Madras High Court
“Kremmer Sandegren Foundation” ... vs The Inspector General Of ... on 22 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021 &
CMP(MD)No.4304 of 2021
“Kremmer Sandegren Foundation” Pattukottai
Represented by its President,
A.Kamaleshwaran,
(Registration No.5/57)
No.70, Muduppaiah Colony,
4th Street, Veerakeralam,
Coimbatore – 641 007. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Second Floor, Government Multipurpose Office Complex,
Kajamalai, Tiruchirappalli – 620 020.
3.The District Registrar (Societies),
District Registrar Office,
Court Campus, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli – 621 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/12
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
4.Kremmer Sandegran Foundation Pattukottai,
No-16, St.John's Church Complex,
Rockins Road, Trichy – 620 001.
Represented by Abrahamdass,
S/o.Dharmaraj ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to
set aside the order in WP(MD)No.5504 of 2021 dated 12.03.2021 on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Raja
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Standing Counsel for Government
for R1 to R3
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This Writ Appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order
dated 12.03.2021 in WP(MD)No.5504 of 2021 filed by the appellant.
2. The appellant sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 03.03.2021
in Na.Ka.No.3278/vu/2020. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated
12.03.2021, held that the appellant cannot challenge the Show Cause Notice as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
they are under an obligation to respond to the Show Cause Notice and submit
their explanation and only any adverse order is passed, they have got cause of
action for complaining against the official respondents, until then, the appellant
cannot said to be an aggrieved person on account of the action of the second
respondent. Therefore, the learned Single Bench concluded that the proper
course for the appellant is to submit their explanation before the Authority
concerned and only thereafter, the Authority concerned can apply his mind as to
the rival claim of the party and any adverse order is passed and thereafter, it is
open to the appellant to challenge the same either under the Act or under the
Constitution or can have recourse to the common law remedy. Thus, the Court
held that at this stage of the matter, the appellant cannot seek for intervention of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The correctness of the
order is being challenged before us in the present appeal.
3. We elaborately heard Mr.A.Raja, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Government Counsel appearig for the
respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the
fourth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
4. The observations made by the learned Single Bench that the Writ
Court will not interfere in the Show Cause Notice is a well settled principle.
However, the Courts have drawn exception to this Rule, when the aggrieved
party is before the Court, challenging the Show Cause Notice on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, if the appellant had filed the Writ Petition
challenging the proceedings of the second respondent on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, then the normal Rule which is applied by the Courts in a challege
to the Show Cause Notice will not be applied and the Courts will consider as to
whether the proceedings has been issued by the Authority, who has got
jurisdiction.
5. In the instant case, the dispute between the appellant and the fourth
respondent is regard to Form VII declaration to be filed under the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, listing out the names of the
Office Bearers, who will represent the Society. The facts which have travelled
this far are that, two Form VII declarations have been filed, one by the appellant
and another by the fourth respondent. The District Registrar (Societies), the
third respondent herein, had taken note of both the Form VII declarations and
directed the parties to approach the Civil Court, because, there is a dispute.
This appears to be in tune with the decision of the Honourable Division Bench,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
wherein, it has been held that the role of the District Registrar in the matter of
accepting the Form VII declaration would be that of a Form Filer. The District
Registrar (Societies) directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. Thus, it
was well open to either the appellant or the fourth respondent to approach the
Civil Court. However, the fourth respondent filed a petition before the first
respondent, which was styled as an Appeal Petition. The first respondent took
up the said petition and directed the second respondent, the Deputy Inspector
General of Registration, Tiruchirappalli, to conduct an enquiry. The second
respondent, in compliance with the direction issued by the first respondent,
issued the notice dated 03.03.2021, by forwarding the Appeal Petition filed by
the fourth respondent calling for the remarks of the appellant, on the grounds
raised by the fourth respondent, who has questioned the order of the District
Registrar (Societies), asking the parties to seek remedy before the Civil Court.
6. The question would arise as to whether, the first respondent can
function as an Appellate Authority over and above the decision rendered by the
District Registrar (Societies), refusing to entertain both Form VII declarations
and seeking the parties to seek recourse before the Civil Court. Infact, the legal
position appears to have been understood by the Authorities rightly, as in the
order passed by the Inspector General of Registration dated 21.04.2021,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
wherein, it has been stated as follows:
"jkpH;ehL r';f';fs; gjpt[r; rl;lk; 1975d; fPH; gotk; VII
nfhh;it bjhlh;ghf khtl;lg;gjpthsuhy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gLk;
Mizapid vjph;j;J nky; KiwaPL mspf;f
tHptifapy;iy"
7. The above said order dated 21.04.2021 is impugned in
WP(MD)No.9303 of 2021, filed by the appellant and the Writ Petition is
pending before the learned Single Bench.
8. Be that as it may, when the appellant has questioned the jurisdiction
of the second respondent to issue such a notice and to conduct an enquiry, in our
respectful view, it is necessary for the learned Writ Court to consider as to
whether the Authority had jurisdiction to exercise the proposed action. In fact,
the Inspector General of Registration has not proposed to conduct enquiry, but
he has directed the second respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration to conduct the enquiry. The moot question would be whether the
first respondent can decide the correctness of the order passed by the District
Registrar (Societies), refusing to accept both the Form VII declarations by
exercising power as an Appellate Authority. This issue can be decided in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
other Writ Petition, which is pending filed by the appellant namely,
WP(MD)No.9303 of 2021, wherein, the jurisdiction of the first respondent has
been questioned.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that
the first respondent upon being satisfied that the proper procedure has not been
followed by the District Registrar (Societies), which has been spelt out in the
circular issued during the year 2011, as to how Form VI and Form VII
declarations have to be scrutinized and all that Inspector General of Registration
has done is to set aside the order passed by the District Registrar (Societies) and
remand the matter to the District Registrar (Societies) for fresh hearing and take
a decision after affording opportunity to both sides and thereafter, the District
Registrar (Societies) has also passed an order on 28.04.2021, which according
to the fourth respondent has not been put to challenge.
10. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the first aspect is whether at all the Inspector General of Registration can
act as an Appellate Authority. Secondly, whether the procedure adopted by him
by directing the Deputy Inspector General of Registration to conduct the
enquiry had any legal sanctity. Thirdly, even though the Inspector General of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
Registration remanded the matter to the District Registrar to hear both parties,
the District Registrar would state that he need not hear both parties, because,
already the Deputy Inspector General of Registration has conducted a detailed
enquiry and findings of the enquiry has been perused and accepted by the
Inspector General of Registration. Therefore, it is submitted that there is a gross
lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Authorities in passing successive orders,
which, in the opinion of the appellant are illegal.
11. Thus considering all these facts, we are of the clear view that the
learned Single Bench, ought to have considered as to whether the Deputy
Inspector General of Registration has jurisdiction to issue the notice dated
03.03.2021. Incidentally, the Court would have to decide as to whether the
Inspector General of Registration was empowered to direct the Deputy
Inspector General of Registration to conduct an enquiry. This is so because,
unless and until, the Inspector General of Registration can act as an Appellate
Authority over the decision of the District Registrar (Societies), he would be
incompetent to issue any direction to the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration. The answer to all these questions will have a direct impact on the
order passed by the first respondent dated 21.04.2021, which is impugned in
WP(MD)No.9303 of 2021. Consequently, it will also impact the order passed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
by the third respondent dated 28.04.2021, which is a consequential order
pursuant to the order of the first respondent dated 21.04.2021.
12. Thus, we are of the clear view that the Writ Petition should be
heard on merits and the parties should be permitted to file their counter
affidavit, especially, the respondents 1 and 2, explaining their jurisdiction and as
to how the first respondent can exercise his power as an Appellate Authority.
13. For the above observations, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the
order passed by the learned Single Bench is set aside. WP(MD)No.5504 of 2021
is restored to the file of the learned Single Bench. Registry is directed to tag
WP(MD)No.5504 of 2021 along with WP(MD)No.9303 of 2021. Both the Writ
Petitions shall be heard before the appropriate learned Single Bench and there is
a specific direction to the Inspector General of Registration to file counter
affidavit in both the Writ Petitions, in which, the Inspector General of
Registration should explain as to how, he exercised his power as if he is an
Appellate Authority over the order passed by the District Registrar (Societies).
14. In the light of the above directions, status-quo, which is remaining
on the file of the third respondent shall be maintained. However, the fourth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
respondent shall not take any advantage, merely because, the District Registrar
(Societies) has accepted their Form VII declaration and shall abide by the result
of WP(MD)Nos.9303 and 5504 of 2021. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
22.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
mbi/pkn
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
O/o.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Foreshore Estate,
Chennai – 600 028.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Second Floor, Government Multipurpose Office Complex,
Kajamalai, Tiruchirappalli – 620 020.
3.The District Registrar (Societies),
District Registrar Office,
Court Campus, Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli – 621 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
mbi/pkn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.952 of 2021
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
