BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/06/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.4119 of 2008 E.M.G.S.Muthumeenakchi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Santhome, Chennai. 2.The District Registrar of Societies, Madurai(North) Near Income Tax Office, B.B.Kulam, Madurai-14 3.The Director of Collegiate Education E.V.K.Samptah Building, College Road, Nunkambakkam, Chennai. 4.E.M.G.S.Indirani ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 12.02.2008 in respect of cancellation of Form VII dated 31.07.2007 issued by the second respondent in favour of the 4th respondent. !For Petitioner ... Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Jankiramulu Spl.G.P. for R1 to R3 For 4th respondent ... M.K.Hidayathullah :ORDER
Heard Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.R.Jankiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents 1 to 3 and M.K.Hidayathullah, learned counsel appearing for
the fourth respondent.
2.This Writ Petition is for a direction against the first respondent to
dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 12.02.2008. The said
representation is made to direct the first respondent to cancel Form VII dated
31.07.2007.
3.The background of the case is that the 4th respondent is said to have
been elected as the President and Secretary of ‘E.M.Gopalakrishna Kone Yadava
Mahalir Kalluri Association’. The 4th respondent submitted Form VII dated
23.10.2007, regarding the appointment of Secretary to the said Society, which
has also been registered with the second respondent. In the representation of
the petitioner dated 16.02.2008, the petitioner has claimed that after the death
of her father one E.M.G.Soundararajan, the 4th respondent suppressing the
correct particulars about the legal heirs, she obtained legal heirship
certificate issued by the competent authority and claimed herself to be the
President of the said Society and presented Form VII, which is registered under
the second respondent. It is also her case in the representation that as per
the bye-law governing the said Society, if E.M.G.Soundararajan was having more
than one legal heirs, only one of them can become the President. In respect of
the persons to become as legal heir, the parties are taking steps to go to the
Civil Court. It is due to that reason the representation of the petitioner
states that Form VII registered by the second respondent on 31.07.2007 should be
cancelled.
4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
perused the records.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent brings to the
notice of this Court the order passed by the Hon’ble First Bench of the
Principal Seat of this Court reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 1308, in the case of
R.Muralidaran and Others Vs. District Registrar, South Madras and another,
following the earlier Full Bench Judgment reported in 2005 (2) CTC 161 in the
case of C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee,
Karisal through its Secretary,Sri.S.David Stephen, S/o.Samuel, Karisal,
Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and others Vs. The District Registrar,
Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli and others. The order of the Hon’ble First Bench has
categorically held by relying upon the Full Bench of this Court referred to
above, that under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, (for
short ‘the Act’) the Registrar has no right to conduct any enquiry and his duty
is only to receive the documents and file. Even under Section 36 of the said
Act, the Registrar is empowered to conduct only enquiry and he is not expected
to decide about the civil disputes between the parties. In fact, enquiry
contemplated under Section 36 is only in the respect of the Society and not
about the Civil status of the parties, which can be decided only by the Civil
Court.
6.The Division Bench on appreciation of the entire provisions relating to
the said Act has also held that in receiving Form VII, the Registrar does only
Ministerial function and does not confer any Civil status to any persons. It was
also held that challenging Form VII, no writ petition can be filed and the High
Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India to look
into the validity or otherwise of Form VII received by the Registrar.
The relevant judgment of the Division Bench is in para 32 is as follows:
“32. From a bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 34, it is clear
that the only obligation cast upon the Registrar, upon receipt of any document
or Form filed under the Act, is to call for any further information or
explanation in respect of any matter, to which, such document relates to. Sub-
section (3) makes it still more clear by prescribing that the Registrar may
annex such information or explanation to the original document filed with him.
Therefore, if Form No.VII is filed with the Registrar, as required under Section
15(1) of the Act read with Rule 17(2) of the Rules, all that the Registrar can
do is only to call for further information or explanation under Section 34(1)
and keep the information or explanation received by him as an annexure to the
original document. This is nothing but a mere ministerial function and hence,
it cannot be challenged by way of a writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.”
7.It is also relevant to point out that the Full Bench in 2005 (2) CTC 161
as stated supra has echoed the same view, which was followed by the subsequent
Division Bench of this Court. Para 18 of said judgment is usefully extracted
below:-
“18. The power of the Registrar to enquire into the affairs of the
society is only to hold a summary inquiry for his own satisfaction. The said
power cannot be construed as the power of appeal. Under Section 36, the
Registrar has not been empowered to adjudicate upon the conflicting claims to
represent the society based upon question of fact. A plain reading of Section
36 shows that the Registrar could look only the provisions of the Act and the
Rules and prima facie materials to arrive at a conclusion either to believe or
not to believe Form No.VII in order to effect change in the register. The power
of the Registrar to call for information and explanation under Section 34 does
not contemplate any power to examine witnesses or to allow opportunity for cross
examination of witnesses. The power in our view is incidental and it is only
for the purpose of maintaining correct records. As the power to conduct inquiry
is only limited in order to find out whether constitution of members are valid,
the inquiry is limited only for the purpose of making entries in the register.
However, the exercise of power must not be arbitrary as the orders passed or
directions issued by the Registrar is amenable to challenge in the Writ
Jurisdiction.”
In fact, that was the view taken by another Division Bench of this Court
Presided over by Markandey Katju, the Chief Justice of this Court (as he then
was) and D.Murugesan.J reported in 2005 (1) CTC 399 in the case of S.Thamil
Arasan, President of Chennai Vyasarpadi Nadar Progressive Association Vs
R.Narayanan and another
8.In view of the categorical legal position as settled finally by the
latest Division Bench of this Court, I do not see any right on the part of the
petitioner to make such representation questioning the validity of the
representation. The petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for and the
Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is
closed. No costs.
ssm/vsn
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai.
2.The District Registrar of
Societies, Madurai(North)
Near Income Tax Office,
B.B.Kulam, Madurai-14
3.The Director of Collegiate Education
E.V.K.Samptah Building,
College Road,
Nunkambakkam, Chennai.