Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 485 (GAU)

Pankaj Dutta S/o Shri Atul Dutta v. Shrimanta Sankardev Sangha (Mul)

2025-03-20

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ditul Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. J Roy, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Sarma appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6. 2. The petitioner herein has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in Misc. Appeal No.4/2021 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 08.12.2021 passed in Misc.(J).Case No.212/2021 by the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup(M) Guwahati was upheld. 3. The question which arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction should entertain the instant proceedings. 4. The materials on record reveals that the petitioner herein as plaintiff claims to be a member of the respondent No.1 who was elected as the General Secretary of the 24th No. Kendriya Sishu, Juva and Al Matri Samaroh. It is the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that the petitioner on successfully concluding the Samaroh filed the audit report of the Samaroh to the respondent No.1 herein as per Article 18 of the Constitution of the respondent No.1, detailing the expenses of the Samaroh. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter the respondent No.3 herein had withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,59,500/- out of the said balance of the Samaroh. Subsequent thereto, the respondents No.3 issued notice to the petitioner through the respondent No.5 seeking re-scrutiny of the Samaroh and demand the records and documents relating to audit. The specific case of the petitioner is that such re-scrutiny of the audit is not permissible as per the Constitution of the respondent No.1 and the General Secretary of the respondent No.1 had no power to do so. On the said basis, the title suit was filed being Title Suit No.244/2021 before the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1 Kamrup(M) at Guwahati which was subsequently endorsed to the Court of the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff had also filed an injunction application which was registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.212/2021, whereby the petitioner sought for an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the respondents herein from passing any order and/or taking a resolution to “Songharohito”, i.e., black-list/boycott the petitioner as proposed in the letter dated 25.02.2021. 5. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff had also filed an injunction application which was registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.212/2021, whereby the petitioner sought for an ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the respondents herein from passing any order and/or taking a resolution to “Songharohito”, i.e., black-list/boycott the petitioner as proposed in the letter dated 25.02.2021. 5. The record further reveals that the learned Trial Court vide an order dated 07.04.2021 passed an ex-parte order directing to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the said injunction application so that the determination that was made in the main Title Suit are not frustrated. Subsequent thereto, the respondents appeared and filed their written statement as well as the written objection. 6. The case of the respondents in the written objection as well as the written statement is that the petitioner had submitted incomplete and wrong audit reports and the Executive Committee after perusal of the reports had issued letters to the petitioner seeking relevant documents for re-verification of the audit, but the petitioner had not paid any heed to the same. It was the further case of the respondents that vide the letter dated 25.02.2021 there was no mention of the fact that the petitioner would be black listed and the actual word used was “Songharohito” which means temporary suspension till the preliminary disciplinary action is carried out. The respondent also stated that the Sangha has no provision of black listing/boycotting. It is under such circumstances, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the suit as well as for rejection of the injunction application. 7. After filing of the written objection, the learned Trial Court heard the injunction application and vide an order dated 08.12.2021 came to a categorical opinion that the petitioner had a prima facie case. However, taking into account that the respondents herein had only intended to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, which the petitioner had misinterpreted as boycotting him, the learned Trial Court came to an opinion that there was no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner for grant of an injunction. 8. Taking into account that as there was no balance of convenience for grant of an injunction, it was also held that there was no irreparable loss, harm or injury would be caused to the petitioner. It is under such circumstances that vide the order dated 08.12.2021, the injunction application was dismissed. 9. 8. Taking into account that as there was no balance of convenience for grant of an injunction, it was also held that there was no irreparable loss, harm or injury would be caused to the petitioner. It is under such circumstances that vide the order dated 08.12.2021, the injunction application was dismissed. 9. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred which was registered and numbered as Misc. Appeal No.4/2021. The learned First Appellate Court after taking into consideration, the three golden principles for grant of an injunction and applying the same to the facts of the present case, came to a categorical opinion that there was no requirement to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 08.12.2021. Accordingly, the Misc. Appeal No.4/2021 was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2023. 10. Being aggrieved, the present proceedings has been filed. 11. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties at length and has also perused the materials on record. 12. Mr. J Roy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 submitted that the respondents were not taking any steps for blacklisting/boycotting the petitioner and what steps were being taken were that the documents on the basis of which the earlier audit proceedings were initiated were sought for. However, the petitioner refrained from giving such document and it is under such circumstances, the communication was issued to the effect that if the petitioner failed to provide the documents within the period of 7(seven) days from the date of the issuance of the communication, the petitioner would be suspended. The learned senior counsel submitted that when it is a case pertaining to the internal affairs of a Society, the Court’s jurisdiction to interfere is very limited. 13. This Court has also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who insisted that from the materials on record, including the Constitution of the respondent No.1, it would be seen that once an audit has been carried out, there is no question of again re-submission of the documents. He further submitted that when the Rules are made of a Society, those are required to be adhered to and if there is any violation to the said Rules, the learned Civil Court has the jurisdiction. 14. He further submitted that when the Rules are made of a Society, those are required to be adhered to and if there is any violation to the said Rules, the learned Civil Court has the jurisdiction. 14. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties at length, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere in the internal affairs of the Society is very limited. In the instant case, from the facts stated, it would be seen that the respondents herein wants to make re-verification of the audit and as such, have asked the petitioner for production of certain documents. The petitioner, however, is adverse to production of such documents which was the basis of the audit carried out earlier. The verification which is sought to be done is to ascertain as to whether there has been any mis-appropriation of money. The right of the respondent No.1 to go for a fresh audit in the opinion of this Court falls within the domain of internal matters of the Respondent No.1. Merely because of the fact that the Constitution of the respondent No.1 do not provide for a specific provision for re-scrutiny, in the opinion of this Court cannot be said that the respondent No.1 would not have the power to seek for the documents on the basis of which the audit was made. This Court further finds it apposite to observe that the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court to interfere with the internal affairs of a society is very limited and it is only in a case where the action is ultra vires the Rules of the Society or a case of bias or mala fide is made, interference is permissible. Nothing appears from the materials on record at this stage that a case is made out by the petitioner for grant of an injunction. 15. This Court further takes note of the specific stand of the respondents wherein they stated that they are not going to black list or boycott the petitioner. What they intended to do by issuance of the communication is that if the petitioner fails to submit the documents on the basis of which the previous audit was carried out, the petitioner would be suspended pending disciplinary enquiry. What they intended to do by issuance of the communication is that if the petitioner fails to submit the documents on the basis of which the previous audit was carried out, the petitioner would be suspended pending disciplinary enquiry. It is also submitted that as the petitioner did not produce the said documents, the respondent No.1 had suspended the petitioner. Mr. J Roy, the learned senior counsel submitted that in view of the order being passed by this Court, the disciplinary proceedings could not be proceeded with. 16. Taking into account the above facts and the fact that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court had exercised their discretionary jurisdiction in accordance with law, this Court is of the opinion that the question of exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court does not arise in the present facts. Additionally, this Court also does not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court for the reasons already above-mentioned. 17. In that view of the matter, the present petition is devoid of any merits, for which, the same stands dismissed. 18. Before parting with the records, this Court makes it very clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the instant application pertaining to the injunction proceedings. The same, however, shall not influence or affect the adjudication of the suit. 19. Taking into account that both the parties are duly represented, the stay order dated 01.03.2024 stands vacated and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Kamrup(M) Guwahati on 04.04.2025 for further proceeding in Title Suit No.244/2021. 20. With the above, the instant revision petition stands disposed of.