Madras High Court
P.Jeyasingh Malraj vs The Chief Educational Officer on 1 November, 2021
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 04.04.2022
DELIVERED ON : 13.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.16970, 16972,18958,18962 and 18961 of 2021
W.P.(MD)No.20311 of 2021:-
P.Jeyasingh Malraj ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Chernmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.
5.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
6.S.Thomas Walker
7.Anantharajan
8.David Estephenson ... Respondents
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the
impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1744/Aa2/2021, dated 01.11.2021 on the
file of the third respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.Prabhua Rajadurai
For R1 to R5 :Mr.N.GA.Nataraj
Government Advocate
For R6 to R8 :Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counselling
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
W.P.(MD)No.22420 of 2021:-
Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church
Society, represented by its S.Thomas Walker,
Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Chernmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent
District Educational Officer, in Na.Ka.No.1668/A4/2021, dated
22.11.2021 and quash the same and further to direct the third
respondent/District Educational Officer to register forthwith S.David
Stephen as Correspondent of the six schools run by the petitioner Society
(list annexed) on the basis of the proposal, dated 05.07.2021 submitted
by the petitioner.
For Petitioner :Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counselling
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondents :Mr.N.GA.Nataraj
Government Advocate
W.P.(MD)No.22421 of 2021:-
Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church
Society, represented by its S.Thomas Walker,
Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
3/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Alwarthirunagari at Thenthiruperai,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent
DEO to register forthwith P.Anandharajan as Correspondent of the CMS
Primariy School, Shenpankudiyuruppu run by the petitioner society on
the basis of the proposal, dated 03.11.2021 submitted by the petitioner.
For Petitioner:Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counselling
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondents :Mr.N.GA.Nataraj
Government Advocate
W.P.(MD)No.22422 of 2021:-
Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church
Society, represented by its S.Thomas Walker,
Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Commissioner of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Block Educational Officer,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
4/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent
DEO to register forthwith P.Anandharajan and S.David Stephen as
Correspondent of the three schools run by the petitioner society (list
annexed) on the basis of the proposal, dated 05.07.2021 submitted by the
petitioner.
For Petitioner :Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counselling
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondents :Mr.N.GA.Nataraj
Government Advocate
*****
COMMONORDER
The dispute involved in these Writ Petitions revolves around
Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church Society, (hereinafter referred to as
“the society”), which is a registered society registered under the Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
2.The cause of action for filing of these Writ Petitions are as
follows:
(1)Acceptance of registration of correspondentship of 17 schools
by the District Educational Officer, Valliyoor on 01.11.2021 pursuant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
the registration of Form-VII of the society by the District Registrar. The
petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.20311 of 2021, has challenged the acceptance
of the correspondentship of 17 schools by the District Educational
Officer, Valliyoor, on 01.11.2021.
(2)Declining to register the correspondentship of six schools,
which falls within the jurisdiction of District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi, by the District Educational Officer, in his order, dated
22.11.2021. W.P(MD)No.22420 of 2021 has been filed by the Society
challenging the proceedings of the District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi, dated 22.11.2021 declining to register the
correspondentship of six schools;
(3)In W.P.(MD)No.22421 of 2021, the Society has questioned the
non-registration of correspondentship of CMS Primary School,
Shenpankudiyuruppu, by the District Educational Officer, Thiruchendur,
despite the receipt of the proposal, dated 03.11.2021 from the petitioner.
(4)In W.P(MD)No.22422 of 2021, the Society has questioned the
non-registration of correspondentship of three schools, despite the receipt
of the proposal, dated 05.07.2021 by the District Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
3.Brief facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions:
4.The society is running 27 schools under the jurisdiction of four
educational districts, as detailed hereunder:
(a)District Educational Officer, Valliyoor, 17 schools;
(b)District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, 6 schools;
(c)District Educational Officer, Tiruchendur, one school; and
(d) District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, 3 schools.
5.As per the bye-laws of the society, the Correspondent of the
school will be elected by the general body of the society. According to
the petitioner (Society) in W.P.(MD)Nos.22420, 22421 and 22422 of
2021, the election for the society was conducted by the general body for
the triennium, 2019-22 on 16.11.2019. It is their case that Form-VII was
submitted before the District Registrar on 26.11.2019. Since Form-VII
was kept pending by the District Registrar, the society filed W.P.(MD)No.
2924 of 2020 seeking for issuance of a Mandamus directing the District
Registrar to consider the Form-VII, dated 26.11.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
6.This Court by its order, dated 28.01.2020 disposed of W.P.
(MD)No.2924 of 2020 by directing the District Registrar to consider the
Form-VII, dated 26.11.2019 and pass orders on the same. By order,
dated 29.06.2020, the District Registrar refused to register Form-VII vide
his proceedings, dated 29.06.2020 on the ground that as per the circular
of the Inspector General of Registration in Ref.No.72011(No.
34579/11/2011), dated 27.07.2011, without registering the Form-VII of
the previous years, the current Form-VII cannot be registered. W.P.
(MD)No.10532 of 2021 was filed by the society challenging the above
order, dated 29.06.2020 passed by the District Registrar. By order, dated
28.09.2020, this Court quashed the order, dated 29.06.2020 passed by the
District Registrar and remanded the matter back to the District Registrar
for fresh consideration.
7.According to the petitioner (society), in the interregnum, some
office bearers resigned their position and hence, the society convened
another general body meeting and made few changes in the constitution
of the committee and submitted a revised Form-VII together with Form-
VII, dated 26.11.2019 with the District Registrar. By order, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
21.06.2021, the District Registrar vide his proceedings, after enquiry
with the parties,registered the Form-VII.
8.Mr.P.Jeyasingh Malraj, filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.
11311 of 2021 before this Court challenging the proceedings of the
District Registrar, dated 21.06.2021 registering the Form-VII. By order,
dated 21.09.2021, this Court dismissed W.P.(MD)No.11311 of 2021.
Aggrieved by the same, P.Jeyasingh Malraj, filed a Writ Appeal before
this Court in W.A(MD)No.1870 of 2021 and the same is pending without
any interim order. Thereafter, on 01.11.2021, the District Educational
Officer, Valliyoor, registered the correspondentship of 17 schools under
his jurisdiction pursuant to the registration of Form-VII of the society by
the District Registrar on 29.06.2021. W.P.(MD)No.20311 of 2021 was
filed by P.Jeyasingh Malraj challenging the registration of
correspondentship of 17 schools by District Educational Officer,
Valliyoor.
9.On 22.11.2021, the District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi, declined to register the correspondentship of six
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
schools under his jurisdiction citing pending civil suit and Writ Appeal
against the election and Form-VII vide his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.
1668/A4/2021. W.P(MD)No.22420 of 2021 has been filed by the society
challenging the proceedings of District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi, dated 22.11.2021 declining to register the
correspondentship of six schools.
10.W.P.(MD)No.22421 of 2021 has been filed by the Society
questioning the non registration of correspondentship of CMS Primary
School, Shenpankudiyuruppu, despite the receipt of the proposal, dated
03.11.2021 by the District Educational Officer, Tiruchendur.
11.W.P.(MD)No.22422 of 2021 has been filed by the society
questioning the non registration of correspondentship of three schools,
despite the receipt of the proposal dated 05.07.2021 by the District
Educational Officer, Tirunelveli.
12.Since the issues involved in all these Writ Petitions pertain to
registration of Form-VII for the very same society and registration of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
correspondentship for the schools belonging to the very same society,
they are disposed of by a common order.
13.Heard Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.22420 to 22422 of 2021, and for respondents
6 to 8 in W.P.(MD)No.20311 of 2021, Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned
Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.20311 of 2021,
Mr.N.GA.Nataraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
official respondents in W.P.(MD)Nos.22420 to 22422 of 2021.
14.Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
(society) in W.P.(MD)Nos.22420, 22421 and 22422 of 2021, would
submit as follows:
(a)The election for the society for the triennium 2019-22 was
conducted on 16.11.2019.
(b)O.S.No.207 of 2020 filed by the two non members on the file of
the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, challenging the
election, dated 16.11.2019 is pending without any interim order.
(c)The District Registrar vide his proceedings, dated 21.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
has registered Form-VII of the society.
(d)W.P(MD)No.11311 of 2021 challenging the registration of
Form-VII by the District Registrar was dismissed by this Court, by order,
dated 21.09.2021.
(e)W.A.(MD)No.1870 of 2021 filed by P.Jeyasingh Malraj, as
against the order, dated 21.09.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.11311 of 2021 is
pending without any interim order.
(f)There is no interim order either in the suit pending on the file of
the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli or in the Writ Appeal
which is pending before the Division Bench of this Court as against the
order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed
challenging the registration of Form-VII.
(g)As such, there would be no impediment for the District
Educational Officers to register forthwith the correspondentship of the
schools run by the society.
(h)The District Educational Officer, Valliyoor, had rightly
registered the correspondentship of 17 schools under his jurisdiction.
(i)The District Educational Officers of Cheranmahadevi,
Tiruchendur and Tirunelveli are also bound to register the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
correspondentship of remaining 10 schools.
(j)The District Educational Officers, cannot deny registration of
correspondentship of schools after the District Registrar registered the
Form-VII relating to the election of the educational agency.
(k)In support of his contention, Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior
Counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of M.Ayyasamy vs the District Educational Officer and others, reported
in 1996 (2) MLJ 391.
15.Per contra, Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.20311 of 2021 would submit as follows:
(a)Since 2012, the management of the Society is under dispute and
is hotly contested by the petitioner, which is pending adjudication before
the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.1870 of 2021.
(b)Irrespective of the order, dated 28.09.2020 passed by this Court
in W.P(MD)No.10532 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.11099 of 2020, the
District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District, has to conduct
fresh enquiry, as to the rival claims, by putting on notice to all the
interested parties, but the said Paul George and the sixth respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
surreptitiously submitted Form-VII by falsely claiming to be elected in
the alleged election which has been recognised by the District Registrar
in violation of the order passed by this Court. Hence, there is no
properly constituted body for the society and that the sixth respondent
has been elected in an election conducted not in accordance with the bye-
laws of the society.
(c)As stated in the order, dated 01.11.2021 of the District
Educational Officer, Valliyoor, which is impugned in W.P.(MD)No.20311
of 2021, since 2012, the schools which are run under the society are
brought under the direct management of the educational authorities and
the same has not been cancelled.
(d)Irrespective of the pending adjudication in respect of the
management, the approval of the appointment of the correspondentship is
illegal and suffers from non application of mind.
(e)In consequence thereof, new teachers were appointed, even
without following the selection process which involves large scale
corruption.
(f)Such conduct on the part of the educational authorities in
support of the false claim made by the sixth respondent requires serious
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
consideration of this Court. The Teachers were paid by the Government
which involves public money and therefore, it requires an investigation
as to how the appointments were made on extraneous reasons.
(g)Hence, the election alleged to have been conducted and the
consequential appointment on the basis of false claim are not in
accordance with the bye-laws of the society.
16. Mr.N.GA.Nataraj, learned Government Advocate appearing for
the official respondents in all these Writ Petitions would reiterate the
stand taken by the respective District Educational Officers, which
resulted in the filing of these Writ Petitions. The stand taken by the
respective District Educational Officers is also disclosed in the counter
affidavits filed on behalf of the official respondents.
Discussion:-
17.The point for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the
District Educational Officers can deny registration of correspondentship
of schools after the District Registrar has registered the Form-VII
relating to the election of the educational society.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
18.In the case on hand, the Form-VII for the society has been
registered by the District Registrar on 29.06.2021. Mr.P.Jeyasingh
Malraj had also challenged the same in W.P.(MD)No.11311 of 2021
before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 21.09.2021. Aggrieved
by the same, a Writ Appeal was also filed in W.A(MD)No.1870 of 2021
by Mr. P.Jeyasingh Malraj. Though the Writ Appeal is pending, no
interim order has been granted by the Division Bench of this Court.
Therefore, Form-VII registered by the District Registrar on 29.06.2020 is
still in force.
19.A careful reading of the Societies Registration Act, shows that
the role of the Registrar is clearly defined by the statute in respect of
various statutory obligations created under the Act. The functions
expected to be performed by the District Registrar have been clearly
demarcated into three categories, namely, (a)Ministerial (b)
Administrative and (c) Quasi-judicial.
20.In contrast to the administrative and quasi-judicial functions,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
there are certain functions assigned to the District Registrar, which are
merely ministerial in nature and no Writ would lie in respect of the
ministerial functions, so functioned by the District Registrar. But what is
the test to distinguish the ministerial act/duty from an administrative
act/function?
21.A “Ministerial Act” is defined in “P.Ramanatha Aiyer's, 'The
Law Lexicon' as follows:
“Ministerial Act. A ministerial act may be defined to be one which
a person performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to, or the
exercise of, his own judgment upon the property of the act done.
22.According to Ballentine's Law dictionary, "Ministerial Duty"
means, a duty in regard to which no discretion is left in the officer on
whom the duty is imposed, an act which is absolute, certain and
imperative involving the mere execution of a set task, the law which
imposes it prescribing the time, mode and occasion of its performance
with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
23.Black's Law Dictionary also defines a "Ministerial act" as an
"act performed without the independent exercise of discretion or
judgment."
24.Applying the above test, it can be safely concluded that the
acceptance of forms and returns filed by the registered societies, is
nothing but ministerial in nature. This conclusion is inevitable on
account of the fact that no element of discretion is conferred upon the
Registrar under the Act, while accepting any of the forms/returns.
Ministerial act is nothing but seeing whether the check list of
requirements are satisfied or but without any independent assessment to
be made. Form-VII prescribes a form in which a notice of any change
among the members of a society or of the committee to be filed with the
Registrar.
25.It is seen that the requirement under Rule 17(2) for filing Form
No.VII stems out of the requirement under Section 15 of the Societies
Registration Act. Section 15 reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
“15.Committee.-
(1) Every registered Society shall have a committee of not less
than three members to manage its affairs. Every registered
society shall file with the Registrar a copy of the register
maintained by it under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 and from
time to time, file with the Registrar notice of any change
among the members of the Committee.
(2) A copy of the register shall be filed either at the time of the
registration of the society or within such period as may be
prescribed from the appointment of the members of the first
committee and the notice of any change among the members of
the society or the committee shall be filed within such period
as may be prescribed from the date of such change.
(3) The members of the committee shall be appointed at a
meeting of the society by a resolution of a majority of the
members present and entitled to vote thereat.
(4) The term of office of the members of committee shall not
exceed three years from the date of their appointment.
(5) The members of the committee shall be eligible for
reappointment.
26.Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, reads
as follows:
17. Filing of copy of the register of members and notice
of change of members or committee.-
(1) A copy of the register of members maintained by the society
under Sub-section (1) of Section 14, if not filed at the time of
registration of the society, shall be filed with the Registrar
within one month from the date of registration of the society.
(2) The notice of any change among the members of the society
or of the committee shall be filed in Form No. VII within [three
months] from the date of such change. The notice of change
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
among the members of the committee shall be accompanied by
the resolution of the meeting, if any, effecting such change.
27.It is seen from the aforementioned Section 15 and Rule 17 that
there is a statutory obligation cast upon the society to file Form-VII
within the time limit prescribed or the act or rules but do not envisage
any corresponding statutory duty or responsibility on the part of the
Registrar of Society while accepting Form-VII filed under the Act.
Therefore, it is clear that the Registrar while accepting the Form-VII is
only doing a ministerial act of receiving the form, scrutinizing the same
to the extent necessary to verify the correctness of the particulars
contained therein and registering the same. In other words, the Registrar
has no more job than that of the Registrar of Companies accepting Form
No.32 or Form No.34 under the Companies Act, 1956.
28.The above conclusion also derives support from the Provisions
of Section 34 of the Act, which reads as follows:
“34. Power of Registrar to call for information or
explanation.-
(1) Where the Registrar, on perusal of any document which a
registered society is required to file with him under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
provisions of this Act, is of opinion that any information or
explanation is necessary with respect to any matter to which
such document purports to relate, he may, by order in writing,
call on the registered society filing the document to furnish in
writing such information or explanation within such time as he
may specify in the order.
(2) On receipt by the registered society of an order under Sub-
section (1), it shall be the duty of all persons who are or have
been its officers to furnish such information or explanation to
the best of their power.
(3) On receipt of such information or explanation, the
Registrar, may annex the same to the original document filed
with him and any additional document so annexed by the
Registrar shall be subject to the like provisions as to inspection
and the taking of copies, as the original documents is subject.”
29.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 by 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
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.
30.In any event, the filing of Form No.VII is only a consequential
action to an election purportedly conducted. The acceptance of such a
Form by the Registrar would neither affix a seal of approval on the
validity of the election nor would the rejection of Form No. VII by the
Registrar, invalidate an election properly conducted. Therefore, a person,
who is aggrieved by an election, should only go before a Civil Court
challenging the election. A person aggrieved by an election cannot
challenge the acceptance or rejection of Form No. VII by the Registrar, as
a short cut to invalidate an election.
31.In the case on hand, the District Registrar by his proceeding,
dated 21.06.2021 has registered Form-VII for the society on 29.06.2020.
A challenge was also made to the said registration in W.P.(MD)No.11311
of 2021, which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 21.09.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
Though a Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.1870 of 2021 is pending, as
against the order of the learned Single Judge, no interim order has been
passed in the said Writ Appeal.
32.Recognition of correspondentship is only a consequential act
pursuant to the registration of Form-VII by the District Registrar under
the Societies Registration Act. Though a civil suit in O.S.No.207 of
2020 is pending on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court,
Tirunelveli, challenging the election of the committee for the society on
16.11.2019, no interim orders have also been passed in the said suit also.
33.The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Ayyasamy vs
the District Educational Officer and others, reported in 1996 (2) MLJ
391, held as under:
“10. We are of the view that the following principles and
norms, if applied, in invoking the powers under Section 53-
A(2) of the Act, may help to avoid arbitrariness:
(1) Wherever there is a properly and validly elected
Educational Agency or School Committees duly registered and
certified by the Competent Authority under the provisions of
the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the Rules made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
thereunder, the same should be allowed to function and not
stultified.
(2) Whenever any competent court or Statutory
Authority vested with such powers under the Act stays or
suspends the operation of the proceedings recorded under the
said Act by the grant of any order of stay or injunction, the fate
of the Committee shall abide by such orders and the
Authorities under the Act must give due weight and implement
these orders;
(3) If there is no impediment in recognising or
approving the elected Committee by any order as noticed in (2)
above, the Authorities exercising jurisdiction under the Act
shall be at liberty to recognise and approve the same so as to
enable the Committee to function effectively, subject to the
result of any judgment/decree of any court or the orders of any
of the Statutory Authorities legally entitled to interfere with the
said position:
(4) If the authorities of the Educational Department
themselves entertain any reasonable doubt about the legality
and propriety of the claims made by anyone, it shall always be
open to such authorities or members of the society to take
action under Section 53-A (1) of the Act followed by separate
action under Section 53-A of the Act:
(5) If the authorities of the Educational Department are
satisfied with the claims made which are duly certified by the
Competent Authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules made
thereunder, such authorities shall be at liberty to recognise or
approve of the same under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and there
is no necessity to have recourse to Section 53-A(2) of the Act
and such recognition or approval shall of course, be subject to
the orders of any court interim or final, or competent statutory
authority in exercise of its powers under the Statute.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
34.The above decision makes it clear that once the election of the
committee of the society is duly registered and certified by the competent
authority under the provisions of Societies Registration Act and the rules
made thereunder, the same should be allowed, functioned and not
stultified. In the case on hand also, Form-VII submitted by the society in
respect of the election conducted to elect the committee has been
registered by the District Registrar under the Societies Registration Act
and there is no Court order restraining the committee from functioning.
35.This being the case, there is no prohibition for the District
Educational Officers to recognise the correspondentship for the subject
schools submitted by the Society. Recognition of correspondentship is
only a consequential act and is also a ministerial act pursuant to the
registration of Form-VII under the Societies Registration Act. When
Form-VII registered by the District Registrar under the Societies
Registration Act remains undisturbed, the question of District
Educational Officers refusing to recognise the correspondentship for the
subject schools will not arise. A school will be headless, if such a stand
is allowed to be accepted. Unless and until, a Civil Court declares the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
election of the committee for a Society as invalid or there is a restraint
order by a Civil Court pending disposal of the civil suit, the question of
refusing to recognise the correspondentship will not arise, as Form-VII
has already been registered by the District Registrar under the Societies
Registration Act and the recognition of correspondentship is only a
consequential order.
36.As seen from the case on hand, there is no impediment for the
District Educational Officers to register the correspondentship of the
subject schools run by the society. The District Educational Officer,
Valliyoor, had rightly registered the correspondentship of 17 schools
under his jurisdiction. The District Educational Officers,
Cheranmahadevi, Tiruchendur, and Tirunelveli are also bound to register
the correspondentship of remaining 10 schools of the society.
37.If at all, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.20311 of 2021 has any
grievance with regard to the constitution of the committee for the society,
which has been registered by the District Registrar, who has registered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
Form-VII for the said committee, his only remedy is to approach the civil
Court, as a Writ Petition challenging the registration of Form-VII by the
District Registrar under the Societies Registration Act or the
consequential recognition of correspondentship for the subject schools
under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act,
1973, pursuant to the registration of Form-VII is not maintainable.
38.For the foregoing reasons, W.P.(MD)No.22420, 22421 and
22422 of 2021 are allowed and W.P.(MD)No.20311 of 2021 is dismissed.
Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 22.11.2021 passed by the third
respondent in W.P.(MD)No.22420 of 2021 is quashed and the third
respondent in W.P.(MD)No.22420 of 2021/District Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi is directed to register forthwith S.David Stephenson as
Correspondent of six schools run by the society on the basis of the
proposal, dated 05.07.2021 submitted by the Society.
39.1.The third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.22421 of 2021/District
Educational Officer, Tiruchendur, is directed to register forthwith
P.Anandharajan, as Correspondent of CMS Primary School,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
Shenpankudiyuruppu, run by the petitioner society on the basis of the
proposal, dated 03.11.2021 submitted by the society.
39.2.The third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.22422 of 2021/District
Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, is directed to register forthwith
P.Anandharajan and S.David Stephenson as Correspondent of the three
schools run by the petitioner society on the basis of the proposal, dated
05.07.2021 submitted by the petitioner society.
39.3.The order impugned in W.P.(MD)No.20311 of 2021, dated
01.11.2021 passed by the third respondent is hereby confirmed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
Index :Yes / No 14.04.2022
Internet :Yes
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Chernmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.
5.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
6.The Commissioner of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
7.The Block Educational Officer,
Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.
8.The Chief Educational Officer,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
9.The District Educational Officer,
Thiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.
10.The Block Educational Officer,
Alwarthirunagari at Thenthiruperai,
Thoothukudi District.
11.The Block Educational Officer,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
cmr
Common Order made in
W.P.(MD)Nos.20311 and 22420 to 22422 of 2021
13.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
