Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 640 (GUJ)

Shaktisinh Gohil v. Gurusevak Singh

2009-10-05

M.R.SHAH

body2009
Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Present Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant herein-original defendant No. 4 to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court No. 22 passed below Notice of Motion interim injunction application Exhs. 6 & 7 in Civil Suit No. 1818 of 2009, by which the learned Chamber Judge has directed the original defendant No. 1 Gujarat State Basketball Association to hold the election of the association for the office bearers and managing committee for the period 2009-2013 and by further directing the said association that such election be held for the candidate declared eligible on 9.7.2009 and as per the voters list declared on 26.6.2009. The learned Chamber Judge has also further restrained the defendants No. 2 to 4 from acting as President, Secretary or Treasurer as the case may be unless they are duly elected by the legal election process. 2. Dispute is with respect to the election of the office bearers of the Gujarat State Basketball Association (herein after to as the Basketball Association). It appears from the memorandum of association of the Basketball Association that the said Association-original defendant No. 1 has been formed with an object inter alia, to encourage, promote, standardize and popularize the game of Basketball in the State of Gujarat and to improve the standard of said game. The objects and aims of the said association have been more particularly stated in the Memorandum and Articles of Association. As per the said Memorandum, Articles the Association consists of following class of member, Life Members, Honorary Members, District members. District membership is one of the such classes of membership of the Basketball Association and the said Membership is open to District Associations and Universities. The elections of the office bearers of the Association are held as per the Articles and Memorandum of association and every member of the District Association, which is affiliated to the said association has to nominate two persons to represent it at general meeting. As per the Clause 8 of the Articles and Memorandum of association, the affairs of the association shall be managed by a committee which shall consist of not less than 10 and not more than 20 members, including the President, four Vice President, one Honorary Secretary, one Honorary Treasurer, four associated Secretary and nine members and two invitee members. As per the Clause 8 of the Articles and Memorandum of association, the affairs of the association shall be managed by a committee which shall consist of not less than 10 and not more than 20 members, including the President, four Vice President, one Honorary Secretary, one Honorary Treasurer, four associated Secretary and nine members and two invitee members. The office bearers of the members of the committee shall be elected at the general meeting according to bye laws. As per the Clause 9 of the Articles and Memorandum of association, the office bearers and the members of the committee shall hold the office for 4 years and or until their successors are elected. It is the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that election for office bearers and committee members are held in the annual general meeting, which is to be held not later than 30 July, in each year and the elections are held in such meeting whenever they are due. It appears that on 5.6.2009 an election Notification was published by the Election Officer of the Basketball Association, i.e. original defendant No. 5, notifying that voting will be held on 19.7.2009 between 11. a.m. to 1. p.m and election programme was also announced which mentioned as to when the forms were to be filled up, when the scrutiny was to take place etc. It is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that along with other persons, the plaintiffs also filled in their nomination forms for the post of President and Treasurer respectively and submitted the same as per the notification dated 5.6.2009. Subsequent thereto, the list of candidates for the election to be held on 19.7.2009 was published on 9.7.2009, wherein the name of the plaintiff No. 1 is shown at serial No. 2 and the name of plaintiff No. 2 at serial No. 10. It is further case of the plaintiff that as per the programme mentioned in the notification dated 5.6.2009 the list of the representative of the association was to be submitted by the affiliated association on or before 26.6.2009. Thereafter on 23.6.2009 the voters list was published and thereafter the forms of the candidatures were accepted upto 3.7.2009 and the withdrawal of the candidature was permitted upto 8.7.2009 and on 9.7.2009 the candidate list was published. As per the election programme an election was to be conducted on 19.7.2009. Thereafter on 23.6.2009 the voters list was published and thereafter the forms of the candidatures were accepted upto 3.7.2009 and the withdrawal of the candidature was permitted upto 8.7.2009 and on 9.7.2009 the candidate list was published. As per the election programme an election was to be conducted on 19.7.2009. As per the plaintiff,s on 19.7.2009 the election commenced as per the election programme, in the presehnce of the members of the representative of the affiliated association candidates, observers of the Gujarat State Olympic Association and Basketball Federation of India and the Election Officer. As averred and alleged by the plaintiffs in the plaint, after the election had commenced some commotion took place and tremendous disturbance was caused and created by some of the persons who introduce themselves as representative of the some association. As per the plaintiffs, they could not be identified as the representative of any affiliated member association and despite having no right to either stop the election process or caused any hindrance or obstruction therein, for the reasons best known to the defendant No. 5 without any authority or right held a discussion with such person and in an arbitrary and high handed manner declared that he had decided to drop the election and that the defendants No. 2 to 4 were declared as reelected for the ensuing term of four years i.e. 2009-20013. It is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that majority of the members and candidates raised their objections and protested against such illegal, arbitrary and high handed act of the defendant No. 5 i.e. Election Officer in connivance with the other defendants. However, no such objection was taken into consideration by any of the defendants and the election was held illegally, without any authority and in most arbitrary, unconstitutional, undemocratic and high handed manner. Therefore, original plaintiffs have instituted the aforesaid Civil Suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad for declaration that the defendants No. 2 to 4 having reelected as President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the Basketball Association for the term commencement from 2009-2013 is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional, undemocratic and against the well settled principle of law and it is violating the provision of Articles and Memorandum of association and void. It is also further prayed by the original plaintiffs to direct the defendants No. 1 Basketball Association to hold the election of the association for the office bearers and managing committee for the period of 2009-2013 as per date fixed by the Court and further prayed that such election be held for the candidates declared eligible on 9.7.2009 and as per the voters list declared on 23.6.2009. The plaintiffs have also sought for decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 2 to 4 from acting as President, Treasurer and Secretary as the case may be unless they are duly elected by legal election process. 3. In the said suit, original plaintiffs took out the Notice of Motion by submitting the application Exh. 6/7 and prayed following interim relief: “(A).Pending hearing and final disposal of this suit, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the defendant No. 1 to hold the elections of the Association for the office bearers and managing committee for the period of 2009-2013 on a particular date fixed by this Hon’ble Court and further direct that such elections be held for the candidates declared eligible on 09.07.2009 and as per the voters list declared on 23.06.2009. (B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this suit, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 from acting as President, Secretary or Treasurer as the case may be unless they are duly elected by a legal election process.” 4. It was the specific case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the election of the office bearers of the Basketball Association was to be held as per the election programme on 19.7.2009 and the election was to be proceeded further and held and conducted by the original defendant No. 5 -Election Office, however the original defendant No. 5 Election Officer highhandedly and arbitrarily dropped the election and declared the defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected for the ensuing terms for 2009-2013 for which there was no agenda at all. It was submitted that there was no election held and therefore to declare the defendants No. 2 to 4 to reelect them for the ensuing term i.e. 2009-2013 is absolutely illegal. It was submitted that there was no election held and therefore to declare the defendants No. 2 to 4 to reelect them for the ensuing term i.e. 2009-2013 is absolutely illegal. Therefore, it was requested to grant mandatory interim injunction as well as prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants No. 2 to 4 from acting as President, Treasurer and Secretary unless they are duly elected in a democratic manner. 5. The Notice of Motion was opposed only by appellant herein original defendant No. 4. Even the original defendants No. 1 to 3 who were declared reelected by the Election Officer also supported the plaintiffs. The Notice of Motion was opposed by defendant No. 4 by submitting that there was an unanimous decision taken in presence of the members of the association not to go ahead with election as per the election programme and to declare the defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected for the ensuing term as there was some disturbance in the voting by members and some of the district association whose names were dropped from the voters list. Therefore, it was submitted that once the unanimous decision was taken in the meeting and the defendants No. 2 to 4 were reelected it is not proper for the original plaintiffs to challenge the same subsequently as a second thought. It was also further submitted that even such a mandatory injunction which is prayed is final relief sought in the suit and therefore, it was requested not to grant such a mandatory interim injunction which is the final relief in the suit. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the Notice of Motion. 6. The learned Chamber Judge of the City Civil Court after considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties i.e. original plaintiff as well as original defendant No. 4 and others, by impugned order has allowed the Notice of Motion-interim injunction Exh. 6/7 granting injunction in terms of Para 12-A and 12-B of the Notice of Motion and Paras 12-A and 12-B is reproduced hereinabove, by specifically observing and holding that the election process held on 19.7.2009 is arbitrary and illegal and it is a fit case to grant interim relief which is in the form of mandatory relief to restore constitutional right in a democratic country. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad passed below Notice of Motion in Civil Suit No. 1818 of 2008 granting injunction in terms of Paras 12-A and 12-B of the Notice of Motion, the appellant original defendant No. 4 only has preferred the present Appeal from Order along with Civil Application for interim relief therein. 7. Shri B.M. Mangukiya, learned Advocate for the appellant-original defendant No. 4 has mainly submitted and argued that the learned Judge has committed an error in granting the interim relief which is the main relief sought in the suit/plaint. It is submitted that when there are very serious Triable issues the learned Judge is not justified in granting such a mandatory relief which is in fact main relief prayed in the suit. It is further submitted that as such by granting such a mandatory relief the learned trial Court has virtually allowed the suit without any further trial. It is further submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in considering the case as rarest of rare of case warranting mandatory relief which is the main relief in the suit. 8. Shri Mangukiya, learned Advocate for the appellant has further submitted that even otherwise on merits also the learned Judge has committed an error in allowing the Notice of Motion. It is submitted that even as per the Memorandum of association the election of the office bearers can only be held in the Annual General Meeting and, therefore, on 19.7.2009 there was no question of election of the office bearers on that day. It is further submitted that as such there is no provision made to conduct the election of the office bearers of association, in the memorandum of association and, therefore, as such the entire election process to be conducted on 19.7.2009 itself was illegal. It is further submitted that as such there is no provision made to conduct the election of the office bearers of association, in the memorandum of association and, therefore, as such the entire election process to be conducted on 19.7.2009 itself was illegal. It is further submitted by Shri Mangukiya, learned Advocate for the appellant that even otherwise the defendants No. 2 to 4 were rightly declared as reelected for the ensuring terms i.e. 2009-2013 by the Election Officer as there was a consensus between the members of the association who were present in the said meeting on 19.7.2009, to declare the defendant No. 2 to 4 as reelected and at that time the plaintiffs were also present and therefore, it is not open for the plaintiffs now to challenge the re-election of the defendants No. 2 to 4 for the next ensuing the terms i.e. 2009-2013. It is submitted that only after a period of three days and as second thought the plaintiffs objected to the proceedings conducted on 19.7.2009 and declaring the defendants No. 2 to 4 reelected for the next term. Therefore, it is submitted that in the aforesaid fact situation, the learned Judge ought not to have granted such a mandatory relief, as whether in fact there was a consensus or not and/or whether the defendants No. 2 to 4 are rightly declared reelected, are all questions which are required to be considered at the time of trial. Therefore, it is submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge has committed an error in granting such a mandatory relief. It is further submitted that even the question with respect to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court also arise as the election was conducted and held at Vallabh Vidhyanagar and, therefore, the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad would not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is submitted that all the aforesaid aspects were required to be considered by the learned trial Court and unfortunately the learned Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid facts in its true spirit and its true sense. 9. It is submitted that all the aforesaid aspects were required to be considered by the learned trial Court and unfortunately the learned Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid facts in its true spirit and its true sense. 9. It is further submitted that even the prayer of the plaintiffs more particularly, prayer to direct that the election to be held for the candidates declared eligible on 9.7.2009 and as per the voters list declared on 23.6.2009 is mala fide inasmuch there are same district association whose names have been deleted from the voters list illegally and one district association at Porbandar had in fact filed the suit and obtained injunction. It is submitted that the intention of the plaintiffs is to see that those members of the district association whose name have been deleted illegally from the voters list are not permitted to cast to their votes and the intention of the plaintiffs is to go on with election by such a faulty voters list. Therefore, also the learned Judge has committed a grave error in granting such a mandatory relief. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Appeal from Order. 10. Appeal from Order is opposed by Shri Sanjay Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs. It is submitted that the manner in which the proceedings was conducted on 19.07.2009 and of the election office bearers of the association was dropped by the Election Officer arbitrarily and highhandedly on 19.7.2009 and the manner in which the defendants No. 2 to 4 are declared reelected without there being any further election and/ or even agenda to reelect the defendants No. 2 to 4, the learned Judge has rightly treated the case as rarest of rare case warranting the mandatory relief. It is submitted that there is no absolute proposition of law that in no case main relief sought in the suit cannot be granted as interim relief. It is submitted that it depends upon the facts of each case. It is submitted that in fact election officer was required to held the election as per the election programme declared and only those voters whose names are mentioned in the voters list are to be permitted to cast their votes. It is submitted that it depends upon the facts of each case. It is submitted that in fact election officer was required to held the election as per the election programme declared and only those voters whose names are mentioned in the voters list are to be permitted to cast their votes. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is to maintain status quo prevailing prior to 19.7.2009 and prior to declaring the defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected. It is further submitted that as such it is not open for the appellant -original defendant No. 4 now to contend that there was no question of holding the election on 19.7.2009 as per the Articles and Memorandum of Association, election of the office bearers is to be held on the Annual General Meeting, as in fact appellant original defendant No. 4 himself has participated in the said election and contested the election by submitting the nomination form. It is submitted that if the contention on behalf of the appellant -original defendant No. 4 to the extent that on 19.7.2009 as there was no question of holding the election of the office bearers as the election of the office bearers is to be held only in annual general meeting is accepted then in that case, how the defendants No. 2 to 4 can be declared reelected. It is submitted that the appellant original defendant No. 4 cannot double game. It is submitted that as such the majority of the members of the association objected to such an undemocratic and illegal action of the election officer to drop the election and to declare the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as reelected for the next term. It is submitted that immediately majority of the district associations have objected to such an illegality which is on record. It is further submitted that even the defendants No. 2 and 3 who were also declared reelected along with the appellant original defendant No. 4, they had submitted the written submissions and reply affidavits submitting that whatever has happened on 19.7.2009 is absolutely illegal and even the action of the election officer to declare the defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected is absolutely illegal and undemocratic. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Judge has not committed any error in granting such a mandatory relief. It is submitted that even the learned Judge has also granted the prohibitory injunction in terms of Para 12-B restraining the defendants No. 2 to 4 for acting as President, Secretary and Treasurer unless they are duly elected by legal election process. Therefore, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge which calls for the interference of this Court. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Appeal from Order. 11. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. It is not in dispute that a notification was published by the election officer of Basketball Association on 5.6.2009 declaring the election of the office bearers and declaring election programme. That as per the said notification and the election programme the election of the association was scheduled to be held for the post of President, four Vice Chairman, one honorary secretary, four associated secretary, one treasurer and Nine members of the managing committee. As per the said election programme two representatives of each association authority with defendant No. 1 associations were authorized to remain present and the name mentioned in the schedule form with identification and photographs were to reach on or before 6.p.m. On 20.6.2009 with the election officer i.e. defendant No. 5 and the list of the voters was to be declared at 5.p.m on 26.6.2009. That as per the election programme the candidates were required to place their candidature as per form II from amongst representative nominated by each association specifying the post to be so received on or before 6.p.m on 3.7.2009 and upon scrutiny thereof the candidates found eligible were to be permitted to contest of which declaration would be made at 11.a.m on 06.07.2009. That on or upto 6 a.m of 08.07.2009 the candidates were permitted to withdraw their candidatures and the final list of the candidates was to be published on 09.7.2009 at 6.00 p.m. The election was to be held on 19.07.2009 between 11.a.m to 1 p.m and on that day itself after the election results were to be declared. The original plaintiff No. 1 submitted the candidature for the post of President and original plaintiff No. 2 submitted the candidature for the post of Treasurer. The original plaintiff No. 1 submitted the candidature for the post of President and original plaintiff No. 2 submitted the candidature for the post of Treasurer. Even the appellants-original defendant No. 4 also submitted the candidature for the post of President and Secretary. It appears from the documentary evidence as well as affidavits filed by the respective defendants, on 19.7.2009 the original defendant No. 5 -Election Officer dropped the election which was to be held as per the notification and election programme on 19.7.2009 and declared defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected as President, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer respectively for the next term i.e. 2009-2013. It appears from the communication dated 19.7.2009 by Election Officer to the President/ Honorary Secretary to the Gujarat State Basketball Association -original defendant No. 1 that in view of the summons issued for the membership issue of the Porbandar district basketball association by the Porbandar Court and as per suggestion of the observers of Gujarat State Olympic Association and Basketball Federation of India it has been decided and unanimously agreed among members of the association that defendants No. 2 to 4 be declared as reelected as President, Honorary Secretary, Treasurer for next term i.e. 2009-2013. It is to be noted that the said communication has been signed only by the defendants No. 2 to 4 and the representatives of the Gujarat State Olympic Association and Basketball Federation of India and it is not signed by the members of the association as alleged. It is to be noted that on 19.7.2009 in the said meeting the only business which was to be transacted was the election of the office bearers of the association as per the election programme declared on 5.6.2009. There was no other business to be transacted more particularly, to reelect the defendants No. 2 to 4. The manner in which the election of the office bearers of the association has been dropped by the election officer and the manner in which defendants No. 2 to 4 are declared as reelected for the next term is absolutely illegal and undemocratic and unconstitutional. As stated above, as such there was no agenda at all to declare the defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected for the next term. As stated above, as such there was no agenda at all to declare the defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected for the next term. It is to be noted that on 19.7.2009 as per the election programme and the notification dated 5.6.2009 the election of all the office bearers of the association was to be held inclusive the post of President, Honorary Secretary, Treasurer and still entire election came to be dropped and only defendants No. 2 to 4 came to be declared as reelected as President, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer. The aforesaid is not permissible at all. There is no answer by the appellant-defendant No. 4 with respect to the rest of the posts. As such the defendant No. 5 Election Officer was required to held and conduct the election of the office bearers of the association as per the election programme and the notification dated 5.6.2009 and it was not open for him to drop election. Therefore, thus action of the original defendant No. 5 to drop the election is absolutely illegal and undemocratic and unconstitutional. The election officer was required to go ahead with the election as per the election programme and to declare candidate elected on the basis of vote secured by the respective candidates. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the action of the original defendant No. 5 -election officer and the proceedings held on 19.7.2009 by the election officer dropping the election for all the posts of the office bearers of the defendant No. 1 association and to declare the defendants No. 2 to 4 as President, Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer as reelected is per-se illegal, the learned Judge has rightly granted the mandatory relief directing the defendant No. 1 association to hold election of office bearers of the association and that too on the basis of the voter list prepared as per the election programme. It is to be noted that as such defendants No. 2 to 4 have not challenged voters list at all. It is to be noted that as such defendants No. 2 to 4 have not challenged voters list at all. It is also required to be noted that though the original defendants No. 2 and 3 are declared as reelected as President and Honorary Secretary respectively on 19.7.2009 by the defendant No. 5 election officer, they have filed the affidavits supporting the plaintiffs submiting that the action of the election officer to drop the election of the office bearers of the Basketball Association and to declare the defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected is absolutely illegal and undemocratic. Therefore, even the beneficiaries to the proceedings dated 19.7.2009 and the beneficiaries to the decision of the election officer dated 19.7.2009 themselves have supported the plaintiffs by submitted that the action of the defendant No. 5 is absolutely illegal. From the documentary evidences on record it appears that majority of the district associations have objected the illegal action of the defendant No. 5 declaring the defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected and droping election. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly treated the case as rarest of rare of case warranting such a mandatory relief which would be to preserve democratic process and the values. 12. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the appellant that an unanimous decision was taken on 19.7.2009 by all the members of the district association who remain present in the said meeting to drop the election in view of the dispute with respect to deleting the names of some of the members and it was decided to declare the original defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected for the next term, therefore, now it is not open for the plaintiffs who were present in the said meeting to challenge the same is concerned, it is to be noted that nothing is on record that the original plaintiffs are parties to such a decision. As stated above, in the communication by the original defendant No. 5-Election Officer it is signed only by defendants No. 2 to 4 and representative of the Gujarat State Olympic Association and Basketball Federation of India. What is produced on record to show that the plaintiffs and others members of the association is the attendance slip signed by the respective representative / members. What is produced on record to show that the plaintiffs and others members of the association is the attendance slip signed by the respective representative / members. However, when the election was to be held on 19.7.2009 as per the election programme and all were present for the said election, in the attendance slip the signature of the members is bound to be there. It is to be noted that it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs and others that after the respective members gathered for the purpose of election some disturbance started by some unknown persons and unknown persons posing themselves to be the representative of the some district association and thereafter all of a sudden the election was dropped. Therefore, merely because in the attendance slip the respective plaintiffs as well as others signed that does mean that they are party to the decision to drop the election and to reelect the defendants No. 2 to 4 for the next term. It is to be noted that the communication by the original defendant No. 5 -Election Officer is only with respect to three posts i.e. President, Honorary Secretary and Honorary Treasurer and nothing is coming forth with respect to the other posts and office bearers of the association. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respective plaintiffs were parties to the said decision dated 19.7.2009 to drop the election and to reelect the defendants No. 2 to 4. Again at the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that so far as defendants No. 2 and 3 who also came to be reelected is concerned, as such they have supported the plaintiffs by filing necessary affidavits and reply to the Notice of Motion denying that there was such an unanimous decision. 13. Now, so far as the submission of Shri Mangukiya, learned Advocate for the appellant-defendant No. 4 that as per the Articles and Memorandum of Association of the Basketball Association the election of the office bearers of the association can only be in the Annual General Meeting and as on 19.7.2009 there was no annual general meeting, and, therefore, even otherwise there was no reason to hold the election on 19.7.2009 is concerned, first of all it is required to be noted that such a contention is not raised by the appellant-original defendant No. 4 before the learned trial Court. No such averments are made in the written statement and / or reply to the Notice of Motion. Even otherwise, on merits also there is no substance in the said submission. It is to be noted that the very appellant-defendant No. 4 had contested the election and offered the candidature by filling up the form. Therefore, when he has participated in the election to be held on 19.7.2009 by offering candidature by filling up the form, it not open for the appellant now to contend that on 19.07.2009 there could not be election of the office bearers. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the election programme was declared by Notification date 5.6.2009 declaring the election programme and more particularly declaring dated 19.7.2009 as the date for election, the appellant-original defendant No. 4 has never objected to it till in the present Appeal from Order. Apart from that as stated above, once the appellant himself contested the election which was to be held on 19.7.2009 it is not open for the appellant now to make above submission. 14. Now so far as main contention on behalf of the appellant-original defendant No. 4 that the learned Judge has materially erred in granting such an interim relief tantamounting to granting final relief and that too mandatory in nature is concerned, it cannot be disputed that there is no absolute proposition of law that in no case the Court cannot grant interim relief which would tantamount to granting final relief. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deoraj vs. State of Maharshra And Others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 697, in Paras 11 and 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed as under: “11. The Courts and Tribunals seized of the proceedings within their jurisdiction take a reasonable time in disposing of the same. This is on account of fair procedure requirement which involves delay intervening between the previous and the next procedural steps leading towards preparation of case for hearing. Then, the Courts are also overburdened and their hands are full. As the conclusion of hearing on merits is likely to take some time, the parties press for interim relief being granted in the interregnum. Then, the Courts are also overburdened and their hands are full. As the conclusion of hearing on merits is likely to take some time, the parties press for interim relief being granted in the interregnum. An order of interim relief may or may not be a reasoned one but the factors of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience do work at the back of the mind of the one who passes an order of interim nature. Ordinarily, the Court is inclined to maintain status quo as obtaining on the date of the announcement of the proceedings. However, there are a few cases which call for the Court’s leaning not in favour of maintaining the status quo and still lesser in percentage are the cases when an order tantamounting to a mandamus is required to be issued even at an interim stage. There are matters of significance and of moment posing themselves as moment of truth. Such cases do cause dilemma and put the wits of any Judge to test. 12. Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case - of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent”. 15. In the case of Doran Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Soran Warden and Others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 117 while considering the grant of interlocutory relief/ mandatory injunction by the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held that the relief of interlocutory mandatory relief is granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. When the Court can grant interlocutory mandatory injunction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued following guidelines. (i) On the facts before the Court there should be strong probability of the plaintiff getting the relief prayed for by him in the suit. The plaintiffs case should be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (ii) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (iii). Since the relief of an interim injunction is all the same an equitable relief the Court shall also consider whether the comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to ensue from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it, which means that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff seeking the relief. It is also further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that to grant or refusal of interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. 16. Now, considering the facts and circumstances of the case narrated herein above, it is established that not only refusal to grant an interim mandatory injunction will do irreparable injury to the plaintiffs but also balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs for grant of such an injunction. 16. Now, considering the facts and circumstances of the case narrated herein above, it is established that not only refusal to grant an interim mandatory injunction will do irreparable injury to the plaintiffs but also balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs for grant of such an injunction. Considering the facts of the case it appears that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs warranting such a mandatory relief which might be the final relief. As stated above the action of the Election Officer -original defendant No. 5 dropping the election of the office bearers of the association and declaring defendants No. 2 to 4 as reelected for the next term (without any election) is absolutely unconstitutional and undemocratic which cannot be permitted to be continued. It is to be noted that if the injunction as prayed is not granted the defendants No. 2 to 4 would continue to hold the post for a period of three years and consequently the other members will be deprived of the right to elect the office bearers of the association of their choice in a democratic manner and even to contest the election of the office bearers. A judicial notice can be taken that there is no possibility that the suit is likely to be disposed of at the earliest as there are so many other old matters pending even before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. In the facts and circumstances of the case narrated herein above, it appears that withholding of interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of the suit itself as by the time the main suit comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be as though all the finding may be in their favour by the time the term of the defendants No. 2 to 4 would be over. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that withholding of granting of such a mandatory relief to the peak and conscious of the Court and do violation to the sense of justice, resulting injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing and at the end, the Court would not be able to effect the cause of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that withholding the interim relief as prayed for would be permitting the defendants No. 2 to 4 to hold the post illegally and unconstitutional and undemocratic manner and not permitting the plaintiffs and other members of the association to elect the office bearers of the association in democratic manner, which would perpetuate the illegality and injustice. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that this is a rarest of rare case warranting a mandatory relief which might be a final relief in the suit. 17 No illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court granting the mandatory as well as prohibitory injunction as prayed for in terms of Paras 12-A and 12-B of the Notice of Motion, which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present Appeal from Order, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Civil Application No. 10903 of 2009 In view of dismissal of Appeal from Order, no order in Civil Application and is accordingly dismissed. P P P P P