Madras High Court
M.Rajendran vs R.Murugakani on 11 August, 2022
W.A.No.1777 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.1777 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.13059 of 2022
1. M.Rajendran
2. K.G.Murali Krishna ... Appellants
vs
1. R.Murugakani
2. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028.
3. The District Registrar of Societies,
Chennai Central, Office of the Registrar
of Societies, Chamiers Road,
Chennai 600 014. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against
the order dated 12.11.2021 in WP No.22983 of 2021 on the file of this
Court.
For the Appellant : Mr.U.Karunakaran
For the Respondent : Mr.P.Muthukumar,
State Government Pleader,
assisted by Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Govt. Advocate for RR 2 and 3
*****
___________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1777 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ appeal has been filed to challenge the order dated
12.11.2021 where the writ petition preferred by the first
respondent/writ petitioner was disposed of with a direction to the
second respondent herein to consider the writ petitioner's
representation dated 27.07.2021 on merit and in accordance with
law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents
3 and 4/writ appellants and pass appropriate orders.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge
without an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and further, a
direction for enquiry has been given in ignorance of the the
provisions of Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration
Act, 1975. Thus, it deserves to be set aside.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1777 of 2022
3. Referring to para 3 of the judgment, it is submitted that
even the learned Single Judge was knowing well that as per Section
36 of the Act, action can be initiated suo motu by the competent
authority or on an application by one-third members of the society.
However, in the instant case, the action would be initiated on the
representation made by the first respondent/writ petitioner, who is
no more in service and otherwise, the direction aforesaid offends
Section 36 of the Act. The prayer is, accordingly, to set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge.
4. We have considered the submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellants and perused the records.
5. Para 3 of the judgment expressly refers to the power for
initiation of action under Section 36 of the Act. It can be suo motu
by the authority or on an application by one-third members of the
society. In view of the above, a direction for enquiry could not have
been given in reference to the representation made by the first
respondent/writ petitioner. But what we find in the order is a
direction to the competent authority/ the second respondent herein
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1777 of 2022
to consider the representation made by the writ petitioner on merit
and in accordance to law. The further part says that it would be
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ appellants who
are respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition.
6. The direction aforesaid needs clarification inasmuch as
while respondent No.2 would consider the representation of the writ
petitioner/non-appellant, the further action can only be initiated
when he is satisfied to take suo motu cognizance to proceed further
and not otherwise. The direction aforesaid would modify the order
to make it in consonance with the provisions of law. It is, however,
with the clarity that if the respondent No.2 gets satisfaction for
taking suo motu action, then he would proceed further for causing
enquiry after providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ
appellants and others. The modification aforesaid has been made
to make the order as per law. The notice to the writ petitioner/non-
appellant has not been given because substantially we have not
modified the order but clarified to make it in consonance with law.
The only modification is to make the action as per the provisions of
Section 36 of the Act.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1777 of 2022
The writ appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid. No costs.
Consequently, W.M.P.No.13059 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
11.08.2022
Index : Yes/No
sra
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Pattinapakkam, Chennai 600 028.
2. The District Registrar of Societies,
Chennai Central, Office of the Registrar
of Societies, Chamiers Road,
Chennai 600 014.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1777 of 2022
M.N.Bhandari, CJ.
and
N.Mala, J.
(sra)
W.A.No.1777 of 2022
11.08.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
