Dargha Haghdhar Management Committee vs Pandian Grama Bank

R. Banumathi, J.—This Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.(MD) No. 10581 of 2010 whereby the learned single Judge

declined to quash the impugned letter of the 1st Respondent Bank dated 22.07.2010 and declining to permit the Appellant to operate the Savings

Bank Account Nos.4473 and 4389.

Brief facts which led to filing of Writ Petition are that the Haghdars of Kuthbu Sulthan Syed Ibrahim Shaheeth Oliyulklah Dargha, popularly

called Erwadi Dargha situated at Erwadi in Ramanathapuram District. The management and administration of the Dargha is governed by a scheme

decree passed by the Sub- Court, Ramanathapuram in O.S.No. 236 of 1978. As per the scheme decree, the Dargha shall be administered by the

Executive Council called ""Haghdars Executive Council"" consisting of 21 Haghdars and that the Haghdars shall be elected in proposal of the

respective shares. Seven members from each of the respective three descendants of male heirs in the male line, aggregating to 21 members shall be

elected to the Executive Council and the said Executive Council shall be in office for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge

as member in the Executive Council.

Appellant Dargha Haghdars Executive council assumed charges on 09.09.2007. As per the version of Respondents 3 and 4, they have assumed

charges on 17.06.2007 and in any event the term of the Committee expired in September 2010. One of the Haghdar of the Dargha filed suit

against the Executive Committee of the Dargha in O.S.No. 55 of 2010 on the file of the Sub- Court, Ramanathapuram to declare that the

Defendants 3 to 17 thereon are not entitled either to contest or vote in the election and not to conduct the election for the Dargha till the

Interlocutory Application in I.A.No. 137 of 2005 filed for modification of the scheme in O.S.No. 236 of 1978 is finally disposed of. In the said

suit, Noor Amin filed Interlocutory Application seeking interim injunction against the Management Committee of Dargha not to hold the election till

I.A.No. 137 of 2005 for modification of the scheme in O.S.No. 236 of 1978 is finally disposed of. In the said suit, Appellant Committee is said to

have filed Memo stating that they will not hold the election till the application for modification of the scheme in O.S.No. 236 of 1978 is finally

disposed of.

3rd Respondent and six other Haghdars have filed the suit in O.S.No. 63 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram in

representative capacity for rendition of accounts. In the said suit, 3rd Respondent and others alleged that the Secretary of the Management

Committee of Dargha P.S.Saddiq [Writ Petitioner] is misappropriating the amount of the Dargha. Under these circumstances, 1st Respondent

Bank issued the impugned letter dated 22.07.2010 calling upon the Writ Petitioner to operate the Savings Bank Account Nos.4389, 4471 and

4473 after resolving the disputes. Challenging the said letter, Appellant Committee had filed W.P.(MD) No. 10581 of 2010 seeking for Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the said letter and also issue a suitable direction directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to permit the President and

Secretary of the Committee to operate the Savings Bank Account Nos.4473 and 4389.

The learned single Judge held that the administration of Erwadi Dhargha is governed by a scheme decree dated 27.04.1989 made in O.S.No.

236 of 1978 and the term of the Appellant Committee expired on 08.09.2010 and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The learned

single Judge further observed that it is for the Appellant Committee to raise the disputed issues before the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram in the

scheme suit in O.S.No. 236 of 1978. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Appellant has filed this Writ Appeal.

Mr.V.Sitharanjadas, learned Counsel for Appellant has submitted that unless the new Management is duly elected and takes over charge, the

existing Committee will continue to be in administration of the Dargha and operation of the Bank account cannot be stopped. It was further

submitted that the 3rd Respondent also filed the suit in O.S.No. 63 of 2010 where he has filed application for appointment of Receiver and even

when no interim order was granted, the 3rd Respondent wrote a letter with misleading facts to the Respondents 1 and 2 and stopping of operation

of the bank account is illegal. It was further argued that ""Santhana Koodu"" festival in the Dargha is to be celebrated and unless the Appellant

Committee is permitted to operate the Bank account, there cannot be a smooth running of the administration.

Grievance of Respondents 3 and 4 is that even after the period of the Committee expired, the Appellant Committee is squatting on the

Management of the Dargha. According to Respondents 3 and 4, the Appellant Committee conveniently filed a Memo collusively with the Plaintiff

in O.S.No. 55 of 2010 stating that they will not hold the election till the application filed for modification of the scheme is finally disposed of and it

is on the strength of the said collusive undertaking, the Appellant is squatting on the Management of the Dargha.

Learned Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4 interalia raising objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, forcibly contended that Erwadi

Dargha gets an average income of Rs.1.5 crore to Rs.2.5 crore per year, and fom out of which, 12% has to be deposited into the Bank and the

balance has to be disbursed amongst the Haghdars. It was further contended that the Appellant is misappropriating the funds and when the suit

[O.S.No. 63 of 2010] has been filed for rendition of accounts, the Appellant cannot be permitted to operate the Bank accounts.

Even according to the Appellant Committee, the period was already over in September, 2010. In view of the interse dispute, the Appellant

Committee has no further right to continue in the administration. Having regard to the serious allegations of mis-management and on objection

raised by the Haghdars, the Bank has got every right to decline permission to operate the Accounts. No bias or malafide can be attributed to the

Respondents Bank.

As pointed out by the learned single Judge the administration of the Appellant Committee is governed by the scheme made in O.S.No. 236 of

1978 dated 27.04.1989. It is for the Appellant to raise the disputed issue, if any, in the scheme suit in O.S.No. 236 of 1978. Dehors the scheme

framed, no direction could be issued to the 1st Respondent Bank to permit the Appellant Committee to operate the Bank accounts. Lest,

exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, this Court would be sitting over the scheme framed for the administration of the

Committee. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.

Earlier by the order dated 11.11.2010, this Court granted interim permission to the Appellant Committee for a period one week to operate the

Savings Bank Account Nos.4473 and 4389 to draw the amount only for the limited purpose of disbursement of salary to the staff, cleaning the

Dargha and surrounding area, payment of electricity charges and maintenance of Generator. In the light of our above findings, the interim

permission dated 11.11.2010 granted to the Appellant has to be vacated.

In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Interim permission granted on 11.11.2010 to the Appellant Committee to operate the Savings Bank

Account Nos.4473 and 4389 for the limited purpose is vacated. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.