Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010056872026 2026:GAU-AS:4285 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/88/2026 NAKIBUR ZAMAN AND 2 ORS. SON OF LATE MATLIB ALI, RESIDENT OF RAILWAY QRTR NO 30/, EAST GOTANAGAR, MALIGAON, DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, GUWAHATI- 781011 2: UTTAM KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA SON OF DHARANI DHAR BHATTACHARYYA RESIDENT OF SURUJ VILLA APARTMENT FLAT NO 3A GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD BARNACHAL DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781021 3: DHIRAJ CHOUDHURY SON OF LATE DEBEN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF ARUNODOI PATH HATIGAON H. NO 24/A GUWAHATI - 781038 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS DILIP KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY AND 35 ORS. PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE, N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION, RESIDENT OF EAST GOTANAGAR, LAKHIMI NAGAR, BYE LANE NO. 2 MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-781011, ASSAM. 2:MRINAL KANTI SEAL VICE-PRESIDENT DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUNGAPOTA (BARPATHAR) Page No.# 2/16 P.O.- NEW BONGAIGAON DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON PIN CODE- 783381 ASSAM. 3:BISWAJIT ROY VICE-PRESIDENT DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF SUBHASH PALLY WARD NO 23 P.O. JHALJHALIA DISTRICT- MALDA PIN-732102 WEST BENGAL. 4:PARITOSH PAUL JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF ARABINDA ASHRAM SOCIETY ROAD BHAKTI NAGAR WARD NO 35(SMC) P.O.- BHAKTINAGAR DISTRICT- JALPAIGURI PIN-703007 WEST BENGAL. 5:PRADIP CHAKRABORTY JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF AASHIYANA APARTMENTS NEAR AAROGYA BHAVAN HOSPITAL PALTAN BAZAR DIBRUGARH PIN-786001 ASSAM. 6:BIBHASH JOARDER JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF SHIVBARI CHECHAKHATA NEAR KUAR PAR SHANTI DOOT UNIT P.O.- ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION DISTRICT- ALIPURDUAR PIN-736123 WEST BENGAL 7:SMT MAYURPANKHI SAIKIA Page No.# 3/16 ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF FLAT NO 4(J) R S COMPLEX GAKHIRCHOWK P.O. DEVKOTANAGAR PASCHIM BORAGAON GUWAHATI PIN- 781011 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 8:UTTAM KUMAR DAS ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF RLY QRTR NO 567/(E/F) TYPE I-II CONVERT KALIBARI COLONY BADARPUR DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ PIN-788806 ASSAM. 9:SMT MADHUMITA DEY PAUL N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL DESIGNATE VILL- SOUTH HILL COLONY OPPOSITE RECREATION CLUB LUMDING DISTRICT- HOJAI PIN-782447 ASSAM. 10:JOGINDER SINGH ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF RAILWAY QRTR NO 182/A AUROBINDO COLONY P.O.- ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION DISTRICT- ALIPURDUAR PIN- 736123 WEST BENGAL. 11:SANKAR DAS ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF N-180/A Page No.# 4/16 NORTH WEST COLONY NEW BONGAIGAON P.O.- NEW BONGAIGAON DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON PIN- 783381 ASSAM. 12:DHANJIT PATGIRI CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF QRTR NO E/4A SIVASAGAR RAILWAY COLONY P.O.- SIVASAGAR PIN-785640 ASSAM. 13:SMT TULTULI GHOSH CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF AASHIRBAD APARTMENT NEAR NABANKUR CLUB NIVEDITA ROAD PRADHAN NAGAR SILIGURI PIN-734003 WEST BENGAL. 14:SAURAV KUMAR SAIKIA ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF RLY QRTR NO 14/B EAST GOTANAGAR MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011. 15:SUHASH DAS VICE PRESIDENT DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012 16:GOPAL RAJBONGSHI VICE PRESIDENT DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU Page No.# 5/16 P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012 17:RANJIT CHETIYA VICE PRESIDENT DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012 18:PIJUSH CHAKRABORTY GENERA SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012. 19:SAJAL CHAKRABORTY TREASURER DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012. 20:SIRIS GOGOI ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012. 21:MANOJ KUMAR SINGH ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012. 22:ASHUTOSH KUMAR YADAV ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU Page No.# 6/16 P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012 23:SAMRAT MITRA ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012 24:BARNAJIT NATH ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012 25:UMA SHANKAR CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012 26:SMT PRIYALATA SONOWAL CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012 27:PRANJAL PRADIP BORA CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI-781012. 28:ASHIS KUMAR BISWAS WORKING PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF 5D BAISHAKHI APARTMENT Page No.# 7/16 DOLAIGAON BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783380. 29:SANJOY GOSWAMI JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF RAILWAY QRTR NO 735/A NEW COLONY P.O.- KATIHAR DISTRICT- KATIHAR PIN- 854105 BIHAR. 30:PANKAJ CHAKRABORTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF SUKANTAPALLY WARD NO 32 SILIGURI BAZAR SILIGURI DISTRICT- JALPAIGURI PIN- 734005 WEST BENGAL. 31:ALAKESH SUTRADHAR CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO T III 5A BHALUKDUBI RAILWAY COMPLEX GOALPARA PIN- 783101 ASSAM. 32:KALLOL DEV SARMA CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOLAIGAON MAJPARA P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON PIN- 783380 ASSAM. 33:ASIM DEKA CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION Page No.# 8/16 RESIDENT OF RAILWAY MARKET WARD NO. 3 P.O. AND P.S. RANGAPARA PIN-784505 DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSAM. 34:MANTU SARMA JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION C/O THE NF RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI- 781012. 35:THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION A RECOGNIZED AND REGISTERED UNION UNDER THE INDIAN TRADE UNION ACT 1926 WITH REGN NO 425 AND AFFILIATED TO THE ALL INDIA RAILWAYMEN FEDERATION AND HIND MAZDOOR SABHA HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT PANDU P.O.- PANDU GUWAHATI- 781012 ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT 36:S K TYAGI ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY C/O ALL INDIA RAILWAYMEN FEDERATION 4 STATE ENTRY ROAD NEW DELHI-110055 AND DEPUTED OBSERVER FOR THE ELECTIONS CONDUCTED FROM 3RD TO 5TH APRIL 2025 FOR THE POSTS OF CENTRAL OFFICE BEARERS OF THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNIO Advocate for the Petitioner : DR G J SHARMA, MS. K BHATTACHARYYA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D MOZUMDER (FOR CAVEATOR), MR. D MAZUMDAR (FOR CAVEATOR),MR C GOGOI (FOR CAVEATOR) Page No.# 9/16 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 20.03.2026 Heard Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also Mr. D. Mozumder, learned counsel appears for the Caveator. The caveat is filed by the respondents who are 27 in numbers. 2. The caveat stands discharged. 3. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the three petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil judge, Senior Division No.3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02/2026, whereby, the learned appellate Court was pleased to stay the order dated, 19.01.2026 passed by the learned trial Court, being the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 2, Kamrup (M), in Misc. J. Case No. 187 of 2025. 4. Before proceeding further, the facts in a nutshell. The petitioners as plaintiffs have preferred Title Suit No. 127/2025 before the learned Trial Court mentioned above, whereby, they have challenged Election dated 05.04.2025 to the 35 posts of Central Office Bearers of the Working Committee of the General Body of NF Railway, Mazdoor Union (hereinafter NFRMU). Contending that there were gross irregularities in the election, it has been prayed in the suit to declare the election as null and void. 5. In the same suit, the plaintiffs filed an application and prayed for temporary injunction invoking the provisions of Order 39 CPC, which was registered as Misc. J. Case No. 187/2026. Page No.# 10/16 6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to allow the prayer for temporary injunction and the defendants/opposite parties were directed not to undertake any of the duties and responsibilities of the office of the union. 7. The defendants were stated to be elected as office bearers in the aforementioned election to the NFRMU. Aggrieved by the grant of the temporary injunction by the learned trial Court, the defendants took up the matter in appeal, which was registered as Misc Appeal No. 02/2026 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and the notice was issued on the appeal. However, in Para-9, the learned Appellate Court stayed the impugned order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court in Misc. J. Case No. 187 of 25, as mentioned above. 8. The reasoning given by the learned Appellate Court is that till the appeal is decided, if the order passed by the learned trial Court remains in existence, the purpose of the appeal would become infructuous. Though respondent nos. 28 to 36 have been impleaded as proforma respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 27 respondents have agreed that the matter can be disposed of at this stage and that the same would not prejudice the proforma respondents. 9. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has taken the Court through the various documents annexed to the revision petition and contended that the result of the Election has statutory force as revealed by the RTI reply furnished to him vide RTI reply dated 03.06.2025. 10. It is contended that the learned trial Court rightly granted the temporary Page No.# 11/16 injunction. With regard to the temporary injunction vis-à-vis the suit filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff, it is submitted that there were gross irregularities in the conduct of the election. 11. It is submitted that the Constitution of the Union did not have any provision for Observer and yet the Assistant General Secretary from the All India Railway Federation, who was deputed as Observer, conducted the election and unauthorisedly took up the role of the Returning Officer. 12. It is submitted that the petitioners/plaintiffs have been continuing as Office Bearers from the earlier tenures and due to the infirmities in the election which is being challenged, they should be allowed to continue and the learned trial Court has rightly passed the order in that direction by way of a temporary injunction. Taking the Court to the relevant annexed document in this regard, it is submitted that with regard to plaintiff No.2, there was a discrepancy in the number of ballot papers, as the 3 ballot papers were found to be unauthorizedly extra and thereby, vitiating the electoral process and that the plaintiff No. 2 had lost by a narrow margin. 13. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the appeal has to be decided, the impugned order of temporary stay granted by the appellate Court may be interfered with and that otherwise, the petitioner shall be prejudiced. 14. On the other hand, Mr. D. Mozumder, learned Senior Counsel has taken the Court through the contents of the order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court and contended that the learned trial Court has not properly discussed and recorded findings with regard to the well-settled triple test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Page No.# 12/16 15. It is submitted that there is no discussion with regard to the aspect of finding a prima facie case. Referring to Para-26 of the order of injunction, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the observation and holding by the learned trial Court that if the newly appointed body is allowed to function, the main suit may become infructuous is incorrect application of the test of irreparable loss and injury. 16. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in such a situation, the appellate Court, while entertaining the appeal, has rightly put the order of injunction of the learned trial Court on hold because of its prima facie infirmities. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court :- (i) Thiru K. Palaniswamy Vs. M. Shanmugam and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 177. (ii) Sheik Dada Miah and Ors. Vs. S. Ziyaur Rahiman and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine AP 139. 17. I have perused the relevant materials, the relevant orders, order of the learned Trial Court and the impugned order of the Appellate Court. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels in both the parties and the case law. 18. I have carefully perused the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court granting temporary injunction. 19. With regard to the aspect of prima facie case, the learned trial Court has stated that— the main dispute is whether the election held in the 66th AGM and 14th BGM of the NFRMU was fair or not. It is to be determined as to whether the election process was conducted in a proper manner and in a non-prejudicial Page No.# 13/16 manner. 20. The learner Trial Court held that this dispute has to be determined in the main suit, and therefore, there is prima facie case. The learned trial Court has also referred to the discrepancy in ballot paper pointed out by the plaintiffs’ side. The learned trial Court has held that a balance of convenience lies in favor of the petitioners/plaintiff seeking injunction. 21. With regard to the aspect of irreparable loss and injury, the Para-26 of the said order may be reproduced herein below:- Irreparable loss and injury “26. Now, the tenure of the newly appointed Body is of two years and already about eight months have passed by till now. Under such circumstances, if the newly appointed body is allowed to function, the main suit itself may become infructuous and the whole purpose of filling the suit might be defeated.” 22. I have perused para-9 of the order dated 02.02.2026 (impugned order) passed by the appellate Court staying the order of temporary injunction, while entertaining the appeal. 23. In the case of Thiru K. Palaniswamy (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has delved into the principles regarding grant of interim relief, after referring to the case of Union of India versus Raj Grow Impex LLP, 2021 SCC Online, SC 429. 24. Para-73 of Thiru K. Palaniswamy Vs. M. Shanmugam and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 177 may be reproduced herein below:- “73. Apart from the above, we may also take note of the principles in relation to the matters concerning grant of interim relief, which have been stated and re- emphasised by this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. M/s. Raj Grow Impex LLP and Ors.: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 429 as follows: - “194. In addition to the general principles for exercise of discretion, as Page No.# 14/16 discussed hereinbefore, a few features specific to the matters of interim relief need special mention. It is rather elementary that in the matters of grant of interim relief, satisfaction of the Court only about existence of prima facie case in favour of the suitor is not enough. The other elements i.e., balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury, are not of empty formality and carry their own relevance; and while exercising its discretion in the matter of interim relief and adopting a particular course, the Court needs to weigh the risk of injustice, if ultimately the decision of main matter runs counter to the course being adopted at the time of granting or refusing the interim relief. We may usefully refer to the relevant principle stated in the decision of Chancery Division in Films Rover International Ltd. v. Cannon Film Sales Ltd. : (1986) 3 All ER 772 as under:— “ ….The principal dilemma about the grant of interlocutory injunctions, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is that there is by definition a risk that the court may make the “wrong” decision, in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at the trial (or would fail if there was a trial) or alternatively, in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds (or would succeed) at trial. A fundamental principle is therefore that the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been “wrong” in the sense I have described. The guidelines for the grant of both kinds of interlocutory injunctions are derived from this principle.” (emphasis in bold supplied) 195. While referring to various expositions in the said decision, this Court, in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden : (1990) 2 SCC 117 observed as under:— “16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory Page No.# 15/16 mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.” (emphasis in bold supplied) 196. In keeping with the principles aforesaid, one of the simple questions to be adverted to at the threshold stage in the present cases was, as to whether the importers (writ petitioners) were likely to suffer irreparable injury in case the interim relief was denied and they were to ultimately succeed in the writ petitions. A direct answer to this question would have made it clear that their injury, if at all, would have been of some amount of loss of profit, which could always be measured in monetary terms and, usually, cannot be regarded as an irreparable one. Another simple but pertinent question would have been concerning the element of balance of convenience; and a simple answer to the same would have further shown that the inconvenience which the importers were going to suffer because of the notifications in question was far lesser than the inconvenience which the appellants were going to suffer (with ultimate impact on national interest) in case operation of the notifications was stayed and thereby, the markets of India were allowed to be flooded with excessive quantity of the said imported peas/pulses.” 25. In the instant case, the respondents, who were temporarily injuncted from functioning as Office Bearers, were elected as such Office Bearers pursuant to the last election, which is of course under challenge in the Title Suit. 26. The learned Senior Counsel denying anomalies in the election process, has contended that the injunction order is clearly wrong in prohibiting and barring the office of the respondents, who were duly elected affected in such election, and therefore, the operation of the same has been rightly stayed by the Appellate Court. 27. Needless to say that the merit of the injunction order is a subject matter of the appeal and the learned Appellate Court is in seisin of the same. 28. In this revision petition, this Court is only on the limited question of whether the stay of the temporary injunction should be allowed to continue or Page No.# 16/16 not while the appeal is being decided. 29. Going into further details of the merit or otherwise of the injunction order could prejudice the determination by the Appellate Court. However, upon perusing the grounds and the discussion of the learning trial Court in the, temporary injunction order and the facts and circumstances which have emerged as contended by both the sides – I am of the considered view that the order of stay granted by the Appellate Court should not be disturbed at this stage – while the appeal is being decided. 30. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances and in such view of the matter, I do not find sufficient merit in the revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Appellate Court {learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No.3, Kamrup(M)}, Guwahati in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02/2026, arising out of T.S. No.127/2025. Resultantly, the revision stands dismissed and disposed of. 31. Needless to say that despite the docket load, the learned Appellate Court shall endeavor to dispose of the appeal, at the earliest convenience. 32. The instant revision petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant