Andal Venkat Rajaram v. Capt.G.N. Venkatrajaram

No.1 Sarangapani Street T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.14.T.Narayana Rao – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam15.M.J.Damodaran – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam16.Jonna Kotiah – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam17.P.R.Venkatasubba Rao – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam18.P.S.Suresh Babu – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam19.M.Venkatesan – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam No.1 Sarangapani Street T.Nagar, Chennai 17.20.K.Balaiah – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam21.V.V.Ravichakravarthi – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam22.C.K.Suryamurty – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam23.G.Dhananjayam – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam24.N.A.Karunakaran – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam25.K.K.Govindarajulu – Committee Member All India Nayudu Sangam26.Chengai Padmanabhan – Member.. Respondents 2 to 26 in OSA 138/2009 & Respondents in OSA 183 to 186/2009Original side appeals preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 ofOriginal Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against theorder of this Court made in O.A.Nos.1332, 1329, 1330, 1331/08 andApplication No.5883 of 2008 respectively in C.S.No.1181 of 2008 dated29.4.2009.For Appellants: Mr.A.V.K.Ezhil Mani for M/s.Sasee Devi in OSA 138/2009 Mr.N.Kannan for M/s.Sasee Devi in OSA 183 to 186/2009For Respondents: Mr.R.Parthasarathy for respondents 2 to 26 in OSA 138/2009 and for 1st respondent in OSA 183 to 186/2009 Batta due for Respondents 2 to 25 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in O.S.A.No.183 to 186 of 2009COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)This judgment shall govern all these five appeals in OSA Nos.138and 183 to 186 of 2009.2.All these appeals have arisen from the common order of thelearned Single Judge of this Court made in the above saidapplications pending the suit in which the plaintiffs sought thefollowing reliefs:(a) For a declaration that the removal of the first andsecond plaintiffs as primary members of the first defendantsangam pursuant to the communications dated 24.06.2008 and06.10.2008 to the first and second plaintiffs respectivelyis illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law andconsequently, it shall not bind the plaintiffs 1 and 2;(b) For a declaration that the election of the officebearers to the first defendant sangam purported to have beenheld on 26.10.2008 is illegal, invalid and non-est in theeyes of law and consequently declare I bad in law;(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2to 25, their men, agents and servants or any one claimingthrough them from functioning or discharging their dutiesand obligations as office bearers of the first defendantsangam pursuant to the illegal election held on 26.10.2008;(d) For a mandatory injunction directing the first defendantsangam to prepare a valid Electorate of the first defendantsangam after reviewing of the entire voters list;(e) For a mandatory injunction directing the first defendantsangam to conduct an election of the office bearers to thefirst defendant sangam in accordance with the Rules andArticles of the All India Nayudu Sangam by appointing anofficer of this Court. 3.The plaintiffs while asking the above reliefs, have made theseapplications for interim reliefs stating that the functions of thefirst defendant Sangam should be in accordance with the rules framedby the Sangam; that the plaintiffs are not only the members of thefirst defendant Sangam, but also functioning in their officialcapacity; that the Executive committee has the power to suspend ordismiss a member, if that member is found to have acted against theinterest of the Sangam; that the second defendant issued show causenotices dated 14.6.2008 and 18.5.2008 respectively, as to why theyshould not be removed from the first defendant sangam for the allegedillegal and prejudicial activities; that detailed replies were givenon 26.6.2008 and 28.5.2008 respectively; that without following theprinciples of natural justice, the plaintiffs have been removed notonly from their post, but also from their primary membership for a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ period of five years which was illegal and arbitrary; that it wasalso in violation of the constitution of the sangam; that apart fromthat, the sangam is purported to have convened a general bodymeeting on 26.10.2008 in which the election of the office bearers ofthe first defendant sangam was conducted; but, no such election wasconducted at all; that the election is invalid since the mode ofservice of notice as contemplated under the bylaws was not adheredto; that 405 new members who were enrolled as eligible electorates toparticipate in the election were not allowed; that the electionprocess is vitiated on account of non-issuance of 21 days of priornotice to the members of the Sangam as envisaged in the bylaws; thatsince there was no valid election in the eye of law, the defendants 2to 25 who are said to be the office bearers, should be restrainedfrom acting so; that the first respondent should be directed toprepare a valid electorate as per the rules of the sangam; that thefirst respondent should also be directed to conduct an election ofthe office bearers of the first defendant sangam in accordance withthe rules and regulations of All India Nayudu Sangam by appointing anOfficer of this Court to oversee the election; that the firstrespondent should be restrained from giving effect to the order ofsuspension and removal as against the first plaintiff and the orderof suspension as against the second plaintiff; and a retired Judgehas got to be appointed as Administrator pendente lite to dischargethe functions and duties of the first defendant.4.All the above applications were inter alia contested by statingthat the Executive Committee of the first defendant sangam was vestedwith powers to initiate action and take decision, and the same isfinal and binding on the matters of discipline; that the then GeneralSecretary Mr.K.Santhanam accepted the applications for admission ofnew members into the sangam arbitrarily which could be done only onscrutiny by the Executive Committee; that the receipt of the saidapplications were not brought to the notice of the ExecutiveCommittee; that contrarily, a resolution was passed by the ExecutiveCommittee on 24.4.2008; that the said Secretary Santhanam wrote aletter on 8.5.2008, to the Registrar of Societies about the allegedinduction of 405 new members for a period ending with 30.4.2008; thathe has also despatched Form VII to the Registrar of Societies evenwithout approval of the Executive Committee; that under thecircumstances, a show cause notice dated 10.5.2008, was served uponhim calling for his explanation; that it was noticed that theplaintiffs began to deal with the properties of the sangam as theirpersonal properties; that the plaintiffs have misused their officialposition and copied certain vital information of the sangam in acompact disk even without the prior permission or knowledge of theoffice bearers of the sangam; that the compact disk was also takenaway; that under the circumstances, a show cause notice dated18.5.2008 was served upon the second plaintiff followed by anothershow cause notice dated 14.6.2008 to the first plaintiff pursuant toa decision taken by the Executive Committee; that the secondplaintiff who is the wife of the first plaintiff, has taken away thenotices pasted in the sangam office with regard to the suspension ofthe General Secretary; that both the plaintiffs sent replies to theshow cause notices; that after receiving the same, it was decided by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Executive Committee to remove the second plaintiff from the postof the treasurer and also from the primary membership of the sangamfor a period of five years; that the sangam convened a meeting on24.6.2008; that since there was no reply from the first defendant, itwas resolved to remove the first plaintiff from the primarymembership of the sangam for a period of five years as per thebylaws; that without the consent and approval of the sangam, theplaintiffs proceeded to open a website and collected money fromoutsiders towards matrimonial services registration fees; that it wasnoticed that the conduct of the plaintiffs were against the interestof the sangam; that an emergent meeting was conducted on 2.10.2008wherein it was decided to conduct the annual general body meeting on26.10.2008; that in the Executive Committee meeting held on10.10.2008, a decision was taken to the effect that the applicationsreceived from 405 new persons were to be scrutinised by a committeeto be formed for that purpose; that the Annual General Body meetingwas held on 26.10.2008; that the office bearers were electedunopposed and the Executive Committee was formed; that the GeneralBody unanimously approved the suspension of the plaintiffs from therespective posts in the Executive Committee as well as from theirprimary membership; that notices were given by publication, courierand also by registered post and under the circumstances, all theapplications filed by the plaintiffs for the above reliefs have gotto be dismissed.5.The learned Single on enquiry, dismissed OA Nos.1329 to 1331and A.No.5883 of 2008. In respect of O.A.No.1332/2008, theinjunction sought for by the second plaintiff was denied, andinjunction restraining the first defendant from giving effect to theorder of suspension and removal as against the first plaintiff wasgranted. Hence, the above appeals.6.All these appeals center round upon the two questions:(1)Whether the removal of the plaintiffs from theirrespective posts and also from the primary membership madeby the first defendant sangam is valid?(2)Whether the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie casefor grant of interim injunction to restrain the officebearers namely the defendants 2 to 25, since there was novalid election as contended by the plaintiffs?7.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side whoreiterated the very same contention that were raised before thelearned Single Judge, paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made and also looked into the materials available.8.Admittedly, the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff whoare husband and wife respectively, were not only the members of thefirst defendant sangam, but also functioning in their officialcapacity during the relevant time. The first defendant All IndiaNayudu Sangam was governed by rules and regulations framed by it. Itis also not in controversy that 405 new members were inducted by theGeneral Secretary which was found to be contrary to the rules sinceas per the rules, the Executive Committee only on scrutiny could https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approve the same. Even without the approval of the ExecutiveCommittee, the said General Secretary has sent Form VII to theRegistrar of Societies. A suit came to be filed before the CityCivil Court for the conduct of an election. Though an AdvocateCommissioner was appointed for the purpose of election, it was thesubject matter of civil revision petition in this Court where theCourt held that the induction of 405 new members was one withoutapproval. 9.The case of the plaintiffs was that the show cause noticesissued to the plaintiffs were without any basis; that they wereuntenable allegations; that while they have given proper replies,without following the principles of natural justice, they have beenremoved not only from the respective posts, but also from the primarymembership which was illegal. On the contrary, it was urged by thefirst defendant sangam that all procedural formalities were observed;that the principles of natural justice were strictly followed andtheir removal has been properly done. 10.From the available materials, it could be seen that a showcause notice was issued to the first plaintiff on 14.6.2008, whereinit has been clearly stated that a decision was taken in the ExecutiveCommittee meeting which was called emergently on 15.6.2008. Thesuspension order was issued to the first plaintiff on 24.6.2008.From the order of suspension communicated to the first plaintiff, itcould be seen that the Executive Committee meeting was held only on14.6.2008 and not on 15.6.2008 and the show cause notice was alsosent on 18.6.2008 and not on 14.6.2008. Though it was contended bythe defendants' side that there were mistakes crept in, such acontention cannot be countenanced for the reason that when the showcause notice was issued, emergent Executive Committee meeting wasshown to have been convened on 15.6.2008. But in the order ofsuspension, both the date of show cause notice and also the date ofthe meeting were found to be different. As far as the firstplaintiff is concerned, it is stated that the show cause notice dated26.5.2008 was received after the order of suspension was issued bythe first defendant on 24.6.2008. But the case of the defendants wasthat the General Body has unanimously approved on 26.10.2008 thesuspension of the plaintiffs from their posts in the ExecutiveCommittee as well as the expulsion from the primary membership of thesangam. Further, a show cause notice issued on 14.6.2008 was servedupon him on 25.6.2008. But the claim of the respondents is that anorder of suspension was issued to the first plaintiff by a decisiontaken on 24.6.2008. Under such circumstances, it can be well statedthat no opportunity of being heard was given to the first plaintiffenabling him to put forth his case. Therefore, as regards thedecision taken by the first defendant sangam in respect of the firstplaintiff, it cannot stand in view of the violations of theprinciples of natural justice.11.As far as the second plaintiff is concerned, this Court isunable to notice any infirmity or illegality in the order of thelearned Single Judge as put forth by the appellant's side. It is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in controversy that a show cause notice was issued on 18.5.2008 tothe second plaintiff. On receipt of the same, she has sent a replyon 28.5.2008. The grave allegations made against the secondplaintiff was misuse of the official position and copying certainvital information of the sangam in a compact disk apart from allegingthat the disks were taken away without permission or knowledge, andshe was making money out of the same. Now the contention put forthon the side of the appellant/second plaintiff is that it was a denialof opportunity; that it was a case where the second plaintiff was notgiven sufficient opportunity to put forth her case; that even afterreceiving the reply denying the allegations made therein, evenwithout any enquiry, the Executive Committee could not remove thesecond plaintiff either from the post of treasurer or from theprimary membership of the sangam. It was further urged that as perthe bylaws, the Executive Committee in exercise of its powers, cansuspend, but cannot remove the second plaintiff either from the postholding or from the primary membership. It would be more apt andappropriate to reproduce Rule 15(xvi) of Chapter I of the Rules andArticles of the Association as follows:"15(xvi): Powers to suspend/dismiss the members:1.If any member is found to have acted against the interestof the Sangam the Executive Committee is vested with powersto suspend such a member for a period of not exceeding fiveyears. Such suspended member or members may be readmittedonly on their request and by the approval of General Body.2.If any member is found to be non-nayudu he/she shall beexpelled. This provision shall not have retrospectiveeffect.3.If any member is found to be convicted in a criminalproceedings he/she shall be expelled from the primarymembership of the Sangam.4.For 1 and 2 as above, a show cause notice shall beserved."12.From the very reading of the above rules, it would be quiteclear that the Executive Committee in exercise of its powers cansuspend a member for a period of not exceeding five years. As perthe said Rule, what are all required is a show cause notice to beserved on such members calling for explanation to the chargeslevelled against. In the instant case, admittedly a show causenotice was served on her, and a reply was also received. 13.The contention put forth by the appellant's side that therewas no sufficient opportunity of being heard cannot be accepted. Thecontention put forth by the first defendant's side was that since notonly a show cause notice as envisaged under Rule 15(xvi) was servedlevelling the charges, but also the same was replied, it cannot bestated that the principles of natural justice were offended, andapart from that, it is a case pertaining to the affairs of thesangam, and the scope of interference by the Court is limited. Insupport of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on a decisionof the Apex Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1144 (T.P.DAVER V. LODGEVICTORIA) wherein the Apex Court had formulated the following https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ principles:"1.The court is not entitled to sit as court of appeal overthe decisions of the club or society.2.The club/society or domestic tribunal are entitled todecide all matters as it thinks right.3.They shall not exceed their jurisdiction or actdishonestly or in bad faith.4.The court is not supposed to interfere in their decisioneven if, in its opinion, the penalty imposed on the memberis severe or that a very strict standard has been applied.5.A person, who joins an association governed by rules, hasno legal right of redress if he is expelled from theassociation according to the rules however unfair or unjustthe rules or the actions of expulsion may be, provided ithas acted in good faith. But, it should be borne in mindthat chance of defence and explanation should be afforded tothe member as required by the principles of natural justicebeforeever a decision is taken by association."14.A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider thescope of interference by the Court in the disciplinary proceedingsinitiated by the club against its members and also the principles ofnatural justice required to be followed in such proceedings in a casereported in 2001 (3) CTC 349 (CHENNAI KANCHEEPURAM TIRUVELOREDISTRICT FILM DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION V. CHINTHAMANI S.MURUGESAN ANDOTHERS) and has held thus:"5.The Executive Committee of a voluntary associationcannot be put on par with a Court or a Tribunal whendealing with the disciplinary matters concerning themembership of the Body. They have a very wide latitude indeciding as to when disciplinary action is warranted, andthe extent to which the powers vested in them under theRules or byelaws should be exercised while penalizing themembers for the misconduct which the appropriate Bodywithin the association empowered to decide that question,considers him to be guilty. The procedure to be followedby such an association also cannot be that which isnormally expected to be followed in a Court, or a Tribunal.Every letter written by the Executive Committee of anassociation to it's member calling for an explanation isnot to be judge under a lens to find out the possibledefects therein for the purpose of holding that the actionthat followed was not in consonance with the principles ofnatural justice. Even principles of natural justice are notrequired to be applied with the same degree of rigour asthey would be in the case of adjudication before a Court ora Tribunal.6.What is required of such bodies is that they act fairlyin a broad way without having to imitate the Courts andTribunals, with regard to the rigour and the formality ofthe procedures. Such bodies are of course expected to act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in accordance with their own Rules, and stay within thelimits imposed by those Rules. If the Body vested with thepower under the Rules, exercise that power within the ambitof the Rule, after having afforded an opportunity to themember concern to have his say in the matter, the decisionrendered by such Committee cannot be regarded as illegal,or violative of natural justice, or as arbitrary. TheCourts will not sit in appeal over the decisions of suchCommittees, subject to such decision being broadly inconsonance with the general standard of fairness....9.The plaintiff has, in this case clearly, failed toestablish the case of mala fides. The Executive Committeehas acted in good faith and taken a decision with which theCourt may, or may not agree. The standard adopted by thatExecutive Committee may have been far more strict then whatthe Court in the given circumstances may have adopted. Butthose considerations are not irrelevant for the purpose ofdeciding as to whether the Court can, or cannot interferewith a bona fide decision taken by the Executive Committee.10.As regards the alleged violation of the principles ofnatural justice, the Court, if satisfied that there hasbeen broad fairness must refrain from interfering with theaction taken by the voluntary association of which theplaintiff chose to become a member of his own volition.Natural justice in the conduct of such associations wouldnot have the same degree of rigour, as those principleswould have in matters which are required to be adjudicatedupon before Courts and Tribunals. In this case, thecharges against the plaintiff were made known. The listcontains several charges, to most of which, the plaintiffdid not feel the need to ask for any further documentation.He had been put on notice that there had been complaints,for which he merely asked for the copy of the complaints.Even if that charges were to be ignored on the ground thatthe documents had not been made available, nevertheless,the other charges have not been found to be vague even bythe learned trial Judge. If the Executive Committee feltpersuaded to take action against the plaintiff on the basisof what was before it in the form of the charges made knownto him and the reply received from him, it cannot befaulted on the ground that it should have proceeded to holdan enquiry as if it were an adjudicatory forum. We aresatisfied that in this case broad fairness has beenobserved. A voluntary association is entitled to carry onit's affairs in accordance with its own rules. A personbecoming member of such a body contracts to be bound bythose rules and by the actions taken by those in whom poweris vested under the Rules."15.From the above decisions, it would be quite clear that when aperson choses to become a member of a voluntary association of hisown volition, and charges were levelled against him, and it is alsomade known as to the charges, and the reply was also received from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ him, it cannot be found with fault on the ground that it should haveconducted an enquiry, and the natural justice in the conduct of suchassociation would not have the same degree of rigour, as thoseprinciples would have in matters which were required to beadjudicated upon before Courts and Tribunals. In the instant case,the second plaintiff was made known of the charges levelled againsther by serving the show cause notice, and she has also replied. Asper the rules seen above, the Executive Committee which wasempowered, has taken a decision to expel her for a period of fiveyears and thus in the instant case, broad fairness has been observed.The first defendant sangam was entitled to carry on its affairs inaccordance with its own rules referred to above. Hence thecontention of the appellant/second plaintiff's side that theprinciples of natural justice were not followed strictly by notholding an enquiry cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances,the second plaintiff is not entitled for the interim relief as askedfor. 16.At this juncture, the contention put forth by the learnedCounsel for the respondents that since both the appellants have beenremoved not only from their official position, but also from theprimary membership, they have no locus standi to conduct the suitcannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the Court haspointed out above that the removal of the first plaintiff was notonly in contravention of the rules, but also offending the principlesof natural justice, and thus he can well maintain the suit. 17.The plaintiffs have attacked the election dated 26.10.2008 onthe grounds that even before the election was conducted, the resultwas communicated to the Registrar of Societies on 23.10.2008 itself;that 405 fresh members were not allowed to participate in theelection; that 21 days notice as envisaged by the bylaw was notgiven, and thus there was no proper election, and the defendants 2 to25 should be restrained from functioning or discharging their dutiesand obligations as office bearers of the first defendant sangam. Allthese allegations are denied by the respondents. On scrutiny of theavailable materials, this Court is of the considered opinion that theappellants have made out a prima face case to indicate that theelection has not been conducted as contemplated under the bylaws.Rule 9(b) of Chapter 1 of the Rules and Articles of Association readsthus:"9.Meetings of the General Body...9-b) Notice of such meeting with time date and place shallbe sent to all the members of General Body at least 21 daysbefore the date of meeting along with the Agenda.(i) The notice shall be sent by one or more of the followingmodes viz.,1.By local delivery; or2.By post; or3.By circulating among the members; or4.By publication through press.(ii)The notice shall also be affixed to the notice board ofthe Sangam." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18.From the very reading of the above rule, it would be quiteclear that all the members should be put on notice at least 21 daysprior to the meeting, and the notice must be sent by any one of thefollowing modes namely by local delivery, by post, by circulatingamong the members or by publication through press. In the instantcase, a publication made in Dinathanthi dated 4.10.2008, whereby apublic notice was given stating that the election for the firstdefendant sangam would be held upto 2.00 P.M. on 26.10.2008. Relyingupon this publication, it is urged by the first defendant sangam thatthe publication through press was one of the modes through whichnotice could be given, and since the publication was made on4.10.2008 for the election to be held on 26.10.2008, it was a propernotice. It is pertinent to point out that the said publication inDinathanthi was made in Tamil. This Court has to agree with thelearned Counsel for the appellants that while it was an associationof Telugu speaking persons, the publication should have been made inTelugu language also. Hence making a publication in Dinathanthi on4.10.2008, in the considered opinion of this Court, would not besufficient. That apart, the defendants have stated that all themembers were served with the notice through courier. But no materialwas placed before the Court to accept the said contention. Thus itwould be quite clear that no notice was actually served upon all themembers for the said election. 19.Apart from the above, the alleged election also suffers by anincurable defect. According to the respondents, the ExecutiveCommittee meeting was held on 4.10.2008 wherein a decision was takenunanimously to hold General Body Meeting on 26.10.2008. Even in thepaper publication made on 4.10.2008 in Dinathanthi, the election dateis shown as 26.10.2008. The agenda for the General Body meetingdated 4.10.2008, would clearly indicate as to the conduct ofelection, and this also would clearly indicate that the election wasto be held on 26.10.2008. It is brought to the notice of the Courtthat the nominations were to be made on or before 21.10.2008, andthey were to be scrutinised on 22.10.2008. The last date forwithdrawal of the nomination was 23.10.2008. It is also a matter ofsurprise to note that even on 23.10.2008, a communication wasaddressed by the President Mr.P.S.Jagannath Babu to the Registrar ofSocieties (South Chennai) wherein it is stated as follows:"Sub: 85th Annual General Body Meeting 2008 and election tothe post of Office Bearers and Executive Committee Meeting– reg.We are pleased to inform you that we have proposed tohold the Annual General Body Meeting 2008 on 26.10.2008 inour premises at 9.00 am as per the notification issued andenclosed herewith for your kind information.We have issued notification in the Tamil newspaper Dinathanthi on 4th Oct 2008 and also put on the notice board ofour premises giving clear 21 days notice period for theAnnual General Body Meeting.We have also sent Annual General Body Meeting noticesand the Report to all the members concerned with due https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acknowledgement.We also wish to submit that the election process ofissuing nomination forms were commenced on 19.10.2008 bythe election officers and completed on 21.10.2008 as perthe Agenda of the Annual General Body notice.We also wish to inform you that the scrutiny of theapplications were completed on 22.10.2008 and the necessaryformalities were completed by the election officers.IN this connection we wish to submit that the electionfor the period 2008-2011 for the post of Office Bearers andExecutive Committee were duly completed and all the memberswere elected unopposed.We are enclosing herewith the certificate issued by theelection officers for the completion of election processand also enclosed herewith the final list of the officebearers and Executive Committee Members elected unopposedfor your kind information and record.We are also enclosing herewith the form no VII dulyfilled in intimating the election of the office bearers andthe Executive Committee Members for the period 2008-2001 inconnection with the 85th Annual General Body Meeting foryour kind information and record."20.In the case on hand, no notice was issued to the new members,and no publication was made in the language to which the members wereconversant and that too, when the election was scheduled to takeplace. Even as per the case of the first defendant sangam, on26.10.2008 even before three days that was on 23.10.2008, acommunication along with the Form VII was sent as if the ExecutiveCommittee members and all office bearers were elected unopposed. Allwould go to show that the election could not have been conducted in afair manner as expected in law, and it was neither in accordance withthe Rules framed nor in accordance with law. As pointed out by theappellant's side, "elected unopposed" would also indicate an unfairplay. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs have made out a casethat the defendants 2 to 25 who, according to the first respondentsangam, were office bearers, elected as unopposed and declared cannotbe permitted to carry on the affairs of the sangam. 21.At this juncture, the Court has to take into consideration thelarger interest of the community for which the Sangam came intoexistence. The term of office of the office bearers came to an end.Under such circumstances, there arose a necessity for new election ofExecutive Committee and office bearers. This Court is of theconsidered opinion that in order to carry on the administration andaffairs of the sangam till a new Executive Committee and the officebearers are elected by a proper and fair election, it becomesnecessary an interim Administrator has got to be appointed.Accordingly, Mr.Justice J.A.K. Sampath Kumar (retired) is appointedas interim Administrator to look after the administration and affairsof the first defendant sangam, and the remuneration is fixed atRs.25,000/- per month. The interim Administrator so appointed here ispermitted to take charge of the administration forthwith from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defendants and carry on the administration and affairs of the sangamas per the bylaws and in accordance with law till the new ExecutiveCommittee and office bearers take charge in an election to be held.The defendants 2 to 25 are directed to hand over the administrationand affairs of the sangam and its properties to the interimAdministrator appointed above. The interim Administrator can approachthe trial Court for necessary directions for the preparation of theelectoral roll and for induction of new members in order to conductan election of the sangam in a fair and proper manner. 22.In the result, OSA Nos.183 and 186 of 2009 are accordinglyallowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. OSANos.184 and 185 of 2009 are dismissed confirming the order of thelearned Single Judge. OSA 138 of 2009 is dismissed, confirming theorder of the learned Single Judge, and insofar as the firstplaintiff, the order of the learned Single Judge granting injunction,is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsvToThe Sub Assistant Registrar,Original Side,High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.Satish Parasaran, Advocate, SR.435213 ccs To Mr.G.Saru Devi, Advocate, SR.44471 to 44473OSA Nos.138 and 183 to186 of 2009RL(CO)SRA(16/9/2009)