Counsel of Saratchandra advocate Sukham Premjit sought for dismissal of the present application on the grounds that Gitajen and his party are not the authorised office bearers of MPP and they are self-styled office-bearers appointed by themselves with an intention to misuse the fund of MPP
TFM News Service
The court of civil judge senior division, Imphal West on Friday vacated its interim injunction order restraining Khongbantam Saratchandra and others from entering into office of the MPP. Observing that there are no ample grounds for granting the interim injunction, it rejected the prayer of MPP general secretary (Admn) Haobijam Gitajen Meitei for temporary injunction.
Saratchandra, a resident of Kongpal Chingabam Leikai, who was appointed as co-convenor to convene Central Committee Meeting for filling up the vacant post of office bearers of MPP, filed a written objection to the interim injunction issued following the petition. In his written objection, Saratchandra denied the allegations made in the petition, stating inter alia that the District Magistrate did not allow Gitajen and his group to occupy the office premises of MPP.
Counsel of Saratchandra advocate Sukham Premjit sought for dismissal of the present application on the grounds that Gitajen and his party are not the authorised office bearers of MPP and they are self-styled office-bearers appointed by themselves with an intention to misuse the fund of MPP.
Sukham Premjit further stated the cardinal principles of granting injunction i.e. prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are not in favour of Gitajen who is not recognised by the Election Commission of India as office bearer of MPP and who has no locus standi to file the suit.
Counsel for the plaintiff Sr Advocate N Jotendro urged the court for granting temporary injunction order against defendants thereby restraining them, their men, agents and privies from entering into, trespassing upon office of the MPP and also restraining them from disturbing the peaceful enjoyment and smooth functioning of administrative and organisational convenience in the office rooms. The suit was on the grounds that defendants are the strangers to the MPP office, they have no any role in the office.
He also argued that the statement made by the defendants is the violation of the party constitution which is recognised by the Election Commission of India. Moreover, he claimed that the balance of convenience as to the relief lies with the applicants as the office bearers of the MPP is re-constituted on February 11, -2020 in a duly convened Central Committee Meeting.
Accordingly, the present President and its sub-ordinated bearer are reconstituted on the same day. According to the Ld. Counsel of the petitioner/plaintiff, there will be irreparable loss and injury causing inconvenience to run the administration of the office smoothly in the office premises unless the temporary injunction is granted in favour of the petitioner, he added.
However, the court observed that none of the parties have approached it with the whole set of facts and they have not come to this Court with clean hands. “There is no indication from any of the parties as to what led to the prohibitory orders at the MPP office premises on 20-02-2020 i.e. just after the alleged election of the present plaintiff as the general secretary (admn) of the MPP,” It said.
Highlighting confusion in the MPP, the court also observed that one O. Surjit Singh, who also claims to be the general secretary (Admn), MPP had written to the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West on February 19, 2020, praying for providing of security for the Working Committee meeting to be held on February 21, 2020. Another letter dated the March 6, 2020 by one S Brojen Singh claiming to be the Vice President of MPP had prayed for security for the Central Committee meeting of MPP to be held on March 7, 2020, it added.
While disposing of the case, the court said, “None of these persons are in the list of the office bearers as given by the plaintiff. There is no explanation from any of the parties as to this bedlam. The set of conflicting facts, which are not explained by any of the parties, are not even exhaustive.”