Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 27 (TRI)

Timir Chanda v. Tripura Cricket Association

2022-01-18

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - The facts in brief in the instant revision petition are that, the petitioner herein, Shri Timir Chanda is the elected Honorary Secretary of the respondent-Tripura Cricket Association ('TCA' for short). On 13.03.2021, in a meeting of the Apex Council of TCA 'No Confidence Motion' was placed against the petitioner being the Secretary of Tripura Cricket Association and as per the resolution passed in the meeting, the appellant was ousted from the TCA from the post of Honorary Secretary invoking the Clause 7(1)(d) of the constitution of TCA and the power of Secretary was delegated to the Joint Secretary until the Secretary post is duly filled up. The petitioner was however absent in the meeting on the ground of his ailment. In this connection, a press release dated 13.03.2021 was also issued. Consequently, upon the resolution dated 13.03.2021, a letter dated 15.03.2021 was also communicated to the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the resolution dated 13.03.2021, the petitioner had approached the Trial Court in Civil Judge, Senior Division and filed a civil suit bearing No. T.S. 40 of 2021 for declaration and perpetual injunction. Along with the suit he also filed an application for temporary injunction, and the same was registered and marked as Civil Misc. (INJ) 29 of 2021. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division dismissed the application dated 02.06.2021. Challenging the order dated 02.06.2021, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, Addl. District Judge and the same was registered and marked as Misc. Appeal No. 09 of 2021 and vide order dated 01.12.2021, the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 01.12.2021. 2. By filing the instant revision petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:- i) Issue a Rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure-6-supra) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2(Shri Gobinda Das) in Misc. Appeal 09 of 2021, shall not be quashed/set aside, and thereafter, pass an Order of Injunction as prayed for by the petitioner in Civil Misc. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2(Shri Gobinda Das) in Misc. Appeal 09 of 2021, shall not be quashed/set aside, and thereafter, pass an Order of Injunction as prayed for by the petitioner in Civil Misc. (INJ) 29 of 201 (Annexure-2-supra) and pass any other Order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper ends of justice; ii) Call for the records pertaining of this petition; iii) In the ad-interim and thereafter, in the interim pass an order staying the operation/execution of impugned Order dated 01.12.2021 (Annexure-6 supra) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2(Shri Gobinda Das) in Misc. Appeal No. 09 of 2021, and restore the operation of Order dated 04.10.2021, and restore the operation of Order dated 04.10.2021, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2 (Shri Gobinda Das) in Civil Misc. (INJ) 05 of 2021 arising out of Misc. Appeal No. 09 of 2021 (Annexure-5 supra) and/or allow the petitioner to act as Secretary of TCA till disposal of this application. iv) After hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer i) above; v) Costs of any incidental to this proceeding; vi) Any other relief(s) as to his Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;' 3. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the by-laws No. 7(1)(c) of the Tripura Cricket Association which reads as under:- '7. POWER AND DUTIES OF OFFICE-BEARERS ............................................................................... ............................................................................... (C) The president shall also exercise such functions and duties as he may be empowered with by the General Body or the Apex Council. 5. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the agenda wherein, the request of the 'no-confidence motion' is not reflected in the said agenda and thus he prayed for allowing the instant CRP on the above-mentioned grounds. 6. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Tripura Cricket Association submits that the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are just and proper and it should be upheld and the instant CRP needs to be dismissed on the ground that the Apex Council is having the power of general body as well. Mr. 6. Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Tripura Cricket Association submits that the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are just and proper and it should be upheld and the instant CRP needs to be dismissed on the ground that the Apex Council is having the power of general body as well. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was ousted from his services on the ground that he was indisposed and he has also inducted into the cricket association certain cricket players unauthorizedly. He was not fulfilling his duties as per the bylaws. 7. On perusal of the records, the notice calling for the meeting as well as the agenda and the resolution, nowhere it is reflected with regard to moving of 'no-confidence motion' against the petitioner. The 'no-confidence motion' letter (not dated) which is relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Tripura Cricket Association does not carry any date. No agenda carries the said information about the decision of removal of Honorary Secretary, the petitioner herein. The record and the resolution are silent with regard to following the doctrine of audi alteram partem and no notice was issued to the petitioner asking for his explanation before taking a final decision of his termination. This Court feels it is a high-handed and arbitrary action of the respondent-Tripura Cricket Association. The citation relied upon by the respondent-Counsel titled as Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and ors., reported in 2020 2 TLR (SC) Page 67 is not relevant to the facts of the case. 8. On the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, this Court is convinced that the petitioner is entitled for relief as prayed. The finding of the Courts below that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if injunction is not granted and no monetary transactions are involved in the matter cannot be appreciated. The other ground for rejection of injunction is that the granting of interim relief would amount to granting of final relief and nothing survives for final adjudication. This ground also cannot be appreciated since the interim order granted would always be subject to the result of the final disposal of the main case. The other ground for rejection of injunction is that the granting of interim relief would amount to granting of final relief and nothing survives for final adjudication. This ground also cannot be appreciated since the interim order granted would always be subject to the result of the final disposal of the main case. In the matter like welfare or any sport association, where financial issues are not actively involved and when the post itself is honorary, the person sitting in the chair and performing his honorary duties deserves more respect and also protection under Law. This Court has no hesitation to say that the respondent-Tripura Cricket Association has failed in its lawful duty in removing the petitioner without following legal requirements enunciated under the Doctrine of audi alteram partem. Whether the litigation is involved with any monetary loss or not is immaterial. Judicial scrutiny only requires whether impugned order is in conformity with law? Whether the legal right of the petitioner is infringed? 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court feels that there is infringement of legal right of the petitioner. The impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice without giving an opportunity to the petitioner before removing him from him post of Honorary Secretary. Hence, the orders passed by the Trial Courts are set aside and the instant CRP is allowed permitting the petitioner to continue as Honorary Secretary of the Tripura Cricket Association pending disposal of the suit before the Trial Court. The trial Court shall decide the suit on its merit not being influenced by the orders passed by this Court in the present CRP. 10. With the above observation and direction, the instant CRP stands disposed of.