High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-01-13Review Petition allowed; order dated 29.4.2022 ...

Sreenarayana Bhakta Paripalana Yogam v. P.N. Prem Kumar and others (Review Petition) – RP No. 915 of 2022 / OP(C) 798/2022, Kerala High Court

Case / Petition Number:RP 915 of 2022 / OP(C) 798/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Basant Balaji, J.
Judgment Date: 2023-01-13
Court Decision / Holding: The Review Petition is allowed and the order dated 29.4.2022 in OP(C) 798/2022 is recalled.
Final Disposition: Review Petition allowed; order dated 29.4.2022 in OP(C) 798/2022 recalled.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sreenarayana Bhakta Paripalana Yogam (represented by Administrator, Jinesh Killiyampparambil) – Former President
Sreenarayana Bhakta Paripalana Yogam (represented by Administrator, Jinesh Killiyampparambil) – Former Secretary

Respondents

P.N. Prem Kumar
A.P. Ravi
Satheesh K.K.
Sahadevan K.R.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Mohandas (Ernakulam)
• K. Sudhinkumar Sabu Pullan
• Gokul D. Sudhakaran

Counsels for Respondents

• Parvathy Sanjay

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court review petition by the Sreenarayana Bhakta Paripalana Yogam (represented by its Administrator) challenging an interim injunction order dated 29 April 2022 in OP(C) 798/2022. The order restrained the first respondent Yogam from allowing KV Sadanandan, a person claimed not to be a Yogam member (Membership No. 3756), to contest the management committee election slated for 30 April 2022 and restrained reinstatement of Sadanandan as a member for two months. The petitioners contend that the Original Petition was for speedy disposal of pending interlocutory applications, but the main interim relief overstepped by effectively prejudicing the election process. They argue that the Returning Officer (RO), appointed on 14 March 2022, is the competent authority to conduct the election; the draft and final voters lists were published in March 2022; and the administrator cannot override the RO’s election decisions once process has begun. They further assert that KV Sadanandan was not made a party and that the RO was not properly impleaded, making the injunction void. Respondents contend that the prior order had been violated and that the RO’s appointment and election process required continuity. The High Court ultimately held that there was an error on the face of the record and allowed the review petition, recalling the impugned order.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India Article 227Code of Civil Procedure, Order 39 Rule 1 CPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Abuse of process of law
Error apparent on the face of the record
Alternate remedy
Interference with election process after commencement not permissible (as discussed in cited authorities)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants argued that the interim injunction restraining KV Sadanandan from contesting the election should not have been issued since he was not joined as a party and the Returning Officer (RO) is the sole authority to conduct elections once the process has begun. They contended that the RO was appointed on 14.3.2022; the draft voters list was published on 15.3.2022 and the final list after objections; as RO handles election issues, the administrator cannot interfere. The I.A. 78 of 2022 filed on 26.4.2022 and the subsequent hearing on 29.4.2022, followed by the order on 30.4.2022, cannot be used to bypass due process or to shield urgent relief under Article 227. They submitted that the petition seeks expedited disposal of IAs, which should not override the election’s integrity; reliance was placed on Supreme Court discussions about preventing interim interference in ongoing elections and on related judgments; the petition sought recall of the order in the interest of proper adjudication.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the main petition sought to restrain KV Sadanandan from contesting the election based on prior orders and allegations of non-membership, and that the Returning Officer, not joined as a party, nonetheless governs the process. They asserted that the High Court’s interim order was properly issued to prevent an improper outcome and to safeguard the election process; they emphasized that the RO is adjudicative in election matters and that the administrator’s role is limited once the RO is appointed. They relied on prior judgments to support the need for a timely resolution of IAs and to maintain the election’s integrity, contending that the petition’s challenge to the injunction lacks proper party participation and that the review should not interrupt the ongoing electoral process. They claimed adherence to the established procedure and the necessity of following the RO’s authority.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Swamy Prakasananda and others v. State of Kerala and others	[(2006) 13 SCC 195]	Mentioned Only	Cited by petitioners to support the principle that interim relief in election proceedings is constrained; no explicit adoption or application by the current judgment.
Shaji K. Joseph v. V Viswanath and others	[(2016) 4 SCC 429]	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate that High Courts should not interfere with ongoing elections where an alternative remedy exists; no explicit application by this judgment.
Muttam Ihyaul Islam Juma Ath Committee and Another v. Kerala State Waqf Board and Another	[2022 (6) KHC 157]	Mentioned Only	Cited in the context of arguments on interim relief and to avoid delaying the election; no explicit treatment by the current judgment.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sreenarayana Bhakta Paripalana Yogam v. P.N. Prem Kumar and others (Review Petition) – RP No. 915 of 2022 / OP(C) 798/2022, Kerala High Court and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI** **FRIDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 23RD POUSHA, 1944** ## **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** ## **OP(C) 798/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/S:** 1 SREENARAYANA BHAKTHA PARIPALANA YOGAM REG. NO. 2 OF 1124, KOORKKENCHERY, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATOR, JINESH KILLIYAMPARAMBIL, S/O. VISWANATHAN, KILIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANNUR P.O., KOKKALA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTING FORMER PRESIDENT, PIN - 680001 2 SREENARAYANA BHAKTHA PARIPALANA YOGAM REG. NO. 2 OF 1124, KOORKKENCHERY, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATOR, JINESH KILLIYAMPARAMBIL, S/O. VISWANATHAN, KILIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANNUR P.O., KOKKALA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTING FORMER SECRETARY, PIN - 680001 BY ADVS. P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 P.N. PREM KUMAR AGED 64 YEARS, PANDARIKKAL HOUSE, PERINGOTUKKARA DESOM, KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE, P.O. KIZHAKKUMURI, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680572 2 A.P. RAVI AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, ADIYATH HOUSE, PANAMUKKU DESOM, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, P.O. PANAMUKKU, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680007 ## **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** -2- 3 SATHEESH K.K. AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE KARUNAKARAN K.K., KARUMATHIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM DESOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680027 4 SAHADEVAN K.R. AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN, KILAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYARAM VILLAGE DESOM, CHIYARAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680006 BY ADV PARVATHY SANJAY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 3.01.2023, THE COURT ON 13.1.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** -3- ## ORDER (Dated this the 13[th] day of January 2023) The present review petition is filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in O.P.(C) No.798 of 2022 to review the order dated 29.4.2022. As per the order dated 29.4.2022 an interim injunction order was passed directing the first respondent not to allow Mr.K.V. Sadanandan who is not a member of Yogam to contest the election to be held on 30.4.2022 as he is not a member of the Yogam and the Yogam is restrained by an order of injunction from reinstating him as a member for a period of two months. 2. Heard the senior counsel, Dr. K P Satheesan for the petitioners and Smt Parvathy Sanjay for the respondents. **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** -4- 3. The senior counsel argues that the Original Petition (Civil) is filed for a direction to dispose of I.A. No.78 of 2022 as early as possible within a time frame and also to dispose of IA No.1 of 2020 in I.A. No.21305 of 2016 within a time frame. But the interim prayer sought is to restrain the first respondent Yogam from permitting Mr.K.V.Sadanandan having membership No.3756 to contest in the ensuing management committee election of the respondent Yogam which is going to be conducted on 30.4.2022. I.A.No.78 of 2022 was filed on 26.4.2022. A counter affidavit was filed on 28.4.2022 and the court below posted the case for hearing on 29.4.2022 and it was heard on same day and posted for orders on 30.4.2022. O.P.(C) was filed on 29.4.2022 after the I.A. was heard and **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** posted for orders on 30.4.2022, it is an abuse to the process of law to move this court after the hearing is over for a speedy disposal of I.A. and seeking an injunction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The first ground raised by the counsel for the review petitioner is that the party against whom the injunction order is passed by this court which is under review, is without making him a party. Though the injunction sought is not against Mr.K.V. Sadanandan and against the Yogam, in effect the order is against Mr.K.V. Sadanandan and hence, he ought to have made a party in the proceeding before this court before seeking an injunction against him. 5. The second ground raised is that on 14.3.2022 an **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** ordinary meeting was conducted by the Yogam and in the said meeting the returning officer was appointed for conducting the election. The draft voters list was published on 15.3.2022 and objections were called for. It is, after considering the objection to the draft voters list, the final voters list was published. Thus once a Rerunning officer is appointed to conduct the election, though the review petitioner, who is the administrator of the Yogam, cannot interfere in the election matters as the Returning Officer is the only authority, who is competent to take any decision regarding the election. 6. The petitioners in the original petition before this court have not made the Returning Officer a party and therefore, any direction in respect of the election without **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** the Returning Officer on the party array is against the dictum laid down by various judgments of the Apex court as well as this court. The senior counsel in support of his contention has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in **Swamy Prakasananda and others v. State of Kerala and others [(2006) 13 SCC 195]** in which it was held that once election process had begun, any prayer for interim relief that would interfere with conduct of election could not be considered. In **Shaji K. Joseph v. V Viswanath and others [(2016) 4 SCC 429]** , the Apex court has held that the High Court has no right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election has been started upon publication of election program and when an alternate remedy was available. The senior counsel also **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** -8- relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this court in **Muttam Ihyaul Islam Juma Ath Committee and Another v. Kerala State Waqf Board and Another [2022 (6) KHC 157]** . Therefore, it is prayed that there is error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the order passed by this court has to be reviewed. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that O.S.No.6021 0f 2016 was filed for declaring that the decision taken in the General Body meeting recorded in the first defendant Yogam convened on 9.10.2016 to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to Mr.K.V. Sadanandan, to withdraw all civil cases and contentions taken including the appeal before this court against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.864 of 2013, to **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** -9- reinstate Sadanandan as the member of the Yogam as null and void and a permanent prohibitory injunction not to implement the decision taken on 9.10.2016 to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- to Mr.K.V. Sadanandan as null and void. Along with the suit, an injunction application was filed as IA No.21305/2016 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC and the learned Munsiff finding a _prima facie_ case in favour of the plaintiffs restrained the defendants in the suit and their men from implementing the decision taken on 9.10.2016 in the general body meeting to pay Rs.1,25,00,000/- to Mr.K.V. Sadanandan to withdraw the civil cases and the contentions in the appeal pending before this court and to reinstate Sadanandan as a member of the respondent Yogam until further orders. The review petitioners, **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** aggrieved by the order mentioned above filed C.M.A. No. 38 of 2017 before the 3[rd] Additional District Judge, Thrissur which was also dismissed and therefore, the Review Petitioner have violated the orders of the court below and allowed K V Sadanandan to contest the election. Though the vacation court was moved with IA. No.78 of 2022 to pass a prohibitory injunction restraining the Yogam from permitting Mr.K.V. Sadanandan to contest the election, the court below did not pass any orders on 29.4.2022. Since the election was to be held on 30.4.2022, the respondents had no other option than to approach this court under Article 227 of the constitution of India for alternate remedies. 8. To the contention that KV Sadanandan is not made **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** -11- a party, counsel for the respondents submits that since Mr.K.V. Sadanandhan was not made as a party in the suit, the respondents cannot make him as a party in the Original petition filed before this court for speedy disposal of the IAs. Therefore, the respondents cannot be found fault for not making Mr.K.V. Sadanandhan as a party to the Original Petition. To the second contention that the once the returning officer is appointed for conduct of election, the administrator has no role in the election is also not correct according to her. The restraining order passed by this court is directing the administrator of the Yogam not to allow Mr.K.V. Sadanandhan to contest the election as he is not a member of the Yogam. Though the Returning Officer is appointed, the administrator is competent to inform the **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** -12- member of the Yogam regarding the order passed by this court and he is bound to implement the same. 9. It is a fact that the main prayer in the OP is only for speedy disposal of certain IAs pending in the Original Suit. But the interim relief sought is an injunction against the administrator of the Yogam not to allow Mr.K.V. Sadanandhan to contest in the election. As per order under Review the injunction order is to the administrator not to allow the effect of Mr.K.V. Sadanandhan to contest the election and also restrained by an order of injunction from reinstating him as a member. As contended by the senior counsel, Mr.K.V. Sadanandhan was not made as a party in the suit or in the original proceedings before this court. The respondents were well aware that election notification **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** has been already published and the returning officer is appointed to conduct the election. I.A.No.78 of 2022 is filed on 26.4.2022 to restrain the respondents in the suit as well as I.A. by a prohibitory injunction restraining KV Mr.K.V. Sadhanandan to contest in the election. Even in the said injunction application the respondents have not chosen to make the Returning Officer as a party. 10. Since the Returning officer is already appointed and he has already started the election process as per the dictum laid down by the Apex court, the court should not interfere in the election process and pass interlocutory orders that would interfere with the election process. In this case the election process for the Yogam started on 15.3.2022 and hence, the Returning Officer is the **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** competent person to pass any orders in the election process. Since he is not a party in the suit or in the interlocutory application before the lower court nor before this court, there is error apparent on the face of record in the order passed on 29.4.2022 in O.P.(C) No.798 of 2022. Having been satisfied that there is error apparent on the face of record, I am inclined to review the order. In the result, the Review Petition is allowed and the order dated 29.4.2022 in O.P.(C) No.798 of 2022 is recalled. sd/- **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** _dl/_ **RP NO. 915 OF 2022** -15- ## **APPENDIX OF RP 915/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure -I TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES BOOK OF THE MEETING HELD ON 2910-2017 Annexure -II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-102017 IN I.A.NO. 16874/2017 IN O.S.NO. 6021/2016 OF THE III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR Annexure -III TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES BOOK SHOWING THE NOTICE OF THE MEETING AS WELL AS THE AGENDA DATED 1802-2018 Annexure -IV TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-042018 IN R.F.A.NO. 748/2014 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1(1) True copy of the plaint in OS 4762/2017 Annexure R1(2) Order dated 30.1.2018 by the Honourable High Court of Kerala in IA 1317/2017 in IA 2209/2017 in RFA 748/2014