to bring forth the amendment enhancing the term of the office-bearers for two years. That amendment had been deferred to be passed after election of the officer-bearers. The aliegations contained in the affidavit are not true. The plaintiff/petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has misrepresented the court suppressing the happenings of the general body. Therefore, the interim injunction granted already shall be vacated and award costs.
6. The second respondent appeared as party-in-person. He argued that this is an Association of Advocates and all the office-bearers are honorary members elected in an election. The plaintiff’s Secretary and three others were acting against the interest of the association; Secretary refused to sign cheques, which is the only duty that is expected to be performed by him; he did not participate in the functions and meetings conducted by the association, thus he abandoned the post by keeping himself away; he refused to issue cheque for a sum of Rs.65.000 expended with the authority of the general body and the general body, has directed to issue cheque, yet the cheque was not signed which was against the resolution of the general body. The only option was either the Executive Committee was to be called or in the alternative to call for elections. In the circumstances, the general body by resolution in its meeting, “dismantled” the Executive Committee and hence all the office-bearers of the association ceased to be off ice-bearers. Even after that, the plaintiff called for an Executive Committee and passed a resolution to conduct the election. But the general body in the subsequent meeting reaffirmed the resolution passed earlier that the Executive Committee was dissolved and in that meeting, another resolution was passed whereby D.2 to D.5 were appointed as election officers; election schedule was issued. Once election process started, it cannot be stalled as in the case of “public election”, even by the Courts. Therefore, the interim injunction granted by this Court has to be vacated.
7. The second respondent further argued that Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C. has not been complied with. Therefore, on that ground alone, order of injunction has to be set aside. The second respondent further argued that as per Bye-law 25(2), the President who is the Election Officer has got a responsibility of conducting the election. Therefore, the Secretary has no right to claim that he should be the Election Officer and on mat ground also, the interim injunction has to be vacated.
8. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the second respondent had issued a communication as if the general body of the association met on 19th March, 2001 and passed resolution to dissolve the entire Executive Committee and called for election and a resolution was passed by a majority of 52 to 17 votes and all the elected office-bearers ceased to be members from that date onwards. This was not communicated in the official letter heads, but it was communicated in the personal letter-head of the second defendant which is not a valid communication. Further, in another communication, dated 27.3.2001, it is stated that the general body met on 27th March, 2001, in continuation of the general body held on 19th March, 2001 and re-affirmed its earlier resolution passed on 19th March, 2001, thereby the Governing Council remains dissolved and therefore, three senior advocates (D.3 to D.5) were appointed as election officers. This association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Hence,
” Every society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860….. ..shall be deemed to be registered under the 1975 Act, and the
bye-laws of such society, shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with any provision of Act XXV11 of 1975, continue in force until altered or rescinded.”
Therefore, the counsel argued, the bye-laws of the Society will be valid only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Conversely any bye-law which is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act or Rules would be invalid. As per Section 15 of the Act, “every registered Society shall have a committee.” Therefore, there shall always be a committee; without the committee, a society cannot function. Therefore, the alleged dissolution of the Executive Committee by the General Body is not valid; it is ultra-vires the Act. Therefore, the Executive Committee has not been dissolved in the eye of law and it is always in existence.
9. The plaintiff further argued that the general body of the association can meet only in accordance with Section 26 or Section 28. Section 26 provides for “Annual General Meeting”; Section 28 provides for Extraordinary General Meeting and the corresponding rules 25 and 27 prescribe the procedure for calling the general body meeting. With respect to issuance of notice and publication for the calling of meeting of the general body, provisions of rule 25 shall apply in case of Extraordinary General Meeting also. Therefore, meeting of General Body which was not called in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 25 is not legal-since the procedure laid down for calling for General Body meeting has not been followed. In other words, there was violation of rule 25 and therefore, the meeting itself was not in accordance with the Rules, and therefore, “resolutions” passed in such meeting are not valid and have no force in the eye of law.
10. The counsel for the plaintiff also pointed out that clause 70 of the bye-laws of the association prescribes “three days’ notice for constituting Extraordinary General Meeting”. But it is ultra vires the Act, since it violates
Sections 15, 26, 28 and rules 25 and 27, and therefore, the General Body constituted on 19th March and 27th March, 2001 are not validly constituted General Body and therefore, the “resolution” passed in that meeting is not valid and. hence, not binding on the members of the Association. Therefore, the plaintiff as well as the other members of the Executive Committee did not cease to hold office; they continue to hold the respective offices. Therefore, the interim injunction cannot be vacated and it has to be made absolute.
11. Considering the arguments of both the plaintiff and the second defendant, the points that are to be determined are as follows:
(1) Whether the Executive Council can be dissolved by the General Body, unless it is replaced by another Executive Committee?
(2) Whether the General Body has got the power to dissolve the Governing Body?
(3) Whether the election process cannot be sialled?
(4) Whether the General Body Meeting held on 19th March, 2001 and 27th March, 2001 are in not accordance with the Act and rules?
(5) Whether Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C. has not been complied with?
(6) Whether the Secretary alone can function as election officer?
12. Points 1 and 2: Admittedly, the first defendant-Association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1968. Therefore, when the new Act 1975 came into force, in view of Section 53, this Society is deemed to have been registered under 1975 Act. Therefore, the bye-laws of the Association are valid only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Section 53 provides as follows:
"Every society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860..... shall be deemed to be registered under this Act and the bye-laws of such society, shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with any provision of this Act, continue in force until altered or rescinded." 13. Therefore, only the bye-laws which are not inconsistent with the Act shall continue to be in force, until altered or rescinded. If any bye-law is inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of this Act, such bye-law shall not continue to be in force. 14. Chapter.2 of this Act deals with management and administration of the Societies. In that. Section 15 reads as follows: "(1) Every registered society shall have a committee of not less than three members to manage its affairs..... (2)..... (3) The members of the committee shall be appointed at a meeting of the society by a resolution of a majority of the members present and entitled to vote thereat.
Therefore, this provision envisages the existence of a Committee for the management and administration of the Society. The Act does not provide anywhere for dissolution of the Governing Body. Therefore, there is no provision under the Act by which the Governing Body, viz., the Executive Council can be dissolved. Therefore, the General Body has no power to dissolve the Governing Body.
15. That apart by-law 22 provides that the management of the Association shall vest in the council consisting of President, two Secretaries, one Librarian and 11 Committee Members. As per bye-law 23.
“the President. Secretaries, Librarian and other members of the council shall be elected in thai Annual Central Meeting. The President. Librarian and the council shall hold office for a period of one year or until the next Annual General Meeting, the Secretaries shall normally hold office for two years provided, in the next election, of the two secretaries elected, one of them shall have to retire after the expiry of the first year and at the next Annual General Meeting.
By-law 24 provides that,
“if any vacancy occurs among the office-bearers of the Association or in the Council between two Annual General Body Meetings, the Council shall elect a member to fill up the vacancy until the next Annual General Body Meeting.”
Reading these provisions together, the office-bearers, viz., the President, one of the Secretaries, Librarian and other members of the Council shall hold office till other office-bearers are elected in the Annual General Meeting. That is on the date of Annual General Meeting, there shall be an election to the governing body also. Further, in case of vacancy among any of the office-bearers of the Association, that is in case of vacancy in the office of the President, Secretary, Librarian or the members of the commit tee between two Annual General Body Meeting, Council shall elect a member to fill up the vacancy until the next Annual General Body Meeting. The case of the 2nd defendant is that the Secretary has “resigined” his post by conduct. But the letter of Secretary dated does not appear to a resignation. A combined reading of these provisions make it clear that the election shall be held in the Annual General Body Meeting and in case of any vacancy in the office of President, Secretary or in the Council before the Annual Body Meeting, “the Council” shall elect a member to fill up that vacancy untii the next Annual General Body Meeting.
16. According to the bye-law, “council” means the Governing Body to whom by these rules, the management of the Association is entrusted. That means the existing members of the Council consists of the President, Secretary, Librarian and the members shall elect members to fill up any vacancy that may arise in between the two Annual General Body Meeting. Therefore, it is clear that as per the bye-laws also, there shall not be a vacancy
to the post of President or Secretary or Librarian or any other Members, i.e., always the Governing Body shall consist of the President, two Secretaries, one Librarian and eleven ordinary members. The bye-law does not envisage a situation where a vacancy in the post of the President or any other office-bearers. The total number of members in the council shall be 15, Therefore, the alleged resolution of the General Body that the Governing Council has been dissolved appears to be against the by-laws also. Therefore, that resolution is not valid.
17. Point No. 3: The second defendant argued that once election has started, it cannot be stalled by the Courts. This argument is based upon the procedures and practices as well as the rules of the Representation of the Peoples Act which govern the general elections. He argued that just like the process of general elections of Parliament or the Slate Legislative Assembly cannot be stalled or stopped by any proceedings before the Court, the election to the association also cannot be stalled. This argument of the second defendant is not acceptable. The General Election for Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies are governed by the Representation of the Peoples Act and Rules. It cannot be extended to the Association registered under the Societies Registration Act. These associations are undoubtedly governed only by the Societies Registration Act and rules and nothing else. Therefore, in the absence of any provision excluding the jurisdiction of Courts, this argument is not acceptable and hence, rejected.
18. Point No.4; Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, prescribes the mode of calling for the General Body Meeting which is as follows:
“(I) At least one general meeting of the registered society shall be held in every financial year.
(2) Notice of every such general meeting shall be given by the registered society to its members within such period as may be prescribed before the day appointed for the meeting.
(3) The notice shall specify the day, hour and place and the object of the meeting and, in case of any amendment of a bye-law or objects of association as contained in the memorandum is intended to be proposed, shall contain a copy of every such amendment.
(4) The Registrar may nominate an officer subordinate to him to be present at any such general meeting.”
Section 28 of the Act provides for extraordinary genera! meeting. Rules 25 and 27 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978, are as follows:
” Section 25. Notice of annual general meeting to members: (1) Notice of general meeting of the society under sub-section (2) of Section 26 shall be given to the members at least twenty-one days before the day appointed for such meeting.
(2) The notice shall be sent to the members by one or more of the following modes, namely:-
(a) by local delivery; or
(b) by post; or
(c) by circulation among the members; or
(d) by publication through Press.
(3) The notice shall also be affixed to the notice board of the society.
Section 27: Extraordinary general meeting: (1) An extraordinary general meeting of the society referred 10 in Section 28 shall be called within one month from the date of receptive their requisition in writing from the number of members specified in the bye-laws of the society.
(2) The provision of rule 25 regarding notice of general meeting to the members shall apply to an extraordinary general meeting also. ”
19. A combined reading of Rules 25 and 27 makes it clear that the procedure for calling for Extraordinary General Body Meeting is in no way different from the procedure for calling the Annual General Body Meeting. Annual General Body Meeting shall be called after giving at least 21 days notice to its members either by local delivery or by post or by circuiation among the members or by publication through Press and also for affixing to the notice board of the society. Therefore, without giving 21 days’ clear notice, no General Body Meeting of any association registered under this Act can be called.
20. It is to be noted, as per the provisions of the Act and rules, between the two Annual General Body Meeting, normally, the administration of the association shall be done only by the Governing Body. The General Body Meeting cannot be held except in accordance with the provisions mentioned in Sections 26 and 28 read with rules 25 and 27. Any decision taken in a “General Body Meeting” constituted otherwise than in accordance with the abovesaid rules is not binding on the association or society or its members.
21. Further, Section 26(3) that the notice shall specify the day, hour and place and the object of the meeting and, in case any amendment of bye-law or objects of association as contained in the memorandum is intended to be proposed, shall contain a copy of every such amendment. If any General Body Meeting is called in violation of these rules that General Body Meeting is not validly called a General Body Meeting. Since, the Genera! Body meetings held on 19th March, 2001 and 27th March, 2001 were not called in accordance with the provisions prescribed under the rules, those meetings were not “validly constituted” meetings; and consequently any resolutions passed thereunder are non est and have no force in the eye of law.
22. The argument of the second respondent appears to be that in view of the clause 70 of the bye-laws which provides that “notices of the meetings of the General Body of the Association shall be deemed sufficient under the rules if affixed in the notice board of the Association three days before the day fixed for the meeting” and therefore, the General Body Meeting is valid under the bye-laws. As staled above, if any of bye-laws are contrary to Sections 26, 28 of the Act read with Rules 25 and 27 of the Rules that would be invalid. Therefore, it appears that Clause 70 of the bye-laws is not valid. In view of the specific provisions in the Act bye-law 70 cannot be said to be in force. Therefore notwithstanding the Clause 70 of the bye-laws, the Annual General Body Meeting constituted on 19th and 27th March, 2001, was not a validly constituted Annual General Meeting.
23. Point No.5: The second defendant argued that Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C. has not been complied with. Notice of such order has not been served on him on the same day even though the first respondent is situated in the very same premises. The plaintiff has filed a memo slating that copy of the order along with other documents specified under Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C. has been forwarded by post immediately; it is full compliance with the Order 39. Rule 3, C.P.C. Further, they have also filed a certificate that they have sent the copies as provided under Order 39. Rule 3, C.P.C. into this Court on the very next day, i.e. on 4th April. 2001. Therefore, the provisions of Order 39, Rules 3 and 4, C.P.C. have been complied with.
24. Point No.6. The claim of the plaintiff/petitioner is that he should not be prevented from functioning as the Election Officer. The second defendant argued that as per clause 13 of the bye-laws, at the Annual General Body Meeting, the Chairman of the meeting shall appoint three or more members of the Association as tellers for the purpose of taking charge of the ballot boxes, scrutinising the voting papers and ascertaining the result. As per clause 14 of the bye-laws, the tellers so appointed shall as soon as possible after the counting is over, submit to the Chairman of the meeting the result of the election. Further clause 25(2) says that the secretaries shall in consultation with the President fix the date of the Annual General Body Meeting and of election and the dates before which nomination papers should be received and withdrawals intimated and publish the several dates on the notice board. Therefore as per these clauses, the President or his nominees shall be the elected officers. The plaintiff argued that only the Secretary is to be appointed as Election Officer, but later on, they filed another Application No. 1770 of 2001 whereby they have pleaded for permitting the respondents 3 to 5 to conduct the election process as Election Officers “appointed by this Court.” Therefore, the plaintiff is not keen on the issue that he is the Election Officer and he alone should function as Election Officer. As argued by the second defendant, as per Section 25, the Secretary in consultation with the President fix the date of the Annual General Body Meeting and of election and the dales
before which nomination papers should be received and withdrawals intimated and published. It is the duty casts on the Secretaries of the Association; but that shall be done only in consultation with the President. In the absence of any consultation with the President, the Secretary cannot act by himself and discharge the duties and responsibilities specified under the clause 25 of the bye-laws.
25. As per bye-laws 13 and 14, the Chairman has the power to appoint three or more members of the Association as tellers for the purpose of taking charge ascertaining the results. Therefore, these functions can be done only by the President who normally chairs the Annual General Body Meeting. Therefore, where the General Body Meeting has been called in accordance with the rules, the President can appoint as aforesaid three tellers. Therefore, the Secretary who is the plaintiff herein cannot discharge the functions specified under clauses 13 and 14. He can perform the function specified as per by law 25(2) that too only in consultation with the President.
26. Before concluding, it is to be seen that the communication addressed by the second defendant, dated 20th March, 2001, communicating the results of the General Body Meeting held on 19th March. 2001. wherein the second defendant has signed in the capacity as “ex-President.” According to him, the Governing Committee has been dissolved and all the posts including the post of President are vacant. As stated earlier, such a situation is not envisaged under the Act or rules or even under the bye-laws. Therefore, the second defendant is continuing to as the President.
27. In view of the above provisions of the law, the Governing Council cannot be dissolved, unless and until the newly elected Governing Council takes charge. The dissolution of the council is not possible and hence, the proceedings of the Executive Council cannot be said to be invalid though it was not attended by the President, since there was requisite quorum for the meeting.
28. Therefore, in the result, Points 1 to 5 decided in favour of the plaintiff point No.6 is decided against to plaintiff. The Petition to vacate injunction is dismissed with respect to plaintiffs right to function as Secretary, pending disposal of the suit. With respect to his functioning as Election Officer, it is vacated. In that aspect the interim order granted already has already been vacated. As per the order passed already, the defendants 3 to 5 shall continue the election process started already and conclude the election as desired by them.