Madras High Court
Tirunelveli Cms-Evangelical ... vs The District Registrar ... on 20 July, 2021
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 of 2020
Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church,
Registered Society No.2 / 1925 – 1926
Cheranmahadevi District Registrar Office,
New No.4/1982, Idayankulam,
Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District,
represented by its Secretary S.Thomas Walker
... Appellant
Vs.
The District Registrar (Administration),
Registration of Societies,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent
W.A(MD)Nos.1072 of 2020
S.Thomas Waker ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church,
Idayankulam Head Office,
represented by its Secretary
R.Paul George
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
3.The District Registrar (Administration),
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
4.D.Simon ... Respondents
COMMON PRAYER: The Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent, to set aside the order dated 28.09.2020 made in W.P(MD)Nos.10532 and
11099 of 2020 and allow these writ appeals.
For Appellant :Mr.S.Xavier Rajini
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathya Singh,
Additional Government Pleader
Respondent in W.A(MD)No.1070 of
2020 and Respondents 2 and 3
in W.A(MD)No.1072 of 2020
: Mr.S.Suresh Kumar
For R-1 in W.A(MD)No.1072 of
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.PUGALENDHI., J.]
These writ appeals are filed by one Thamas Waker as against the
common order of this Court dated 28.09.2020 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.10532
and 11099 of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
2.Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials
placed on record.
3.This appellant is the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.10532 of 2020 and
third respondent in W.P(MD)No.11099 of 2020. The writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.10532 of 2020 was filed by this appellant as against the order of
the District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District,
in Na.Ka.No.1275/Aa2/2020, dated 29.06.2020 and wherein, the appellant has
claimed that he is the Secretary of CMS Evangelical Church, a registered
society and the other writ petition in W.P(MD)No.11099 of 2020 was filed by
one Paul George claiming that he is the Secretary of the said society.
4.The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District in his
impugned order dated 29.06.2020 rejected the proposal of this appellant dated
16.11.2019 to register the Form -VII that as the annual returns of the society in
respect of the previous years have not been filed. In fact the appellant had
earlier filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.2924 of 2020, wherein this Court by
order dated 28.02.2020 directed the District Registrar concerned to consider the
request made by the appellant and accordingly the appellant submitted his
Form -VII and the same had been rejected that the previous years annual returns
have not been submitted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
5.The District Registrar further in the order impugned in the writ
petitions, had pointed out that only after regularising the previous years' returns,
the Form-VII submitted by the appellant would be considered. As against that
order, this appellant Thomas Waker filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.10532
of 2020 and one Paul George filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.11099
of 2020. This Court allowed both writ petitions by setting aside the order passed
by the District Registrar and remitted back the matter to the file of the District
Registrar, Cheranmahadevi to hold a fresh enquiry and to pass orders afresh in
accordance with law, after hearing both parties. This Court further directed the
District Registrar to issue notice to other interested persons also, since several
other suits have also been filed by different persons pertaining to the society.
6.Aggrieved over the same, the writ petitioner Thomas Waker alone
filed these present appeals in individual capacity and in the capacity as the
Secretary of the said society.
7.It appears that there are several other litigations also pending with
regard to the previous election for the period 2012 to 2014. Suits were also filed
and when the matter was pending before this Court in S.A.(MD)No.543 of
2019, this Court dismissed the second appeal by judgment dated 21.01.2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
that it the suit was pertaining to the period 2012 to 2014 and therefore, the
matter has become infructuous as on 20.01.2020. As against that judgment
passed by this Court in S.A(MD)No.543 of 2019, the said Paul George has filed
a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is
pending. This appellant Thomas Waker claims that in the election held on
16.11.2019, he was elected as the Secretary of the Society and similarly,
Paul George claims that he was elected in the election held on 15.12.218 and the
Form – VII was also submitted to the Registrar of Societies on 08.01.2019.
8.As against the election held on 15.12.2018, a suit was filed and
pending before the jurisdictional Civil Court in O.S.No.222 of 2019. Similarly,
as against the election said to have been held on 16.11.2019 a civil suit in
O.S.No.207 of 2020 has been filed before the II Additional District Munisif
Court, Tirunelveli. In fact the appellant has filed a petition in C.M.P(MD)No.
203 of 2020 in S.A(MD)No.543 of 2019 taking a stand that he has been elected
on 16.11.2019 as the Secretary. This Court while dismissing the second appeal
disposed of the said miscellaneous petition with liberty to the respective parties
to challenge the same in the manner known to law, with an observation that the
questions relating to the validity of the election said to have been held on
16.11.2019 are left open to be decided in the appropriate proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
9.The role of the District Registrar in deciding Form – VII,
has already been discussed by a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in
C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School
Committee, Karisal through its Secretary vs The District Registrar And
Others reported in 2005 (2) CTC 161 as follows:
“ 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
19. In this context it could also be kept in mind the
intention of the Legislature not to confer a power of supersession
of the Committee on the Registrar as by insertion of Tamil Nadu
Act 16 of 1994, such power is vested only in the Government and
even when the Registrar is satisfied after enquiry under Section
36 that the society which has contravened any of the provisions
of the Act or the Rules made thereunder or the society is
insolvent or must necessarily become so or that the business of
any such registered society is conducted fraudulently or not in
accordance with the bye-laws or the objects specified in the
memorandum filed with the Registrar, he may only cancel the
registration.
20. As the power of the Registrar to hold enquiry is
only to arrive at a prima facie conclusion as to the correctness of
the particulars given in Form VII, the provision of Sub-Section
(9) of Section 36 should also be understood to mean that he
could issue such directions to the registered society or any of the
member of the society only with reference to the details furnished
in Form VII. It must also be borne in mind that the enquiry under
Section 36 is not only limited to the regular affairs of the society
and such affairs not only include the constitution of a registered
society but also to the working and financial condition,and hence
the power of the Registrar to issue such direction under Sub-
section (9) of Section 36 of the Act, in regard to the constitution
of the registered society must be understood in the context of
Form VII. Section 14 obligates the registered society to maintain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
a register containing the names, addresses and occupations of its
members. Section 15 further mandates such registered society
shall file with the Registrar a copy of the register maintained by
it under Section 14 and from time to time file with the Registrar
notice of any change among the members of the committee. In the
absence of failure to comply with Section 14, the Registrar could
only resort to to the power under Section 37 to cancel the
registration. Hence, the power under Sub-Section (9) of Section
36 cannot be stretched to a power on the Registrar to direct the
registered society to hold fresh election. A direction to hold fresh
election would amount to indirectly setting aside the earlier
election and such power is not conferred on the Registrar under
any of the provisions of the Act. So long as the election is not
declared invalid in the manner known to law, no direction for
fresh election could be ordered. Validity of the election could very
well be decided only by the competent Civil Court as the parties
are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective
claims. In the event the Registrar satisfies himself as to the
particulars furnished in Form VII as correct, he should enter the
names in the register maintained for that purpose. In the event if
he does not satisfy as to the particulars and thereby does not
accept Form VII, he has to issue a direction relegating the
parties to approach the civil Court for appropriate orders and
thereafter shall act as per the orders of the civil Court.
Accordingly, the issue is answered. Post the Writ Appeals for
disposal accordingly.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
10.The writ petitions were disposed of by this Court based on the
order of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in C.M.S. Evangelical' case cited
supra and therefore, this Court do not find any merit in these appeals and
accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No Costs.
[N.K.K.,J.] [B.P., J.]
20.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
dsk
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome High Road,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The District Registrar (Administration),
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J
AND
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
W.A(MD)Nos.1070 and 1072 of 2020
20.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
