Madras High Court
S.Selvakumar vs The Inspector General Of ... on 10 August, 2022
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.5284 and 5286 of 2022
W.A.(MD)No.632 of 2022:-
1.S.Selvakumar
2.M.V.M.Pethupandiyan
3.D.Karthikeyan
4.P.M.Selvaraj
5.A.Sankarakumar
6.S.L.S.S.Thinakaran
7.M.S.P.Thenraj
8.M.Rajamani
9.B.Santhanakumar
10.N.T.Selvaraj
11.M.S.Kamaraj ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028.
2.The District Registrar,
(Registration and Societies),
Thoothukudi, Thoothukud District.
3.Thoothukudi Vadadhisai Hindu Nadar Mahamai
Dharma Karapettai Paripalana Sangam,
represented by its Secretary, Thoothukudi District.
4.R.Jeyakumar ... Respondents
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set
aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11734 of 2022, dated
20.06.2022.
For Appellants :Mr.A.S.Vaigunth
For R1 :Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel for M/s.Isaac Chamber
For R2 and R3 :Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan
Government Advocate
W.A.(MD)No.633 of 2022:-
1.S.Selvakumar
2.M.V.M.Pethupandiyan
3.D.Karthikeyan
4.P.M.Selvaraj
5.A.Sankarakumar
6.S.L.S.S.Thinakaran
7.M.S.P.Thenraj
8.M.Rajamani
9.B.Santhanakumar
10.N.T.Selvaraj
11.M.S.Kamaraj ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Thoothukudi Vadadhisai Hindu Nadar Mahamai
Dharma Karapettai Paripalana Sangam,
represented by its Secretary, Thoothukudi District.
2.The Inspector General of Registration
(Registration and Societies),
Santhome Church Road, Chennai District.
3.The District Registrar,
(Registration and Societies),
Thoothukudi, Thoothukud District. ... Respondents
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set
aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3317 of 2022, dated
20.06.2022.
For Appellants :Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.T.Arivukumar
For R1 :Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel for M/s.Isaac Chamber
For R2 and R3 :Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan
Government Advocate
W.A.(MD)No.634 of 2022:-
C.Ponraj ... Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Jeyakumar
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
100, Santhome High Road,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028.
3.The District Registrar,
(Registration and Societies),
Thoothukudi, Thoothukud District.
4.The Thoothukudi Vadathisai Hindu Nadar's
Mahamai Dharma,
Karapettai Paripalana Sangam,
Represented by its Secretary,
Thoothukudi – 628 002. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set
aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10377 of 2022, dated
20.06.2022.
3/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
For Appellant :Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.T.Arivukumar
For R1 :Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R2 and R3 :Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan
Government Advocate
W.A.(MD)No.635 of 2022:-
C.Ponraj ... Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Muthu Selvam
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
Inspector General of Registration Office,
100, Santhome Road, Chennai – 600 028.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Office of Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627 003.
4.The District Registrar(Societies Registration),
District Registrar Office, Polepettai,
Thoothukudi.
5.The Thoothukudi Vadathisai Hindu Nadar's
Mahamai Dharma,
Karapettai Paripalana Sangam,
Represented by its Secretary,
Thoothukudi – 628 002.
6.C.S.Rajendran
7.C.Pethuraj
8.M.Paulpandi
9.Selvarani
10.Marimuthu Muneeswaran ... Respondents
4/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set
aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10965 of 2022, dated
20.06.2022.
For Appellants :Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.T.Arivukumar
For R1 :Mr.T.Antony Arulraj
For R2 to R4 :Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan
Government Advocate
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Common Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
Heard Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Counsel for the
appellants in W.A(MD)Nos.633 to 635 of 2022, Mr.A.S.Vaigunth, learned
Counsel for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.632 of 2022, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal,
learned Senior Counsel for the first appellant in W.A.(MD)Nos.632, 633
and 634 of 2022, Mr.T.Antony Arulraj, learned Counsel for the first
respondent in W.A.(MD)No.635 of 2022 and Mr.K.Jeyaseelan, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents.
2.Since the issues arose for consideration in all these Writ
Appeals are identical and are inter-linked, they are heard together and
disposed of by this common judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
3.The appeals relate to the internal affairs of a society known as
“Thoothukudi Vadadhisai Hindu Nadar Mahamai Dharma Karapettai
Paripalana Sangam”. Though it was registered under the Societies
Registration Act (Central), it is deemed to be registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1975, by virtue of the provisions of the latter
Act. It is admitted by either side that the society is the educational
agency of several educational institutions. There are five educational
institutions, which were established by the society.
4.It is admitted that the elected representatives of the General
Body of the society for every educational institutions has to administer
the educational institutions. It is admitted that three different Executive
Committees are constituted by electing members of three Committees for
administering the five educational institutions run by the society. The
election to the office bearers of the society is conducted once in three
years. For the period from 2019-21, the election was held on 10.08.2019.
It appears that disputes arose and the General Body was divided into two
factions. Though it appears that one of the factions have decided to
conduct election, it is at that time, a controversy arose, as to the
convening of a General Body meeting on 30.10.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
5.The dispute relates to two out of three lists of eligible voters.
The core issue understood by this Court reveals around the validity of the
General Body meeting stated to have been convened on 30.10.2021, in
which, new members were inducted and enrolled. Since some of the
members had objected for the induction of new members mainly on the
ground that the meeting itself was not convened, as it was canvassed by
other group, the dispute is narrowed down to the eligible members who
are entitled to vote in the ensuing election to elect the members and
office bearers of the three Executive Committees.
6.On the basis of meeting convened on 30.10.2021, the office
bearers of the society submitted Form-VII before the District Registrar.
The District Registrar considered the dispute. Though the District
Registrar is unable to accept the case of appellants that there was no
meeting for General Body on 30.10.2021, the District Registrar refused
to accept Form-VII only on the ground that the previous returns and
proceedings of Society had not been filed/updated. Therefore, Writ
Petitions were filed by both factions.
7.W.P.(MD)No.3317 of 2022 was filed by the society represented
by its elected Secretary for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
quash the order passed by the District Registrar, dated 02.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
rejecting Form-VII and sought for a direction to the second respondent
therein to register forthwith the Form-VII submitted by the Writ
Petitioner dated 01.11.2021.
8.11 out of 23 members of the Executive Committee of the
society filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.11734 of 2022 for issuance of
a Writ of Certioarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the
second respondent, dated 02.02.2022 insofar his finding relating to the
validity of the General Body meeting, dated 30.10.2021.
9.Some of the members of the society filed two other Writ
Petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.10377 and 10965 of 2022. W.P(MD)No.10377
of 2022 was filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the official
respondents to hold election to the society in the presence of an observer
appointed by this Court by permitting all eligible members to vote,
namely, 933 members as per annexure Form-VI. The prayer in
W.P(MD)No.10965 of 2022 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to
direct the Inspector General of Registration to hold election as per the
notification issued by the Secretary of the society, dated 05.06.2022 in
accordance with the bye-laws of the society.
10.All the Writ Petitions were taken up together and disposed of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
by a common order by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Writ
Petition filed by the appellant in W.P(MD)No.11734 of 2022 was
dismissed and W.P.(MD)No.3317 of 2022 filed by the society/contesting
respondent was allowed. Since some of the members have also prayed
for holding election by convening General Body meeting, the learned
Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petitions with the following directions:-
“12.The next question that falls for consideration is
whether all the newly added members also should be allowed to
vote in the general body meeting. It is true that the Hon'ble
Division Bench in W.A.(MD)Nos.1603, 1711 and 1712 of 2018 set
aside the order passed by a learned Single Judge and the matter is
presently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos.
18328 of 2019 etc. filed by the society. But the pendency of the SLP
will not in any way affect the power of the executive committee
from admitting new members. The by-law regarding admission of
new members is as follows:-
“7b.nkk;guhf Nru tpUk;Gfpwth;fs; mjw;nfd;W cs;s ghuj;ij
rq;fj;jpy; &.25- nfhLj;J thq;fp me;j ghuj;ij Kiwg;gb g+h;j;jp
nra;J tpz;zg;gjhuiu Kd;nkhopgtuhf eph;thfrig cWg;gpdh;fspd;
xUtUk; topnkhopgtuhf rq;f cWg;gpdh;fspy; xUthplKk;
ifnaOj;J ngw;W Mf];l; 1-k; Njjp Kjy; 31-k; Njjpf;Fs; gpuNtrf;
fl;lzk; &.100-cld; nfhLf;fNtz;Lk;. mLj;J $Lk; eph;thfrigf;
$l;lj;jpy; mt;tpz;zg;g ghuk; ghprPypf;fg;gl Ntz;Lk;.”
In this case after giving notice to the executive
committee was convened. By majority, the executive committee
was very much empowered to admit new members and no exception
can be taken to it. On 16.11.2021, another executive committee
meeting was held and notice for holding the said meeting was
issued on 06.11.2021. One of the agenda was to place on record the
filing of the resolutions passed on 30.10.2021 before the District
Registrar in Form VII. In the said executive committee meeting, the
minority group had also taken part. The minutes of the meeting
held on 16.11.2021 had been enclosed in the additional typed set of
papers dated 16.06.2022 in WP(MD)No.3317 of 2022. The signatures
of as many as 22 members of the executive committee is found
therein.
13.It is beyond dispute that the executive committee is
empowered to admit new members. It is not the case of anybody
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
that the persons who have been admitted as members are not
qualified to be admitted. I have already set aside the order of the
District Registrar insofar as it declined to receive Form-VI and
Form-VII filed on 01.11.2021. Therefore, all the persons who are
shown as members in Form-VI presented on 01.11.2021 are entitled
to take part in the proposed general body meeting. 14.Of course,
the prayer in W.P.(MD)No.10377 of 2022 has been erroneously
couched. The petitioners want this Court to direct the Registrar to
direct the society to hold the elections. It has been held that as per
Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the
Registrar does not have the power to direct the society to hold the
elections [vide C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher
Secondary School Committee, Karisal, through its Secretary, Sri S.
David Stephen S/o Samuel, Karisal, Ambasamudram Taluk
Tirunelveli District and others Vs. The District Registrar
Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli Dist. and others, (2005) 2 CTC 161]. As
per Section 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the
period of tenure of the executive committee is only three years. It
is a statutory mandate that the elections will have to be held once
in three years. While the Registrar of Societies cannot direct the
society to hold the elections, the writ Court can always issue such a
direction even against the society provided it discharges any public
function. The society in question runs as many as five educational
institutions which are also receiving State aid. Applying the ratio
laid down in Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015) 16 SCC 530,
BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) 3 SCC 251 and Maharastra
Chess Association v. UOI (2020) 13 SCC 285, I direct that election
must be held and the members of the executive committee chosen
in the general body meeting to be held on 03.07.2022. The District
Registrar (Societies), Thoothukudi is directed to depute an observer
to oversee the election process. The jurisdictional police is directed
to provide police protection to ensure that the meeting is held
peacefully. I make it clear that under any circumstance the general
body meeting is held and that any person attempting to interrupt
the peaceful holding of the meeting should be strictly dealt with as
per law. WP(MD)Nos.10377 & 10965 of 2022 are allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.The appellants have preferred the above appeals challenging
the order in every Writ Petitions, as indicated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
12.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
pressed for an interim order staying the election. The contention of the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants was about the admission of
new members in the meeting stated to have been convened on
30.10.2021. The learned Counsel describing the meeting dated
30.10.2021 as one in-defiance of statutory provisions as well as bye-laws
of the society. He also produced before this Court a CD recording the
said meeting.
13.Though this Court did not see the videograph, can
understand that the issue projected before this Court is about the
induction of 191 members in addition to the existing 771 members. The
grievance of the appellants appears to be on the induction of 153
members by convening General Body meeting on 30.10.2021 and the
admission of another 38 members, whose memberships were not
approved earlier. It is contended that the induction of new members was
with an oblique motive to tilt the balance and that therefore, the election
should be stayed.
14.It is in these circumstances, this Court, after hearing all the
parties, was of the view that the election can be permitted with the
direction to collect the votes of disputed members in separate boxes, so
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
that no prejudice will be caused to anyone by proceeding with the
election pending appeal.
15.It is to be noted that the centre of controversy between two
factions, as projected by the appellants in the above appeals, is only in
relation to the factum and validity of the meeting of Executive Committee
on 30.10.2021 and 16.11.2021 in relation to the admission of 191 new
members, ie. 153 members, who are newly enrolled on 30.10.2021 and
another list of 38 members, who were originally admitted in 2012-13 and
subsequently, were not permitted to participate in the election for the
reason that their candidatures were accepted by a Secretary, who was
not holding position as on the date of admitting those members.
16.Since factual issue has to be decided by admitting evidence
both in oral and documentary, this Court was not inclined to proceed to
dispose of the appeals on the basis of mere statements and disputed
documents. In order to give an opportunity to the aggrieved persons to
go before the civil Court, this Court was inclined to protect the rights of
parties, in contemplation of final adjudication as to the eligibility of
disputed members to vote.
17.It was in the said context, this Court appointed an Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
Commissioner, Mr.I.Suthakaran, learned Counsel, to collect the votes of
disputed members in separate boxes for all the three categories of the
three bodies of the society, ie., election to the members of the Executive
Committee of Thoothukudi Kalvikuzhu (Kamaraj College); election to the
members of the Executive Committee to administer the educational
institutions under the control of Mahamai and the election to the
members of the Executive Committee to administer Girls Higher
Secondary School. The operative portion of the order passed by this
Court on 28.06.2022 reads as follows:
“13. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court
is directed to be present in the premises of the third respondent
Society on 03.07.2022 and oversee the entire process of election
and collect the votes cast by 34 and 153 members in two different
boxes in relation to each election. After collecting the said votes in
different boxes, the Advocate Commissioner, is directed to seal the
boxes and keep the same in a room that may be provided in the
school premises of the Society. For that, the Advocate
Commissioner shall be given appropriate accommodation in the
School Premises. The Advocate Commissioner is also directed to lock
and seal the room in the presence of both the Election Officer, the
Observer and the representatives of the appellant and the
respondents.
14. It is made clear that all other directions issued by
the learned Single Judge, with regard to conduct of election giving
police protection and other directions shall be in tact and they are
not interfered with.”
18.This Court with due appreciation found that the election, as
proposed, went well, as scheduled, on 03.07.2022. The election, as
proposed, was conducted by the Election Committee consisting of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
Election Officer and two Assistant Election Officers, who were nominated
earlier by the General Body of the society. The Advocate Commissioner
appointed by this Court was present to oversee and collect the disputed
votes separately.
19.As per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, he was
allowed to oversee the whole process of election. The list of 771
undisputed members and the other lists of disputed members, namely,
the list of 34 members and 153 members were prepared independently.
The Election Officer found that out of 771 members, 637 voters were
found to be available after removing the dead and the members, who
were removed from their membership. Out of 637, only 557 voters came
for casting their vote. Similarly, out of the list containing 34 members,
only 26 members have participated and cast their votes and out of 153
disputed members, 138 voters have cast their votes.
20.Since the Advocate Commissioner has collected the ballot
papers from the disputed members separately for all the three bodies of
the society, it was stated before this Court that the ballot papers
collected for each of the body of the society were kept in a sealed room.
This Court by order, dated 26.07.2022, directed the Advocate
Commissioner to count the 557 votes from the first list separately and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
then independently count the 26 votes and 138 votes collected in
separate boxes with reference to each body and submit a report before
this Court by 01.08.2022. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner filed a
report on 03.08.2022 reporting that counting was completed in a
peaceful manner, as directed this Court, strictly in accordance with law.
This Court directed the Election Commissioner appointed by the society
to declare the result.
21.After the declaration of the election, the result of the election
has troubled the appellants. It is admitted that out of 87 members to be
nominated for three different Committees, 81 were elected from the
respondent's group. It is further clarified that for 25 members to be
elected as Executive Committee of Mahamai, all the 25 members were
elected from the respondent group. Similarly, out of 25 members to be
elected as Executive Committee to administer the Girls Higher
Secondary School. 22 members were elected from the respondent group
and only 3 members were elected from the appellant group for the
Thoothukudi Kalvikuzhu (Kamaraj College). Similarly, out of 37 to be
elected as members of executive committee to administer the Karapettai,
only 3 from the appellants group were elected and majority of the
members, namely 34 out of 37 members were elected from the
respondent group. After combining all the three lists, the counting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
results reveals that the respondent group have won with 100% of their
members being elected. In other words, out 87 members to be elected
for the administration of 5 different institutions, all the 87 members from
the respondent group are declared elected.
22.It is in these circumstances, this Court find that the
controversy has now been reduced to almost nil. From the nature of
verdict, this Court finds that the respondent group has succeeded with a
thumping majority of 100% and that the tally will not alter the majority
even by excluding the disputed votes. However, the right of appellants to
challenge the enrolment of disputed members cannot be ignored. As
indicated above, there are factual issues. Sufficient documents may also
be required to resolve the issues. Hence, the factum and validity of the
meeting, dated 30.10.2021 and the subsequent meeting, dated
16.11.2021 and consequently, the validity of induction of new members
(153) either in the meeting dated 30.10.2021 or by accepting new
members (38) by other means, may be challenged by the appellants
before the appropriate forum, namely, Civil Court.
23.Having regard to the nature of verdict as reported by the
Advocate Commissioner and the Election Officer appointed by the
Society, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
(1)The above Writ Appeals are dismissed. However, liberty is
given to the appellants to challenge the induction of disputed members
from the two list, namely, the list of 153 and the list of 38 members
before the Civil Court.
(2)Since the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition
filed by the society, which is for issuance of a direction to register Form-
VII submitted by the society, the election conducted pursuant to the
direction of this Court by appointing an Advocate Commissioner is held
to be valid for all the purpose. The elected members, as a result of
counting the votes of members in all the three lists, are entitled to hold
office for the next triennium subject to the outcome of the suit.
(3)Since the scope of the suit is limited to the validity of list of
153 and 38 members and the respondent group can retain 81 out of 87
elected members even by excluding the disputed votes, the appellants
shall not interfere with the functioning of the society with a newly elected
members on the ground that the election is invalid. Till the suit is
decided on merits, the administration of the society and all the
educational institutions with the newly elected members of Executive
Committees shall continue without any interference from any quarters.
(4)The District Registrar is directed to accept Form-VII and
acknowledge the result as declared by the Election Officer appointed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
the society by compiling all the three lists of eligible voters, as per the
report of the Advocate Commissioner.
(5)The educational authorities shall acknowledge and approve
all the acts and decisions of the educational agency with the newly
elected office bearers in all matters relating to the administration of the
educational institution. The result, as declared by the Election Officer of
the Society as reported by the Advocate Commissioner, shall be accepted
by the educational authorities for all purpose.
24.This Court appreciate the work done by the Advocate
Commissioner.
25.With the above directions, these Writ Appeals are dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
10.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
cmr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration
(Registration and Societies),
Santhome Church Road, Chennai District.
2.The District Registrar,
(Registration and Societies),
Thoothukudi, Thoothukud District.
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Office of Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
cmr
W.A(MD)Nos.632 to 635 of 2022
10.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
