Madras High Court

K.Haafil vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2021

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 18.08.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.9750 & 9752 of 2021

K.Haafil ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Secretary,
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.

2. The Inspector General of Registration (Societies),
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 29.

3. The District Registrar (Societies),
Heber Road,
Contonment,
Trichy.

4. Majlisul Ulama
Rep. by its General Secretary,
Majlisul Ulama Campus,
Kaja Nagar,
Trichy.

5. The Election Officer,
Majlil Ulama Campus,
Kaja Nagar, Trichy.

6.A.S.Kajamian Akthar ... Respondents
(R-6 impleaded vide order of this Court
dated 18.08.2021 in W.M.P(MD)No.10501 of 2021)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

1/11
W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
hold election to the 4th respondent society by providing the petitioner and other
members opportunity to participate in the election by appointing a former judge
of this Court to act as a observer along with officer to be nominated by the third
respondent in terms of Sec.26(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,
1975 to supervise and observe the fair conduct of election to the 3rd respondent
society.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mahaboob Athif
For Respondents : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan,
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Counsel for State, for R1 to R3.
Mr.T.Ramanujam,
Senior Counsel for R4.
Mr.S.Sankar for R5
Mr.T.Mohan
for Mr.M.Saravanan for R6
For Intervenor : Ms.D.Geetha

ORDER

The petitioner seeks a direction to hold the election to the fourth

respondent Society after providing the petitioner and other members an

opportunity to participate in such election by appointing a former Judge of this

Court to act as an observer in respect thereof.

2.The Writ Petition is filed by a member of the General Body of

the fourth respondent Society. The said Society was registered under the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Societies Registration Act, 1860. According to the petitioner, there is

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

factionalism in the Society and a complete failure of administration. As a

consequence, it is alleged that the relevant returns of the Society have not been

taken on record by the Registrar. There is a further allegation with regard to

misappropriation of funds and alienation of the assets of the Society in

contravention of law.

3.As regards elections, the principal grievance of the petitioner is

that such elections are sham elections without real contest. By adverting to the

election results for two previous triennia, namely, 2015-2018 and 2018-2021,

the petitioner contends that in each of those cases, the nominees were elected

unopposed. Likewise, it is alleged that the present election is also a sham and

that the nominees would be elected unopposed. The request for the appointment

of an observer and for an opportunity to the petitioner is made on the basis of

the aforesaid complaints and allegations.

4.The fourth respondent Society refutes the aforesaid allegations.

Indeed, the fourth respondent refers to the election results for the triennium

2015-2018 and points out that the petitioner's name features in the list of

elected candidates at Sl.No.3 of the election results report. The fourth

respondent accuses the petitioner of wilful suppression of the material fact that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ the petitioner was one of the persons elected in the same fashion without any

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

contest in 2015. In a similar way, the fourth respondent points out that the

petitioner's brother was also elected for the triennium 2015-2018.

Consequently, the fourth respondent contends that the electoral process cannot

be interfered with merely on such basis.

5.With regard to the allegation of misappropriation of funds and

unlawful alienation of the assets of the Society, the fourth respondent refers to

the Inspection Report of the District Registrar. On the basis of such report, the

fourth respondent contends that the District Registrar did not find any

discrepancies or irregularities in the administration of the Society, including in

particular, with regard to the assets of such society.

6.The fourth respondent also says that notices were duly sent in

respect of the elections. The allegation that there was mass removal of members

is strongly refuted. In fact, the fourth respondent points out that only 13

members were removed and that the petitioner participated in the resolution

relating to the removal of said 13 members.

7.As regards the allegation that relevant returns have not been filed

by the Society, the fourth respondent draws reference to the filing details of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

Society and points out that almost all the forms relating to change in committee

members/ members and annual filings were approved upon filing. Only one

annual filing on 06.10.2020 is said to be pending. For all these reasons, the

fourth respondent says that the petitioner has completely failed to make out a

case to interfere with the electoral process.

8.The State is represented through Mr.Veera.Kathiravan, learned

Senior Counsel. His submissions are brief: the principal contention is that a

Writ Petition in respect of the affairs of a private society is not maintainable.

His second contention is that no statutory obligation is imposed on the

Registrar in relation to such election and, therefore, no interference is warranted

by the Writ Court.

9.Extensive submissions were made by a candidate at the present

election, who filed an impleading petition, namely, W.M.P(MD).No.10501 of

2021. The first submission on behalf of the impleading petitioner was that the

petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was elected for the triennium

2015-2018. The impleading petitioner asserts that there has been no alienation

of the properties of the Society. As regards the removal of members, the

impleading petitioner joins hands with the Society and points out that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ petitioner was a party to such removal. The petitioner had relied upon a

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

statement made by Mr.A.K.Khaja Jiavudeen. Both learned Senior Counsel for

the Society and learned counsel for the impleading party pointed out that the

said A.K.Khaja Jiavudeen resiled from and indeed withdrew his earlier

statement alleging maladministration of the Society. On such basis, the

contention is that such statement cannot be relied upon.

10.With regard to the electoral process, learned counsel for the

impleading party refers to the election schedule and points out that the

petitioner shot off a complaint to the Registrar even before the time for filing

nominations expired. The additional contention in such regard is that the

petitioner could not muster the necessary support to challenge the proceedings

in accordance with the Societies Registration Act. Consequently, it is alleged

that the petitioner has resorted to filing multiple proceedings to stall the

elections instead of contesting the same. As regards the filing of relevant

returns, it is pointed out that the Society is obligated to file returns, but once

such returns are duly filed, the entry in the relevant registers maintained by the

Registrar is not within the control of the Society.

11.The impleading petitioner also relies upon the judgments of this

Court and of the Supreme Court to the effect that once the electoral process has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ commenced, it should be allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion and

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

should not be interdicted midway.

12. An intervenor, namely, K.A.Abdul Kareem, made brief

submissions highlighting the factionalism in the Society, and the Civil Suits

filed by the intervenor to challenge the elections held in respect of earlier

triennia.

13. At the outset, certain fundamental aspects should be taken note

of. Ordinarily, the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226 declines to interfere with electoral disputes pertaining to a private party.

Therefore, it has to be examined whether the petitioner has made out a case

warranting such interference. The second aspect is the salutary principle,

instructed in judgments cited by the learned counsel for the impleading party,

that the electoral process should not, ordinarily, be interdicted once it has been

set in motion.

14.The merits of the dispute should be examined by keeping in

mind the aforesaid fundamental principles. The principal contention of the

petitioner is that the elections are sham elections inasmuch as candidates are

being elected without contest. The election of candidates without contest https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

cannot be said to be per se inimical to the democratic process. A party seeking

interference with an electoral process on such ground should be able to

demonstrate that the elections proceeded without contest in spite of the fact that

parties willing to contest the election attempted to participate in the electoral

process, but were unfairly and unjustly not permitted to do so.

15.There is nothing either in the affidavit filed in support of the

Writ Petition or in the documents filed by the petitioner that demonstrates that

the petitioner attempted to file his nomination and that such nomination was

rejected by the Society. In addition, it was pointed out that the petitioner

himself had been elected on nomination basis at the elections for the triennium

2015-2018. This position is not refuted and, on the contrary, is admitted by the

petitioner. In such circumstances, interference is not warranted on this ground.

16.The other ground on which the petitioner seeks interference is

the alleged maladministration of the Society. In this regard, the petitioner relies

upon the statement that the properties of the Society had been sold illegally.

However, the affidavit is completely bereft of details or particulars of the assets

that were sold illegally. On the contrary, an order of this Court has been drawn

to my attention and such order seems to prohibit the alienation of the assets. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ The Inspection Report of the Deputy Registrar also does not indicate any

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

unlawful alienation of assets by the Society. The only remaining ground of

challenge is that the relevant returns have not been taken on file by the

Registrar of Societies. On this issue, the Society and the impleading petitioner

contend that such forms were filed and the filing thereof has been approved,

whereas the petitioner refers to other documents that indicate that the relevant

forms have not been taken on record. There is little doubt that there are factions

in the Society and there appears to be in-fighting between them which has

resulted in the initiation of proceedings. Such factionalism is, however, a

common feature of electoral processes in any context and in the absence of

actionable evidence of infirmities in the electoral process, do not justify

interference. For various reasons set out above, the petitioner has failed to make

out a case to interfere with the electoral process on the basis of the allegations

set out in the petition and the documents filed in support thereof.

17.It is brought to the notice of this Court that the term of office of

the incumbents ended while the interim order of this Court was in force. It is

also pointed out that it is necessary to convene an annual general meeting. In

the above facts and circumstances, the incumbent office bearers are permitted

to convene and conduct the annual general meeting.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

18.Accordingly, W.P(MD).No.12454 of 2021 is dismissed without

any order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

closed.



                                                                                             18.08.2021
                                                                                                  (2/2)
                Index              : Yes / No
                Internet           : Yes/ No
                kmm

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2. The Inspector General of Registration (Societies), No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 29.

3. The District Registrar (Societies), Heber Road, Contonment, Trichy.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

kmm

W.P(MD)No.12454 of 2021

18.08.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/