Madras High Court
Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai vs The Inspector General Of ... on 31 January, 2023
W.A.No1980 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.01.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.1980 of 2021
Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai
(Regn.No.36/2009)
rep. by its President V.Sekar,
Salem-2. .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The District Registrar,
Salem.
3.The Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution,
rep. by its Secretary K.Veeramani,
E.V.K.Sampath Salai, Vepery,
Chennai-600 007.
4.Salem Suyamariyathai Sangam,
rep. by its President Palani Pullaiyanan,
287-290, Trichy Main Road,
Dhathagapatti,
Salem-6. .. Respondents
___________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No1980 of 2021
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 13.1.2020 passed in W.P.No.21277 of 20213.
For the Appellant : Mr.Rahul Balaji
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
for respondent Nos.1 and 2
: Mr.A.Thiyagarajan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.D.Veerasekaran
for respondent Nos.3 and 4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 13.1.2020
passed by the learned Singe Judge in W.P.No.21277 of 2013.
2. The appellant herein has filed W.P.No.21277 of 2013
challenging the order of the first respondent dated 19.6.2013,
whereby the order of the second respondent dated 8.9.1998
approving the amalgamation of the appellant's society with the
fourth respondent society was set aside.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No1980 of 2021
3. Assailing the impugned order of the learned Single Judge,
Mr.Rahul Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that
the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the prerequisite for
amalgamation of two societies in terms of Section 30 of the Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (for short, “the Act of 1975”)
is that the object of both the societies ought to be similar, while no
such pre-condition has been prescribed by any of the provisions of
the Act of 1975.
4. Drawing our attention to Section 30 of the Act of 1975,
learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned
Single Judge erred in holding that “prior approval of the Registrar” is
required for the purpose of passing a special resolution by both the
societies regarding amalgamation, while a bare perusal of Section
30(1) of the Act of 1975 would clearly show that “prior approval of
the Registrar” is required only for the purpose of amalgamation and
not for the purpose of passing a special resolution. Assuming
arguendo that “prior approval of the Registrar” is required for the
purpose of passing a special resolution, the same is only a curable
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No1980 of 2021
defect and the same cannot be a fatal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
learned Single Judge failed to note that though one of the objects of
Devanga Society is to provide education to children belonging to
Devanga caste, children belonging to all castes have been admitted
and provided education. In fact, the third respondent is attempting
to take control of the assets of the amalgamated Devanga society by
taking advantage of the present circumstances.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned
Single Judge failed to note that the third respondent has no locus
standi to file any appeal/representation against the order of
amalgamation dated 8.9.1998 and the appeal filed by the third
respondent against the order of amalgamation dated 8.9.1998
ought not to have been entertained, as there is no provision in the
Act of 1975 to file an appeal against the order granting
amalgamation. In fact, the learned Single Judge erred in not
holding that the first respondent cannot exercise revisional
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No1980 of 2021
jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the second respondent
after a delay of 15 years. In all aspects, the order of the learned
Single Judge is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.
7. Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondents 3 and 4, heavily contended that if amalgamation is
allowed to take place between the appellant and the fourth
respondent, huge valuable properties belonging to the fourth
respondent would be taken over by the appellant. Considering all
these aspects, the first respondent has rightly passed the order
setting aside the order of the second respondent granting approval
for amalgamation of the appellant's society with the fourth
respondent society.
8. Learned senior counsel for respondents 3 and 4 further
submitted that the objects of the appellant and the fourth
respondent are diametrically opposite to each other, inasmuch as
the aim of the fourth respondent is to bring a caste less and religion
less community. In other words, it is urged that the appellant
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No1980 of 2021
society is a society formed by a particular community people,
whereas the fourth respondent society is a society formed by
rational thinking people, who are opposed to superstitious beliefs,
caste and religion, and one of their objectives is the welfare of the
women and downtrodden people. The learned Single Judge, having
considered all these aspects, has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge warrants no
interference. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the writ
appeal.
9. We have considered the submissions raised by learned
counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials
available on record.
10. On a perusal of the objects of both the societies, it is seen
that they are entirely different from each other and, as rightly
observed by the learned Single Judge, it cannot be said that both
the societies have a common object. Further, the perusal of
records reveals that the fourth respondent society was registered in
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No1980 of 2021
the year 1957 and at the time of passing the resolution for
amalgamation in the year 1998, there were 22 members, out of
them 11 members have joined the society between 1993 and 1995
and the oldest member available in the fourth respondent has joined
the society in the year 1972. Thus, the contention of the third
respondent that the newly joined members had played a role in the
amalgamation without considering the object of the society cannot
be brushed aside.
11. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the first
respondent in its order has elaborately considered the issue and has
come to a conclusion that the order passed by the second
respondent is not in accordance with the Act of 1975 and, as such,
granting approval for amalgamation is erroneous. Finding that the
amalgamation has been done without following the mandatory
requirement under Section 30 of the Act of 1975 and also based on
the misrepresentation, the learned Single Judge held that there is no
illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the first respondent
and has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We find no infirmity in
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No1980 of 2021
the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the
writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that liberty may be granted to the appellant to approach the civil
court seeking appropriate remedy. Considering the submission
made by learned counsel for the appellant, liberty as prayed for is
granted.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
C.M.P.Nos.12761 and 12763 of 2021 are closed.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
31.01.2023
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
bbr
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No1980 of 2021
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 004.
2.The District Registrar,
Salem.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No1980 of 2021
T.RAJA, ACJ.
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.No.1980 of 2021
31.01.2023
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
