M. SUDAKAR versus V. MANOHARAN & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 1009 · Decided: 07-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1009 
M. SUDAKAR 
A 
v. 
V. MANOHARAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10319 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 7, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
B 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Trusts: 
Resolution of the General Body debarring the President 
of the Trust from holding any office for 10 years - HELO: The 
C 
Bye-laws only provide for removal from the membership on 
certain grounds, in accordance with the procedure prescribed 
therein; they do not provide for debarring any member from 
holding a post for specified period - Power to remove would 
not include the power to debar a member from holding an 
D 
office of the Trust - Single Judge of the High Court did not 
err in quashing the resolution. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226 - Writ petition - Power of High Court to mould 
E 
relief - Prayer in writ petition to restrain the respondents from 
registering the resolution by which the writ petitioner was 
debarred from holding any office of the Trust for ten years -
Resolution already registered before filing ofwrit petition -
Single Judge while holding the writ petition as infructuous, 
F 
held the resolution as illegal and the writ petitioner entitled to 
continue as the member - HELD: Power to mould relief is 
always available to the court possessed with power to issue 
high prerogative writs - In the instant case, the resolution was 
to operate for a further period, therefore, the relief claimed by 
G 
the writ petitioner cannot be said to have become infructuous 
and the Single Judge was right in moulding the relief. 
Article 226 - Writ petition - Delay in filing of - HELD: 
Delay and /aches do not bar the jurisdiction of the court - It 
1009 
H 
1010 SUPREME .COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A is a matter of discretion and not jurisdiction - Single Jude of 
the High Court took note of relevant facts and rightly declined 
to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay ar.d /aches. 
The appellant, who was the President of a Trust, and 
was, by a resolution dated 7 .1.2007 passed by the 
8 General Body, debarred from holding any post in the 
Trust for a period of 10 years, filed a writ petition before 
the High Court with a prayer to restrain the respondents 
from registering the said resolution. However, since the 
resolution had been registered before filing of the writ 
.. C petition, the Single Judge observed that the prayer had 
become infructuous, but held that debarring the writ 
petitioner for a period of 10 years was patently illegal and 
that the resolution would not have any legal sanction and 
the writ petitioner would continue to be the member of 
D the Trust. On appeal by the respondents, the Division 
Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, inter 
alia, on the ground of delay and also held that the Single 
Judge having held the writ petition as infructuous ought 
not to have moulded the relief. Aggrieved, the writ 
E petitioner filed the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
1.1 The Division Bench of the High Court erred in 
F setting aside the order of the Single Judge. Admittedly, 
the bye-laws which govern the Trust, do not provide for 
debarring any member of the Trust from holding a post 
for specified period. The bye-laws provide for removal of 
the membership in accordance with the procedure 
G prescribed therein in case a member is found to be 
indulging in activities prejudicial to the Trust. The power 
to remove the member shall not include power to debar 
the member from holding an office of the Trust. The act 
of the appellant in removing a large number of members 
H and financial impropriety will not clothe the General Body 
M. SUDAKAR v. V. MANOHARAN & ORS. 
1011 
to pass resolution debarring the appellant from holding A 
the post for 10 years, as no such power is conferred by 
the bye-laws. The Single Judge did not err in quashing 
the resolution. Further, delay/latches does not bar the 
jurisdiction of the court; it is a matter of discretion and 
not of jurisdiction. The Single Judge had taken note of B 
the relevant facts and rightly declined to dismiss the writ 
petition on the ground of delay and latches. [para 9-1 O] 
[1016-G-H; 1017-A-B-D; 1018-A-B] 
State of Haryana and others v. Krishna Rice Mills (1981) 
4 sec 148 - distinguished. 
c 
2.1 The power to mould relief is always available to 
the court possessed with the power to issue high 
prerogative writs. In order to do complete justice it can 
mould the relief, depending u

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.