Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 365 (AP)

T. Suresh Kumar v. B. Praveen Kumar

2013-04-30

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2013
ORDER Since the facts of the case, issues involved and the parties in both these revisions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. CRP No. 4487 of 2012 is directed against the order dated 30.8.2012 passed in SROP No. 6 of 2011 by the VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar and CRP No. 4492 of 2012 is directed against the order dated 7.9.2012 passed in EA No. 1 of 2012 in EP No. 47 of 2012 in SROP No. 6 of 2011 by the VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 3. The parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in SROP No. 6 of 2011 for the sake of convenience. 4. The petitioner filed SROP No. 6 of 2011 seeking a declaration that the election dated 31.8.2008 conducted for Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association, Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as "Association") is invalid and for permanent injunction restraining respondents 4 and 5 from holding office, acting and discharging responsibilities of the Association. 5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association was formed on 18.8.1999. The aims and objects of the Association are; (a) to promote and develop sports in general and cricket in the district, (b) to identify talent at a very tender age by conducting series of tournaments and competitions, (c) to conduct regular coaching and practice sessions for the cricketers in the district and make them ready to participate in district, State, national and international level, (d) to be a forum to represent all cricket associations and cricket fraternity in the district at various levels in promotion of the game, (e) to develop sportsmen spirit and contribute for the development of discipline among the youth in general and (f) to do all the necessary actions to meet the above ends. It is certified that no profit and no commercial activities are involved in its working. The office address of the Association is shown as 7-5-90, Venkateshwara Colony, Mahabubnagar. As seen from the rules and regulations of the Association the only criteria to obtain membership is above 18 years. The said rules and regulations further enumerate that the annual general body meeting will be held once in a year i.e., in the month of July. The functions of general body are mentioned as follows. As seen from the rules and regulations of the Association the only criteria to obtain membership is above 18 years. The said rules and regulations further enumerate that the annual general body meeting will be held once in a year i.e., in the month of July. The functions of general body are mentioned as follows. (a) to pass the budget for the ensuing year and approve the expenditure statement of previous year, (b) to approve the report of the activities of the society, (c) to elect the executive committee etc., and (d) to appoint Auditor. Rule 9 deals with the amendments and 2/3rd of the members present have to agree for proposed amendments. 6. It appears that initially one Syed Hafeezuddin was elected as President, one S. Chandra Kumar Goud was elected as Vice-President and A. Venkateshwar Reddy was elected as General Secretary of the Association. Subsequently, disputes arose among the members and they approached Hyderabad Cricket Association. An ad hoc committee was formed to resolve the disputes among the members. The ad hoc committee decided to conduct elections. The ad hoc committee modified the rules and regulations particularly the rule with regard to admission of members into the association. As per the amended rule, a person who played two inter district tournaments on behalf of the District Cricket Association shall be eligible to become a member. The allegation of the petitioner is that several other persons were denied membership and they were not allowed to participate in the elections. It is also his allegation that initially his application for membership was rejected, but subsequently it was accepted. It is also his allegation that when he requested to supply the copies of voters list, the same was not supplied to him. The main contention of the petitioner is that no general body meeting was conducted and no resolution was passed by the association to amend the rules and the ad hoc committee has no authority to amend the rules. 7. It appears that on 21.8.2008 itself the second respondent filed caveat against 40 persons stating that the ad hoc committee rejected their applications and that those persons may approach the Court for any interim orders. According to the petitioner, on 31.8.2008 elections were held. 8. As seen from the record, the petitioner and one Md. 7. It appears that on 21.8.2008 itself the second respondent filed caveat against 40 persons stating that the ad hoc committee rejected their applications and that those persons may approach the Court for any interim orders. According to the petitioner, on 31.8.2008 elections were held. 8. As seen from the record, the petitioner and one Md. Riyazuddin filed OS No. 506 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, challenging the elections held on 31.8.2008 and seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondents 4 and 5 from holding the office of the association. It appears that the said suit was returned for presentation in appropriate Court. It is also clear that the petitioner herein has deleted the name of Riyazuddin and he alone filed SROP No. 6 of 2011 before the VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. 9. The respondents have filed separate counters and denied the allegations made by the petitioner. Their specific case is that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner alone filed the petition deleting the name of Md. Riyazuddin. Their further case is that the elections were conducted as per the rules and regulations. It is denied that the first respondent has no authority to appoint ad hoc committee to conduct the elections and ad hoc committee has no right to amend the rules. The further case of the respondents is that the association is an independent society registered under the Societies Act and that as per the advise of the Hyderabad Cricket Association, the ad hoc committee in its meeting held on 10.8.2008 decided that to enroll a player as member of the association who played two senior inter district tournaments and one has retired from the team. The allegation of the petitioner that he approached the respondents 2 to 4 requesting to furnish the list of voters has been denied. Their further case is that the petitioner has no authority to challenge the authority of the Convener of the ad hoc committee and that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the elections. 10. Basing on the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the elections of respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 to Mahabubanagar District Cricket Association is invalid? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for injunction against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as prayed for. 11. 10. Basing on the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the elections of respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 to Mahabubanagar District Cricket Association is invalid? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for injunction against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as prayed for. 11. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW1, PWs. 2 and 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B126 were marked. 12. The Court below, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the S.R.O.P., holding as follows: "Though the petition is filed to declare the election of R5 and R6 as null and void, he did not seek dissolution of the entire committee. It appears that the grievance is against the R5 and R6 and also prayed for injunction against them not to participate in the activities of the Cricket Association. As per the findings arrived in the first issue, the election of R5 and R6 is found to be in contravention of the rules and declaration is void. R5 and R6 not entitled to participate in the elections. The petitioner is entitled for injunction. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that the term of the elected body under the elections held on 31.8.2008 is likely to be expired by 31.8.2012. In view of the findings in issue Nos. 1 and 2, the election of R5 and R6 is declared as void as against the bye-laws of association. The Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association is directed to go for fresh elections by giving opportunity to all the members who are already enrolled as members before the appointment of ad hoc committee and also is at liberty to go for new fresh membership and after declaring the list of the members, the elections can be conducted. In the result, the petition is allowed declaring that elections of R5 and R6 is against the rules and regulations of Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association and their election is void." 13. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 (petitioners herein) is that the petitioner and one Md. In the result, the petition is allowed declaring that elections of R5 and R6 is against the rules and regulations of Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association and their election is void." 13. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 (petitioners herein) is that the petitioner and one Md. Riyazuddin filed OS No. 506 of 2008 before the Junior Civil Judge, at Mahabubnagar, and when the said suit was returned for presenting it to the proper Court, the petitioner had conveniently deleted the name of Riyazuddin without seeking the permission of the Court and filed this petition. His next submission is that the association is not made as a party and that the election of other office bearers is not challenged and no relief was claimed against other office bearers and the elections in respect of other office bearers is not set aside. It is further submitted that since the term of the office bearers elected on 31.8.2008 was over, fresh elections were conducted and that the petitioner filed E.P. seeking stay of elections and the elections were stayed and challenging the said order, respondents 5 and 6 filed CRP No. 4492 of 2012 and obtained stay order on 17.9.2012 and subsequently, elections were conducted on 30.9.2012 and in view of these changed circumstances, this Court need not set aside the elections. It is also argued that once election process is started normally Court should not interfere. 14. In support of his contention that unless all the election representatives are made as parties, a petition to set aside the election is not maintainable, learned Counsel had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case between Board of Control for Cricket, India and another v. Netaji Cricket Club and others, AIR 2005 SC 592 . Learned Counsel had also relied on the judgment in the case between Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2001 SC 3982 . 15. Learned Counsel had also relied on the judgment in the case between Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2001 SC 3982 . 15. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) submitted that the petitioner is the founder of the Association and as per the bye-laws of the association, members were admitted and subsequently, differences arose in their association and consequently, they approached Hyderabad Cricket Association and that an ad hoc committee was formed for the purpose of solving the disputes among the members. It is further submitted that the said ad hoc committee, under the influence of respondents 5 and 6, changed the bye-laws and prevented the petitioner and many other members of the association from participating in the elections. His main submission is that the ad hoc committee has no right to change the rules. It is further submitted that in spite of the specific directions of the Court below, the respondents have not followed those rules and conduced elections violating the norms and the bye-laws of the association. It is also submitted that this Court can pass appropriate orders as it deem fit and proper under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act. It is further argued that when more than 40 previous members were denied membership and were not allowed to vote, the election would be illegal. It is also argued that the subsequent alleged general body meeting held on 5.11.2008 cannot cure the defect. It is also argued that when more than 40 previous members were not allowed to participate in the alleged meeting on 5.11.2008, the same cannot be treated as a valid general body meeting. It is further submitted that since several irregularities have been committed by the respondents, the Court below was justified in setting aside the election of respondents 5 and 6. It is further argued that merely because there was interim stay, the respondents are not authorized to conduct elections without seeking the permission of the Court. It is argued that the previous members were not allowed to participate in the election held on 30.9.2012 and the orders of the lower Court were not implemented. It is further submitted that since the elections have been conducted in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, this Court can set aside the elections. It is argued that the previous members were not allowed to participate in the election held on 30.9.2012 and the orders of the lower Court were not implemented. It is further submitted that since the elections have been conducted in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court, this Court can set aside the elections. 16. Having considered the above rival claims, the points that arise for consideration in both these revisions are: (1) Whether the ad hoc committee has power to amend the bye-laws and conduct elections to the Association? (2) Whether the petitioner alone can file SROP deleting the name of Riyazuddin? (3) What directions can be issued in the given facts and circumstances of the case? (4) Whether the lower Court has jurisdiction to deal with the case? Point No. 4 : 17. Since the office of the Association is at Mahabubnagar, the Court at Mahabubnagar has jurisdiction to deal with the case. Point No. 1 : 18. It is not in dispute that the association was registered with Registration No. 5801 of 1999, dated 18.8.1999. The office address of the said association is shown as at House No. 7-5-90, Sri Venkateswara Colony, Mahabubnagar, i.e., the residential address of A. Venkateshwar Reddy (PW2). It is also not in dispute that A. Venkateshwar Reddy-PW2 is the founder General Secretary of the Association. The criteria for membership is simply shown as above 18 years. According to the rules, general body meeting will be held once in a year i.e., in the month of July. The association shall have an executive committee and it shall consist of five members and out of them the executive committee shall elect the office bearers viz., President, Vice-President, General Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer. 19. Rule 9 of the Association is as follows. "No amendment or alteration shall be made in the purpose of the Association unless it is voted by 2/3rd of its members present at a special meeting convened for the purpose and confirmed by 2/3 of the members present at a second special meeting." 20. There is no other rule to amend the Rules and Regulations of the Association. It is also not in dispute that when disputes arose among the members, the association approached the Hyderabad Cricket Association and an ad hoc committee was formed for smooth running on 12.7.2008. It appears that PWs. There is no other rule to amend the Rules and Regulations of the Association. It is also not in dispute that when disputes arose among the members, the association approached the Hyderabad Cricket Association and an ad hoc committee was formed for smooth running on 12.7.2008. It appears that PWs. 2 and 3 are also appointed as members of ad hoc committee along with M. Lakshmikantha Rao who was appointed as Convenor of the ad hoc committee. According to the respondents, the ad hoc committee held a press conference on 16.7.2008 and declared that the existing committee of the association stands dissolved and further declared that the second respondent was appointed as Convener of the said ad hoc committee. According to the respondents, the Hyderabad Cricket Association has suggested the ad hoc committee to enroll members and conduct elections for running the association and the ad hoc committee has also approved the said suggestion of Hyderabad Cricket Association by majority on 10.8.2008. According to the respondents, a resolution was passed in the said meeting to give membership to any player who has played two senior inter Districts in playing XI team for the association. It is also the case of the respondents that initially the membership was denied to the petitioner on 19.8.2008 but however he was given membership on 24.8.2008 when he produced sufficient proof. According to the respondents, the final list of members was finalized on 24.8.2008 and affixed on the notice board. According to the petitioner many members were denied membership and they were not allowed to participate in the elections. It is also his case that ad hoc committee has no right to amend the rules to fix the criteria for membership. 21. The lower Court found that imposing a condition that a player should have played two inter district tournaments by resolution dated 10.8.2008 was without any authority as the said condition is not found in bye laws of the association. 21. The lower Court found that imposing a condition that a player should have played two inter district tournaments by resolution dated 10.8.2008 was without any authority as the said condition is not found in bye laws of the association. It is further held that rejecting the applications of the persons who were already members of the association basing on above referred condition and not furnishing the list of voters to the members is illegal and therefore the election conducted by the ad hoc committee on 31.8.2008 is not in accordance with the rules and regulations and bye-laws of the association and accordingly declared that the election of respondents 5 and 6 is in contravention of the bye-laws. 22. As seen from the record, an ad hoc committee was constituted to resolve the disputes among the members of the association and the second respondent was appointed as Convener of the said committee. It is an admitted fact that the ad hoc committee by majority passed a resolution on 10.8.2008 imposing a condition that one should play two senior inter district tournaments to become eligible for membership. It is an admitted case that no general body meeting was conducted. When no general body meeting was conducted it is clear that the ad hoc committee cannot amend the bye-laws of the association. It is also a fact and admitted by RW2 that PWs. 1 and 2 are founder members of the association and PW2 worked as General Secretary of the Association. According to the petitioner membership was denied to several persons who are the earlier members of the society taking advantage of the alleged resolution of the ad hoc committee. Admittedly, the second respondent filed caveat against 40 persons who were denied membership and who were said to be previous members. It is also an admitted fact that there was no such condition in the original bye-laws of the association that a player should have played two senior inter district tournaments and should have retired from the tournament. The lower Court has rightly held that the ad hoc committee has no right to pass such resolution and it is against the bye-laws of the association. It is also not in dispute that basing on the above resolution passed by the ad hoc committee the applications of PWs. 1 to 3 were rejected. The lower Court has rightly held that the ad hoc committee has no right to pass such resolution and it is against the bye-laws of the association. It is also not in dispute that basing on the above resolution passed by the ad hoc committee the applications of PWs. 1 to 3 were rejected. It may be a fact that subsequently membership was• restored to PW 1, but the fact remains that the membership of PWs. 2 and 3 and several other persons were rejected by imposing the above referred condition. It is also admitted by RW2 that the elected body was already in existence before appointment of the ad hoc committee. 23. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the association has bye-laws and members were enrolled as per those bye-laws as on the date of appointment of ad hoc committee. It is also clear that the general body alone is empowered to amend bye-laws by 2/3rd majority. Admittedly the ad hoc committee was not authorized to amend the bye-laws. Since the ad hoc committee amended the bye-laws without any authority and denied membership to certain former members who are eligible to become the members as per the original bye-laws the entire action of the respondents in holding elections in 2008 and subsequently in 2012 becomes illegal. 24. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that MDCA conducted extraordinary general body meeting on 5.10.2008 and passed a resolution to amend the bye-laws and accordingly the bye-laws were amended as per the general body meeting held on 5.10.2008. If that is the case denying the membership to PWs. 2 and 3 before 5.10.2008 is illegal on the face of it. Admittedly the elections were conducted on 31.8.2008. Even if the general body meeting was held on 5.10.2008 the mistake committed at the time of conducting elections on 31.8.2008 cannot be cured. There is another flaw in the argument. Even if the general body meeting was held on 5.10.2008 and approved the amendment of bye-laws, admittedly such general body meeting was held as per the list of members enrolled by the ad hoc committee and the petitioner, PWs. 2 and 3 and the previous members of the association were denied membership and they were not allowed to participate in the meeting held on 5.10.2008. 2 and 3 and the previous members of the association were denied membership and they were not allowed to participate in the meeting held on 5.10.2008. Therefore, such resolution, if any, is passed on 5.10.2008 do not come to the rescue of the respondents. Such resolution passed by one group, without allowing the genuine members to participate in that meetings would become illegal. Therefore, I hold that the ad hoc committee has no right to amend the rules and deny membership to several members of the association. Accordingly, election conducted on 31.8.2008, basing on the voters list prepared by ad hoc committee, has to be set aside. Point No. 2 : 25. It is not in dispute that the election results were announced on 31.8.2008. Challenging the said election, the petitioner and one Riyazuddin filed suit in OS No. 506 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, at Mahabubnagar. Then they filed IA No. 186 of 2010 seeking permission to withdraw the said suit. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge. Challenging the said order, the petitioner and Riyazuddin filed CRP No. 884 of 2011 and this Court, by order dated 10.8.2011, allowed the said CRP permitting the petitioner and Riyazuddin to withdraw the suit with a liberty to represent the plaint before proper Court. However, the petitioner alone represented the SROP No. 6 of 2011 deleting the name of Riyazuddin. The respondents contention is that without taking the leave of the Court, the name of Riyazuddin is deleted and the petitioner alone represented SROP No. 6 of 2011 and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. It appears that the respondent raised an objection that, since Riyazuddin is not a member of association the suit filed by Riyazuddin and the petitioner is not maintainable. It is an admitted case that the petitioner is a member of the association. It is not in dispute that the petitioner alone has a right to challenge the elections. Merely because the petitioner alone represented SROP deleting the name of Riyazuddin, the same cannot be treated as incurable defect. It has to be seen that the petitioner has examined the said Riyazuddiu as PW3. In this case the ad hoc committee denied the membership to several persons and did not allow them to participate in the elections. Merely because the petitioner alone represented SROP deleting the name of Riyazuddin, the same cannot be treated as incurable defect. It has to be seen that the petitioner has examined the said Riyazuddiu as PW3. In this case the ad hoc committee denied the membership to several persons and did not allow them to participate in the elections. Though initially the petitioner was denied membership subsequently the petitioner was given membership. However, Riyazuddin was not given membership. Since Riyazuddin was denied membership, it appears that the petitioner alone represented the matter. Of course, he ought to have filed a memo before the Court explaining the circumstances as to why he had deleted the name of Riyazuddin and why he alone is proceeding with the case. Anyhow, on this technical ground, the case of the petitioner which is otherwise justified cannot be thrown away. Moreover, the respondents having taken objection that Riyazuddin is not a member of the association and the suit filed by Riyazuddin and the petitioner is not maintainable, cannot find fault with the petitioner for deleting the name of Riyazuddin. Point No. 3: 26. Admittedly, the term of the elected body under the elections held on 31.8.2008 was expired by 31.8.2012. It is also not in dispute that when the respondents intended to proceed with the elections, the petitioner filed EA No. 1 of 2012 and obtained stay orders from the VII Addl. District Judge on 7.9.2012. It is also not in dispute that the respondent filed CRP No. 4492 of 2012 and obtained stay order from this Court and in pursuance of said stay orders the respondents proceeded with the elections and again conducted elections on 30.9.2012. 27. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one has relied on the judgment reported in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437, wherein it was observed as follows. "No litigant can derive any benefit from the mere pendency of a case in a Court of Law, as the interim order always merges into the final order to be passed in the case and if the case is ultimately dismissed, the interim order stands nullified automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the Court. A party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs by getting an interim order and thereafter blame the Court. The fact that the case is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, or the party withdrew the writ petition, shows that a frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit", which means that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in such a case. In such a situation the Court is under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by the delayed action of the Court." 28. In view of the same, it is clear that since the elections were conducted on 30.9.2012 in pursuance of the interim stay granted by this Court on 17.9.2012, I am of the considered view that the said election shall be subject to the result of CRP filed by the petitioner. 29. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment reported in Hindalco Industries Ltd., v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 594 , with regard to granting of reliefs by the Court as the Court may think just, wherein it was observed as follows : "The Tribunal, while keeping justice, equity and good-conscience at the back of its mind, may when compelling equities of the case oblige them, shape the relief consistent with the facts and circumstances established in the given cause of action. Any uniform rigid rule, if be laid, it itself turns out to be arbitrary. If the Tribunal thinks just, relevant and germane, after taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, would mould the relief, in exercising its discretionary power and equally would avid injustice. Likewise when the right to remedy under the Act itself arises on the presence or absence of certain basic facts, at the time of granting relief, may either grant the relief or refuse to grant the same. It would be one of just and equitable exercise of the discretion in moulding the ancillary relief. It is not as of right." 30. It would be one of just and equitable exercise of the discretion in moulding the ancillary relief. It is not as of right." 30. It is true that the petitioner has sought the following reliefs in SROP No. 6 of 2011. "(a) For declaration that the election of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and other office bearers for Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association election dated 31.8.2008 is invalid, inoperative and insignificant and unenforceable. (b) consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 5 and 6 and other office bearers from holding office, acting, discharging responsibilities of the Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association President, Vice-Presidents, Hon'ble Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer and other executive members. (c) consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the respondents 5 and 6 from in way accepting, honouring, permitting and allowing any kind of interference by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the matter pertaining to the Mahabubnagar Cricket Association. (d) Any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled may be awarded. (e) The costs of the petition may be awarded." 31. It is also a fact that the Tribunal granted relief as follows: "Though the petition is filed to declare the election of R5 and R6 as null and void, he did not seek dissolution of the entire committee. It appears that the grievance is against R5 and R6 and also prayed for injunction against them not to participate in the activities of the Cricket Association. As per the findings arrived in the first issue, the election of R5 and R6 is found to be in contravention of the rules and declaration is void. R5 and R6 not entitled to participate in the elections. The petitioner is entitled for injunction. During the course of arguments, it was submitted that the term of the elected body under the elections held on 31.8.2008 is likely to be expired by 31.8.2012. In view of the findings in issue Nos. 1 and 2, the election of R5 and R6 is declared as void as against the bye-laws of association. The Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association is directed to go for fresh elections by giving opportunity to all the members who are already enrolled as members before the appointment of ad hoc committee and also is at liberty to go for new fresh membership and after declaring the list of the members, the elections can be conducted." 32. The Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association is directed to go for fresh elections by giving opportunity to all the members who are already enrolled as members before the appointment of ad hoc committee and also is at liberty to go for new fresh membership and after declaring the list of the members, the elections can be conducted." 32. It is argued that the relief sought by the petitioner is something different and the relief granted by the lower Court is something different and that the petitioner had only sought the declaration that the election of respondents 5 and 6 is invalid but the lower Court granted different relief. In view of the inherent powers of the Court and in view of Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act it appears that the Court has power to grant the relief which it feels just and proper in the circumstances of the case. It is not necessary that the Court should confine its relief to the reliefs prayed by the party. It has to be seen that the petitioner in SROP No. 6 of 2011 had specifically pleaded to grant any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled to. In the light of the judgment in Hindalco Industries Ltd.'s case (supra), it is clear that the Tribunal or Court may in its discretion mould the relief. 33. Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act is as follows: 23. Dispute regarding management.-In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit. 34. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (supra), learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that when the election process was commenced the High Court cannot interfere in the election process. 34. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra (supra), learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that when the election process was commenced the High Court cannot interfere in the election process. In that case the election programme was announced and electoral roll was finalized and published on 2.7.1999, however, in the meanwhile the State Government passed an order staying the elections to the cooperative societies. Subsequently, the Government issued orders exempting the said society from the list of societies whose elections were stayed. In view of the said notification the Collector issued election programme on 21.10.1999. Then the petitioners in that case approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question that arise for consideration is whether the petitioners can directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was held that if there is any breach of rule or certain mandatory provisions were not complied with while preparing of the electoral roll, the same can be challenged by means of an election petition. In the above circumstances, the Apex Court observed that since the election process having been set in motion the High Court should not stay the election process and after declaration of the results of the election it would be open to the appellant to challenge the election of returned candidate by means of an election petition before the election Tribunal. 35. The facts of the said case do not apply to the facts of this case, since the petitioner challenged the election before the competent Court after elections have been held on 31.8.2008 the above cited case can be distinguished on facts. 36. Learned Counsel for the respondents also relied on Board of Control for Cricket, India's case (supra), in support of their contention that since all the elected office bearers are not made as parties the petition is not maintainable. 37. In this case the term of the elected body expired by 31.8.2008. In view of the same, no useful purpose will be served by considering the question whether the election of other office bearers was challenged or not. It is also contended that the association is not made as party. The original rules do not indicate as to who has to represent the association. In view of the same, no useful purpose will be served by considering the question whether the election of other office bearers was challenged or not. It is also contended that the association is not made as party. The original rules do not indicate as to who has to represent the association. It is not in dispute that an ad hoc committee was formed to resolve the disputes among the members and the association is shown as Mahabubnagar District Cricket Association Ad hoc Committee, Mahabubnagar District. It is not in dispute that the respondent's specific case is that, the ad hoc committee held a press meet on 16.7.2008 and declared that existing committee was dissolved. Thus for all practical purposes the second respondent was representing the association. It has to be seen that the said ad hoc committee contested the matter by raising all possible grounds and also challenged the orders obtained by the petitioner. Since the second respondent, who was admittedly looking after all the affairs of the association, contested the petitions filed by the petitioner and conducted elections cannot say that the petitioner has not made the association as a party to the petition. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the said committee would be representing the Mahabubnagar Cricket Association till a new body is elected. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that Mahabubnagar Cricket Association is not made as a party. 38. The elections have to be held to the associations after the expiry of the period of the office bearers elected earlier. But neither the Election Officer nor any committee which is constituted to hold elections cannot remove the names of the members to facilitate one group to capture the association. The Election Officer or the ad hoc committee should strictly follow the procedure. They cannot change the rule for the purpose of disqualifying certain members to prevent them from participating in the elections or from casting their vote. If such methods are approved, it amounts to facilitate a minority group to capture an association. Elections have to be conducted basing on the list of the members who are already members of the association as on the date of nominating the ad hoc body or the Election Officer to conduct the elections. If such methods are approved, it amounts to facilitate a minority group to capture an association. Elections have to be conducted basing on the list of the members who are already members of the association as on the date of nominating the ad hoc body or the Election Officer to conduct the elections. Though it appears that there are certain lapses on the part of the petitioner and certain procedural irregularities, I am of the view that the Courts have to do the ultimate justice and in the process of doing ultimate justice much importance need not be given to the technicalities. In this case it is clear that PWs. 2 and 3 who are members of the association as on the date of appointing ad hoc committee have been denied membership basing on the subsequent resolution of the ad hoc committee by changing the qualification to acquire the membership of the association. It is not only PWs. 2 and 3, according to PW2, several other members of the association have been denied membership, basing on the amendment made by the ad hoc committee which has no business and no authority to amend the original bye-laws. It is made clear that since the elections were held on 30.9.2012 as per the interim orders of this Court, the same has to be set aside and accordingly stands set aside. 39. In view of the above discussion, both the CRPs are dismissed confirming the orders passed by the Court below. The respondents are directed to conduct fresh elections as per the orders passed by the lower Court in SROP No. 6 of 2011 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, in the circumstances, no costs. 40. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these CRPs, shall stand closed.