Judgment : A. Nos.3796 and 3797 of 2015 in C.S.No.465 of 2015: The plaintiffs in the suit are the applicants in these applications. They have filed the abovesaid suit for a declaration to declare the Election Notification, dated 05.06.2015 issued by the defendant-Association as null and void and consequently, to appoint an Election Officer to conduct a free and fair election. Pending suit, A.No.3796 of 2015 is filed for appointment of an Election Officer to conduct the election of the defendant-Association, and A.No.3797 of 2015 is filed for staying the operation of the Election Notification, dated 05.06.2015 and consequently, all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Election Notification, dated 05.06.2015. 2. The case of the applicants/plaintiffs, in short, is as follows: The applicants are the members of the respondent-defendant-Association, which is a registered body under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The election to the respondent-Association is to be conducted once in every three years and the office bearers are elected out of the eligible contesting candidates. The General Secretary of the respondent-Association issued the impugned Notification announcing the Election for the years 2015-2018, stating that the election would be conducted on 15.07.2015 from 7 am to 5 pm in Cine Musician Unit at Vadapalani, Chennai. Though the first applicant requested for furnishing a copy of the members/voters' list to canvass for the election, the same has not been furnished. The President and Secretary of the respondent-Association have autocratically nominated two Advocates as the Election Officers. The election date falls on a working day, namely Wednesday, and therefore, it is very difficult for the voters to come to Chennai and cast their vote on that day. Moreover, the venue is also situated in a narrow congested area and the premises is also small, which would be difficult to have an access. Normally, the election is conducted on the second Sunday, since the entire industry is on compulsory holiday on that day. But the present President and the General Secretary had misrepresented themselves as life trustees and purchased an apartment through Document No.2658 of 2010 and such purchase is highly objectionable. Hence, the present suit with these applications. 3. Normally, the election is conducted on the second Sunday, since the entire industry is on compulsory holiday on that day. But the present President and the General Secretary had misrepresented themselves as life trustees and purchased an apartment through Document No.2658 of 2010 and such purchase is highly objectionable. Hence, the present suit with these applications. 3. A common counter affidavit is filed by the General Secretary of the respondent-Association, wherein it is stated as follows: Who are to be appointed as Election Officers, is an absolute power of the Executive Committee which rules and controls the administration of the Association and the appointment of Election Officers and the order of such appointment, are issued in the name of the General Secretary. On 01.06.2015, the Executive Committee meeting was held and the appointment of the Election Officers was discussed, and accordingly, M/s. J. Selvarajan, R. Murali and S. James Amudhan were appointed as Election Officers. The applicants have not challenged the appointment of the Election Officers, and therefore, there is no question of appointing a retired Judge of this Court as an Election Officer. An eligible candidate to contest the election alone is eligible to get the eligible voters' list from the Election Officer. Cine Musician Trust premises consists of 7-1/2 grounds and arrangements have been made for parking car in the estate of AVM Studio. The Association has paid necessary rent to the said Cine Musician Trust for conducting the election. Regarding the contention that the election is to be held on a working day, Bye-law 31 of the Association takes care of such persons and personal inconvenience, as they can avail of the facility that ballot paper reaches wherever they are. It is not the first time that the election is being conducted on a working day. On earlier occasion, the election was conducted during working day. The entire election process is being carried on within the framework of the Bye-laws of the defendant-Association. The Election Notification has been personally communicated to the members of the Association in accordance with Bye-law 40 of the Association. 4. A rejoinder is filed by the first applicant disputing the contentions raised by the respondent-Association in the counter affidavit. 5. O.A.No.625 of 2015 and A.No.4019 of 2015 in C.S.No.495 of 2015: The plaintiff in the suit is the applicant in both the applications. 4. A rejoinder is filed by the first applicant disputing the contentions raised by the respondent-Association in the counter affidavit. 5. O.A.No.625 of 2015 and A.No.4019 of 2015 in C.S.No.495 of 2015: The plaintiff in the suit is the applicant in both the applications. He filed the said suit for a declaration to declare the Election Notification, dated 05.06.2015 issued by the first defendant-Association as null and void and consequently to appoint an Election Officer to conduct a free and fair election. Pending suit, O.A.No.625 of 2015 is filed for interim injunction restraining the first respondent-Association from enforcing the Election Notification, dated 05.06.2015, and A.No.4019 of 2015 is filed for appointment of an Election Officer to conduct the election of the first respondent-Association in accordance with the Bye-laws. 6. The case of the applicant in short, is as follows: He is a member of the first respondent-Association since 2006. He spoke against the office bearers of the Association whenever the interest of the members of the Association got affected or jeopardised. He filed a Trust Suit in C. S.Diary No.15568 under Section 92 of CPC before this Court, as the members of the Association were aggrieved by the mal-functioning of the Association and also mis-management of the Trust. Leave was granted by this Court to file the said Trust Suit and appeal filed against the said order granting leave, came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The said Trust Suit is still pending before this Court. He paid his membership subscription fees upto the year 2030 and the same was refused to be received. Hence, he filed a suit in O.S.No.1786 of 2013 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, for a direction to accept the differential amount of the subscription fees. Interim injunction sought for from removing the applicant(s) from the membership of the Association, though was dismissed by the trial Court, in C.M.A.No.94 of 2013, such application was allowed by the first appellate Court, against which a Civil Revision Petition filed before this Court was disposed of without disturbing the injunction granted in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs. Interim injunction sought for from removing the applicant(s) from the membership of the Association, though was dismissed by the trial Court, in C.M.A.No.94 of 2013, such application was allowed by the first appellate Court, against which a Civil Revision Petition filed before this Court was disposed of without disturbing the injunction granted in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs. As per Clause 4 of the impugned Election Notification, it has been stipulated that a member deciding to contest the election, should have been a fully paid member for the last seven years, and such a stipulation is against the provisions of the Bye-laws of the Association, which contemplates only five years. He made a representation to furnish the list of members, which was not done. He genuinely fears that the election will not be conducted in a free and fair manner, considering various violations and irregularities in issuing the said Election Notification. Hence, the suit with the applications are filed. 7. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent on his behalf and also on behalf of the second respondent, wherein the very same contentions raised in the abovesaid counter affidavit filed in the applications in C.S.No.465 of 2015, have been reiterated once again. 8. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by Mr. M. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs in C.S.No.465 of 2015 and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff in C.S.No.495 of 2015, are as follows: (a) The election cannot be held on a working day, as it causes difficulty to the voters, since they are the artistes of the respondent-Association engaged in various places in their shooting schedules. (b) The venue of the election is a congested place, and therefore, the election has to be conducted only in a spacious venue. (c) Clause 14 of the Election Notification says that final list of contesting candidates will be displayed on 04.07.2015 at 11.30 a.m., thereby allowing only ten days for contesting candidates to canvass for the election, which causes great hardship. (d) The voters' list sought for by the applicants, had not been furnished inspite of repeated reminders. (e) The stipulation of seven years of membership as the eligibility of a member to contest the election, is against the Bye-laws of the Association, as Bye-law 34 says only five years. (d) The voters' list sought for by the applicants, had not been furnished inspite of repeated reminders. (e) The stipulation of seven years of membership as the eligibility of a member to contest the election, is against the Bye-laws of the Association, as Bye-law 34 says only five years. (f) The present Election Notification was signed and issued by the General Secretary, who has no power to issue the same. (g) As the office bearers are entitled to contest the election, they should be kept away from the election process. (h) Only the Administrative Committee could appoint the Election Officers as per Bye-law 38 of the Association, whereas the present Election Notification appointing the Election Officers was issued by the General Secretary, which is without jurisdiction and against the Bye-laws of the Association. (i) As the members have ventilated mal-administration of the Trust and the Association and the Scheme/Trust Suit is also pending before this Court, the conduct of the election by the present Election Officers who were appointed at the instance of the President of the Association, cannot be free and fair, and therefore, it has to be conducted only through a retired Judge of this Court. (j) The Election Officers have acted illegally by stipulating certain conditions against the Bye-laws of the Association, in their subsequent Notification, and therefore, they are not entitled to conduct the election. 9. Mr. Rubert J. Barnabas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Association in both the suits, submitted as follows: The plaintiff in C.S.No.495 of 2015 has signed the resolutions regarding the enhancement of the eligibility period of seven years, and therefore, he cannot raise that point. All the members are not entitled to vote and the defaulters in payment of subscription fees, are not eligible to vote. There is nothing wrong in the President in getting approval from the Executive Committee, after taking a decision to conduct the election. Equally, there is nothing wrong for the General Secretary to sign the order appointing the Election Officer(s) and issuing the impugned Election Notification. The Administrative Committee and the Executive Committee are one and the same, and therefore, the applicants are not correct in saying that the Election Notification was not issued by the competent authority. 29 members are in the Executive Committee, who will decide about all the issues. The Administrative Committee and the Executive Committee are one and the same, and therefore, the applicants are not correct in saying that the Election Notification was not issued by the competent authority. 29 members are in the Executive Committee, who will decide about all the issues. The General Secretary has power to issue the impugned Election Notification as per Bye-law 40. The election was conducted earlier during working days. As postal ballots are available, there cannot be any difficulty for the eligible voters to cast their vote in the election. The Election Officers were not made as parties to the present proceedings. The plaintiff in C.S.No.495 of 2015 cannot be heard by this Court, because he is not competent to do so under Bye-law 11, as he is in arrears of subscription fees. The five year eligibility period had been enhanced to seven years only after making necessary amendment in the Bye-laws of the Association. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties in the above applications in both the suits and perused the materials available on record. 11. The points for consideration in all the applications, are as follows: (i) Whether the impugned Election Notification is liable to be stayed during the pendency of the suits, and (ii) Whether an Election Officer has to be appointed for conduct of the election. 12. It is seen that the impugned Election Notification, dated 05.06.2015 is challenged on very many grounds. Insofar as the ground, namely that the election is scheduled to be conducted on a working day and in a congested premises, are concerned, I am of the considered view that these are all matters of convenience of the parties, and therefore, on that score, the election cannot be stalled. 13. The next contention raised by the applicants/plaintiffs is that stipulation of requirement of seven years' membership of the Association for a person intending to contest the election, is against the Bye-laws, as the original Bye-law stipulating five years, was not amended in a manner known to law. In support of such contention, the plaintiff in C.S.No.495 of 2015 relied on the Bye-laws filed in the typed set of papers, which according to him, had been obtained from the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Saidapet, Chennai, in pursuant to his request made through letter dated 15.5.2012. In support of such contention, the plaintiff in C.S.No.495 of 2015 relied on the Bye-laws filed in the typed set of papers, which according to him, had been obtained from the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Saidapet, Chennai, in pursuant to his request made through letter dated 15.5.2012. A perusal of the said Bye-laws, more particularly in Bye-law 34, shows that only five year period was referred to as the eligibility period. On the other hand, two printed booklets of the Bye-laws of the Association of the year 2010, were submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-Association. Both the said printed booklets indicate that they are the amended new Bye-laws of the year 2010. A perusal of one of the booklets, which according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant/Association is the old one, shows that Bye-law 34 showing the period as five years in the printed version, had been struck-off and 'seven years' had been written in manuscript. While seeing the other printed booklet, which according to the learned counsel for the respondent-Association, is the new one, the same indicates that 'seven years' had been printed in Bye-law 34. When both the abovesaid printed booklets are referred to as the amended new Bye-laws of the year 2010 of the respondent-Association, and one of the booklet showed the period as 'five years' only in the printed version and the correction was made in one booklet as 'seven years' and stating that some printing mistake has crept in, prima-facie it creates a doubt as to the veracity of the contentions raised by the respondent-Association insofar as the period of membership as required under Bye-law 34 is concerned. In effect, two sets of Bye-laws of the Association, are placed before this Court, one by the plaintiffs and the other by the defendants and both vary each other insofar as Bye-law 34 is concerned. Therefore, whether there was any amendment made to Bye-law 34 in accordance with law, is a matter requiring consideration, as the eligibility period to contest the election goes to the root of the matter. Unless such issue is decided in the main suits after conducting trial by marking documents and adducing evidence, the impugned Election Notification stipulating such 'seven years' as the period of membership, cannot be permitted to be acted upon. 14. Unless such issue is decided in the main suits after conducting trial by marking documents and adducing evidence, the impugned Election Notification stipulating such 'seven years' as the period of membership, cannot be permitted to be acted upon. 14. The next contention of the applicants/plaintiffs is that only ten day’s time is granted for the contesting candidates to canvass the election, and that the voters' list sought for by them had not been furnished, inspite of repeated reminders. A perusal of Clauses 12 to 15 of the impugned Election Notification shows that the voter’s list through CD will be given to the eligible candidates only after their names are published on 04.07.2015 at 11.30 a.m. in the Notice Board. When the election is to be held on 15.07.2015, giving the eligible voters' list to the contesting candidates only after their names are published in the Notice Board on 04.07.2015, certainly it gives only ten days' time for such candidates to canvass for the election from the eligible voters. Therefore, I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs that the stipulation of the above schedule causes great hardship to the contesting candidates. 15. The other contention raised by the applicants is with regard to the jurisdiction and competency of the General Secretary of the Association to issue the impugned Election Notification. According to the applicants, the impugned Election Notification issued by the General Secretary of the Association, is without competency and jurisdiction, as he has no power to issue the same. It is the contention of the applicants that only the Administrative Committee is competent to appoint the Election Officer. 16. For proper appreciation of the abovesaid contention(s) of the applicants, it is better to extract the relevant Bye-laws in Bye-laws 37 to 40 of the Association, as follows: “Tamil” (emphasis supplied) 17. A perusal of the abovesaid relevant Bye-laws with regard to the conduct of the election, shows that only the Administrative Committee could appoint the Election Officer and two Assistant Election Officers, who in turn will conduct the election in accordance with the Bye-laws. No doubt, Bye-law 40 contemplates that the General Secretary has to inform about the election to all the members 21 days in advance. But that does not mean that he himself is empowered to issue the Election Notification with the schedule of the election process. 18. No doubt, Bye-law 40 contemplates that the General Secretary has to inform about the election to all the members 21 days in advance. But that does not mean that he himself is empowered to issue the Election Notification with the schedule of the election process. 18. A perusal of the impugned Election Notification shows that the General Secretary himself has issued the same with all the relevant schedules for the conduct of the election, commencing from the date of receipt of the nomination papers. The said Election Notification nowhere indicates that the same was made in pursuant to a decision taken by the Administrative Committee as contemplated under Bye-law 38. Further, it is evident from the proceedings/Resolution of the Executive Committee meeting that had taken place on 01.06.2015 at 6.30 p.m. that the President of the Association has already taken a decision to conduct the election and he only sought for approval of such decision that too from the Executive Committee. It is also evident from the above proceedings/Resolution that the Election Officers were also appointed by the President, and such appointment was also sought to be approved by the Executive Committee. For better appreciation of the abovesaid facts, it is worthwhile to quote the relevant portion of the said proceedings/Resolution as follows: “Tamil” (emphasis supplied) 19. The above Resolution/proceedings of the meeting is placed before this Court by the respondent-Association themselves in their typed set of papers, and therefore, the same is not disputed by them. Thus, from a perusal of the above Resolution/proceedings, it is clear that only the President has taken a decision unilaterally to conduct the election on 15.07.2015 and after taking such a decision, he sought for approval of the Executive Committee members. It is further clear that he himself appointed the Election Officers to conduct the election and sought for approval of such appointment. In my considered view, such conduct of the President in proposing to conduct the election by his own decision on a particular day, is certainly against the Bye-laws of the Association, as such power is vested only with the Administrative Committee of the Association, which is empowered to do so. 20. It is not in dispute that the administration of the respondent-Association is done by three Committees, namely Administrative Committee, Executive Committee and General Committee. 20. It is not in dispute that the administration of the respondent-Association is done by three Committees, namely Administrative Committee, Executive Committee and General Committee. Under Bye-law 2 of the Association, it has been clearly stated that the Administrative Committee consists of the President, General Secretary, Treasurer and Vice-President of the Association, whereas the Executive Committee consists of the Executive Committee members. It goes without saying that each Committee will have its own powers and functions, and therefore, it cannot be contended that both the Administrative Committee and the Executive Committee are one and the same. If that be the case, there is no necessity to have three different Committees at all. Hence, the functions and powers of the Administrative Committee have to be exercised only by that Committee and not by the other Committee. 21. It is well settled that if a particular action or proceedings, is to be done by a particular authority and in a particular manner, such action or proceedings must be done only by such authority and in such manner and not by any other authority or in any other manner. Therefore, I am not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant-Association that the above Resolution passed by the Executive Committee, approving the decision taken by the President for conducting election and appointing the Election Officers, is a valid proceedings. The Executive Committee is not competent to exercise such power under the Bye-laws of the Association insofar as the conduct of the election is concerned. 22. Further, as it is very clear that the selection and appointment of the present Election Officers, is made by the President of the Association by himself, such action of the President justifies the apprehension in the minds of the applicants/plaintiffs that the election may not be conducted in a free and fair manner. There is no bar for the present office bearers to contest the election. If that be the case, the selection and nomination of the Election Officers by the President himself, cannot be accepted as valid action, as there is every likelihood that the present President may also contest the election. 23. There is nothing placed on record before this Court to show that the decision to conduct the election was taken by the Administrative Committee as contemplated under the Bye-laws. 23. There is nothing placed on record before this Court to show that the decision to conduct the election was taken by the Administrative Committee as contemplated under the Bye-laws. On the other hand, from their own document, namely the proceedings/Resolution of the Executive Committee meeting held on 01.06.2015, as referred to supra, it is seen that only the President has taken such a decision unilaterally and sought for approval of the Executive Committee and in any event, not from the Administrative Committee. In my considered view, even assuming that such an approval was sought for from the Administrative Committee, the same is not in accordance with the Bye-laws of the Association insofar as the conduct of the election is concerned. At this juncture, it is to be noted that a decision taken by an incompetent authority cannot be ratified later, as such action of taking a decision, is void-ab-initio, illegal and without jurisdiction. 24. Another clinching evidence is also brought to the notice of this Court, namely the receipt, dated 24.04.2015 issued by Cine Musicians' Trust and the letter written by the Cine Musicians' Trust to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, on the very same day, stating that the Cine Musicians' Trust Auditorium and G.V. K. Mini Hall A/C had been allotted to the South Indian Artistes' Association, for conducting 2015-2018 election from 14.07.2015 to 16.07.2015. It is seen from the said receipt that a sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid by the South Indian Artistes' Association to Cine Musicians' Trust towards the use of such premises for conducting election on those days. These two documents are placed before this Court in the typed set of papers filed by the respondent(s)/defendant(s) themselves in their typed set of papers. Therefore, it is evident that even before issuing the impugned Election Notification, dated 05.06.2015, the date and venue were fixed in the absence of any decision taken by the Administrative Committee. 25. Normally, when once the election process is commenced, the same will not be stalled by Courts, unless there is a compelling circumstance warranting to do so. At the same time, apart from raising other issues, if the jurisdiction to issue the Election Notification itself is questioned and on that issue, if the Court finds a prima-facie case, there is nothing wrong in staying the election process further. At the same time, apart from raising other issues, if the jurisdiction to issue the Election Notification itself is questioned and on that issue, if the Court finds a prima-facie case, there is nothing wrong in staying the election process further. In this case, this Court has prima-facie found that the very issuance of the Election Notification is without jurisdiction and the General Secretary of the Association is not competent to issue the same. Since such issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter, this Court finds every justification to grant interim orders of stay and injunction, as prayed for by the applicants in the respective suits. 26. Based on the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court also finds that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the applicants for grant of interim order of stay of the Election Notification and also interim injunction as prayed for, otherwise, certainly irreparable injury would be caused to the applicants, if the Election Notification is allowed to be proceeded with further, pending adjudication of the core issues, as discussed supra. 27. Though elaborate arguments were advanced by both sides in respect of the applications seeking to conduct the election by appointing a retired Judge of this Court, as the applicants and other members are not having confidence on the present officer bearers of the Association in respect of the conduct of the election, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to go into those allegations and counter-allegations and pass any order in these applications seeking appointment of a fresh Election Officer, in view of the fact that the suit themselves are filed seeking to set aside the Election Notification, dated 05.06.2015 and also to appoint the Election Officer to conduct the election. It is needless to say that such issues have to be gone into only in the main suits after conducting trial, and therefore, I am refraining myself from expressing any view in those applications for the present. 28. Therefore, this Court, having found that prima-facie case is made out by the applicants for grant of interim order of stay of the impugned Election Notification / interim injunction restraining the first respondent-Association from enforcing the said Election Notification, is of the view that the applicants/plaintiffs are entitled to such interim reliefs. 28. Therefore, this Court, having found that prima-facie case is made out by the applicants for grant of interim order of stay of the impugned Election Notification / interim injunction restraining the first respondent-Association from enforcing the said Election Notification, is of the view that the applicants/plaintiffs are entitled to such interim reliefs. Accordingly, A.No.3797 of 2015 in C.S.No.465 of 2015 and O.A.No.625 of 2015 in C.S.No.495 of 2015, are allowed. 29. The other applications in A.No.3796 of 2015 in C.S.No.465 of 2015 and A.No.4019 of 2015 in C.S.No.495 of 2015, filed for appointment of Election Officer, cannot be considered or any order be passed as an interlocutory measure, in view of the fact that the very same prayer is sought for in the main suits themselves, and such a relief can be considered and decided only in the main suits after conducting trial. Moreover, only when the impugned Election Notification challenged in the main suits, is set aside, the question of appointing a new Election Officer to conduct the election, would arise. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits and contentions raised by both parties in these applications insofar as seeking for appointment of Election Officer, is concerned, these applications are closed, and all the issues are relegated to be raised and adjudicated upon in the main suits. 30. Since the impugned Election Notification is stayed by this Court as indicated above, the disposal of the main Civil Suits cannot be delayed or prolonged any further, as the election to the respondent-Association has to be conducted at an early date without any further loss of time. Therefore, the respondent(s)/defendant(s) in both the Civil Suits are directed to file their respective written statement(s) within a period of two weeks from today, and on such filing of the written statement(s), the reply statement(s) if any, shall be filed by the plaintiff(s) in both the suits within a period of two weeks thereafter, and on completion of the pleadings in the suits, both the suits shall be listed for trial/disposal.