BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date :10/09/2008
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH
W.A.No.543 of 2008
T.Udayakumar ...Appellant
vs
1.The Secretary to the Government
rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Inspector General of
Registration (Societies),
100 Santhome Main Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai-28.
3.The District Registrar (Societies),
District Registrar's Office,
Madurai South, Madurai-1.
4.Nadar Mahajana Sangam
rep by its General Secretary,
Madurai-1.
5.The Nadar Mahajana Sangam
rep. by its Secretary,
Kamarajar Technical Education College,
Managing Board, Madurai-1.
6.Mr.S.Sadasivam ...Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Section 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 12/8/2008 in Writ Petition No.382 of 2008.
!For Appellant ... Mr.P.Krishnasamy
^For Respondents...Mr.R.Janakiramulu,Spl.G.P.,forR.R.1 to 3
:JUDGMENT
(JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA.J)
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (petitioner) against the
common judgment dated 12/08/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)
No.382 of 2008 and analogous cases. By the said judgment, giving reference to a
Full Bench decision in C.M.S.EVANGELICAL SUVI DA VID MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL COMMITTEE, KARISAL., AMBASAMUDRAM TALUK, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT AND OTHERS
Vs. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR CHERANMAHADEVI, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT AND OTHERS
[2005(2) CTC – 161), the Court held that Form-VII having been accepted by the
Registrar, which is Administrative in nature, one of the writ petition has
become infructuous and persons, if aggrieved by the election, will have to move
the appropriate Civil Court, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner and
others were dismissed.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (writ
petitioner), referring to the impugned judgment submitted that the learned
Single Judge failed to note the fact that there were three Form-VII and for
that, the Registrar refused to accept any one of them. It is only during the
pendency of the writ petition, one of the Form-VII was accepted, knowing fully
well that it is not in accordance with law, but was so accepted, subject to the
decision of the case. Therefore, such acceptance of Form-VII ought not to have
been relied upon to declare one of the case as infructuous and to dismiss the
writ petition.
3.It appears that the dispute in regard to activity of the registered
Society (The Nadar Mahajana Sangam, Kamarajar Technical Education College), was
raised alleging irregularity committed by the sixth respondent (Mr.Sathasivam).
The sixth respondent caused a paper publication o 31st October, 2007 containing
a notice dated 28/10/2007 for extraordinary General Body Meeting proposed to be
conducted on 1st December,2007 at Paxhavillai. The Agenda itself was to discuss
about the failure to submit accounts for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06
and 2006-07. There being writ petitions and criminal case pending and in view
of other activities, the petitioner preferred a representation on 3rd
December,2007 to the first respondent to take necessary action under Section 34-
A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,1975. Under Section 34-A of the
above said Act for certain grounds the committee can be superseded and a Special
Officer can be appointed for other purpose and for constitution of a new
Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, no action
having been taken, the petitioner preferred the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.382
of 2008 for a direction to the first respondent to decide the representation as
was preferred by him on 3/12/2007. In the mean time, it appears that earlier
election of Committee was conducted by three different groups and three Form-VII
were submitted before the Registrar. Having not accepted one or the other, the
other members of the Society preferred with petitions in W.P.MD.No.1335 of 2008
for taking appropriate action against the Society under Section 44 of the Act;
W.P.MD.No.4312 of 2008 against the order passed by the respondent in a
proceeding dated 25th April, 2008; W.P.MD.No.1150 of 2006 for a direction on the
respondent to take charge of the election works of the Society to conduct
election for the year 2006-09,etc.
4.All those cases were taken up and by the impugned common judgment, the
learned Single Judge refused to decide the case on merit mainly on the ground
that Form-VII has been accepted and other election dispute can be raised before
the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
5.Form the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the petitioner’s
case and letter No.K.A.No.8351/E1/07 dated 25th April, 2008 issued by the
District Registrar, Madurai (South), it appears that three Form-VII were filed
by three different groups and it was not accepted. Subsequently, by letter dated
25th April,2008, during the pendency of the writ petition, one of Form-VII was
accepted, subject to the outcome of the wit petition, but with specific
observation that the said Form-VII filed on the basis of the Meeting held on 5th
November,2005 was contrary to Clause 10(a) of the bye-law of the Society.
6.It is in this background, the learned counsel for the appellant
(petitioner) submitted that the learned Single Judge should not have declared
the case as infructuous nor should have dismissed the writ petitions.
7.Mr.R.Janakiramulu, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, submitted that the Court has merely
asked the parties to move before the Civil Court in regard to the election
dispute. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the matter.
8.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. In view of the nature of
order, we intend to pass, we are of the view that no notice is required to be
issued on the respondents 4 to 6.
9.Admittedly, the election for electing the members of the Society was
conducted in the beginning of November,2005. Form V-II which is stated to be
contrary to the Clause 10(a) of the bye-law of the Society was filed pursuant to
the meeting held on 5th November,2005. It was accepted, subject to the decision
of the Court. Therefore, in the absence of any decision by this Court, no
person can take advantage of Form-VII which was accepted by the District
Registrar, Madurai (South) by letter dated 25th April,2008.
10.It is not in dispute that the life of a Committee is three years and it
will come to an end by the end of October,2008/4th November,2008 i.e., after
about one and a half month. In the aforesaid background, we are not inclined to
decide the question whether Form-VII filed on the basis of meeting held on 5th
November,2005 by letter dated 25th April,2008 was proper or not particularly
when the District Registrar, Madurai (South) held that it was contrary to Clause
10(a) of the bye-law of the Society. We are of the view that the election
should be conducted on an early date i.e., immediately on completion of the
period of Society which is going to be lapsed by the end of October/4th
November,2008 and for that, it is not necessary for remanding the matter to the
authorities to decide whether any action to be taken under Section 34-A of the
above said Act. The petitioner is given liberty to bring this order to the
notice of the competent authority so as to ensure that the early election is
held after the competition of the period of existing Committee which is going to
be lapsed by the end of October/4th November, 2008 and to decide under whose
supervision, the election is to be conducted under law. It is further made
clear that no person can take advantage of Form-VII as was accepted by the
District Registrar, Madurai (South) by letter dated 25th April,2008.
11.This Writ Appeal is disposed of with aforesaid observation. However,
there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition No.1 of 2008 is closed.
mvs/dpn/er
To
1.The Chief Secretary,
Secretary to the Government,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Inspector General of
Registration (Societies),
100 Santhome Main Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai-28.
3.The District Registrar (Societies),
District Registrar’s Office,
Madurai South, Madurai-1.
4.Nadar Mahajana Sangam
rep by its General Secretary,
Madurai-1.
5.The Secretary
Nadar Mahajana Sangam
Kamarajar Technical Education College,
Managing Board, Madurai-1.