Madras High Court
Eraniel vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 12 May, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 12.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
S.T.A(MD)No.1 of 2022
and
W.A.(MD) No. 1481 of 2022
1. Lekshmipuram College Society,
(No.10 of 1964),
Eraniel,
Neyyor – 629802,
Kanyakumari District.
Pin: 629802,
Represented by its President.
2. The Secretary,
Lekshmipuram College Society, Eraniel,
and Lekshmipuram College of Arts and Science,
Neyyor – 629802,
Kanyakumari District.
Pin: 629802. ...Appellants/Aggrieved Parties
Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Higher Education (D2) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600009. ... Respondent/Impugned Order –
Issuing Authority
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022
2. V.Lekshmanpillai
(R2 is impleaded vide Court order dated 08.04.2022 made in CMP (MD)
No.3241/22 in STA(MD) No.1 of 2022 by RSMJ and NSKJ)
PRAYER:- Special Tribunal Appeal is filed under Section 14-B of the
Tamilnadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 to set aside the order
of the 1st respondent in G.O.(St.)No.257 Higher Education (D2)
Department dated 15.12.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.K.N.Thampi
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader for R1
: Mr.C.Godwin for R2
W.A.(MD) No. 1481 of 2022
1. S. Radhakrishnan
2. The Secretary,
Lekshmipuram College Society, (No.10/1964),
and Lekshmipuram College of Arts and Science,
Neyyoor,
Kanyakumari District.
Pin 629 802. -- Appellants/Petitioners/
Proposed Respondents 2 & 3
--Vs--
1. Lekshmipuram College Society, Represented
By its President, K.Rajagopal,
S/o. C.Kuttalam Pillai,
Gowri,
13/14, C.K.S. Compound,
Eraniel, Neyyoor Post,
Kanyakumari District. -- 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/
Petitioner
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022
2. The District Registrar,
Kanyakumari,
Kanyakumari District. -- 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/
Sole Respondent
3. The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road,
577, Anna Salai,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
4. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli – 8,
Tirunelveli District. -- Respondents
3rd and 4th respondents are impleaded as per the order of this Court dated
19.09.2023 made in C.M.P.(MD) No. 10735 of 2023 in W.A.(MD) No.
1481 of 2022 by ASMJ and RVJ.
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act
to set aside the order dated 13.09.2022 passed in W.M.P.(MD) No. 15510
of 2022 in W.P.(MD) No. 19756 of 2022, insofar as the same is objected
to herein, allowing the writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.K.N.Thampi
For Respondents : Mr. S.Poornachandran for R1
Mr. R.Baskaran, AAG - 6
Asst. by Mr.M.Sarangan for R2 to R4
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022
JUDGMENT
[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.]
This case is a management dispute between two groups, of the
educational institution namely Lekshimipuram College Society in
relating to the Administration of the Lekshimipuram College of Arts and
Science situated at Eraniel, Neyyoor.
2. The appellant in both S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022 and W.A.
(MD).No.1481 of 2022 claimed himself as president of the
Lekshimpuram College Society (10 of 1964) and filed W.P.(MD).No.
8724 of 2016 under article 226 of the constitution of India, praying this
Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the impugned
order passed by the first respondent in letter No.1932/A2/2016, dated
15.04.2016, and to direct the first respondent to file Form-VII dated
23.03.2016, tendered and submitted by the petitioner to the respondent
within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
3. In the said writ petition, the writ petitioner has stated that he was
the elected president of the said society in the election conducted as per
the bylaws for the year 2016 and hence, he has submitted Form-VII to
the District Registrar (Societies) and the same was returned with an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
endorsement that the Writ Appeal No.700 of 2014 was pending before
this Court and in the said writ appeal, committee for triennium
2012-2015 was under question. In the said writ petition, one
V.Lakshmanan Pillai claimed himself as president by impleading himself
as a party to the said proceedings and filed a counter. The District
Registrar also filed a counter and after hearing all the parties, this Court
allowed the writ petition on the following terms :-
6. In paragraph 21 of the said judgment, the Division
Bench of this Court has held that the Registrar is a mere form
filler and he cannot decide as to the status of the parties
under the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration
Act, 1975. Though the Registrar is empowered to go into the
incidental questions pertaining to the Form-VII, he cannot
decide the status of the parties. It is only the civil Court to
decide in respect of the status of the parties in relation to the
society.
7. In the above circumstances, I do not see any
impediment for the first respondent to file Form-VII
submitted by the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the
impugned order dated 15.04.2016 is set aside and the 1st
respondent is directed to file Form-VII said to have been
submitted by the petitioner and communicate the decision
taken to the petitioner forthwith. The said exercise shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
carried out by the first respondent within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
4. Challenging the same the said V.Lakshmanan Pillai has
preferred writ appeal along with a petition to condone the delay of 48
days in C.M.P.(MD).No.6667 of 2017 before this Court and the same was
dismissed as not pressed.
5. In view of the above order in W.P.(MD).No.8274 of 2016, the
appellant was allowed to discharge his duty as president of the said
society. Subsequently, the appellant and the other person were elected as
president and secretary respectively in the election, which was conducted
for the triennium of 2019-2022 in the meeting of the Executive
Committee of Society held on 10.03.2019. That being the situation, there
was a dispute regarding to the management of the society in the said
period. Therefore, the state of Tamil Nadu passed G.O.(St).No.257,
Higher Education (D2) Department, dated 15.11.2021, appointing the
Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli as Special
Officer under Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges
Regulation Act 1976, to administer the said college for one year or till
members were elected in proper election whichever was later. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
order of the government was challenged by way of filing S.T.A.No.1 of
2022 under section 14 (B) of the Act before the Division Bench of this
Court. In the said S.T.A also, the above said V.Lakshmanan Pillai got
himself impleaded as the respondent No.2. The appellant raised the
question in S.T.A that the impugned order was passed without giving
adequate opportunities as mandated under section 14-A (1) (a)(ii) of the
Act and also there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The
Division Bench of this Court passed the following interim order :-
6. Mr. J.Prabhudoss, District Judge (Retd.,),
formerly District Judge, Tuticorin, who is permanent
resident of No.6/27-B, IV Cross Street, Rajalakshmi
Nagar Extension, Parvathipuram, Nagercoil -3 and
now residing at Plot No.8, F3-Jayanthi Flats,
Sigamaninagar First Street, F3, Madipakkam,
Chennai – 600 091, Cell No.9444339161, email-
[email protected], is appointed as an
Election Officer the election as per the bye-laws. He
is required to conduct the elections with the
assistance of the special officer appointed for the
college by the Government within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. The petitioner as well as the parties are
directed to co-operate with the person nominated for
conducting the elections. The society shall pay an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
initial remuneration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lakhs only) to the said Election Officer.
8. The registry is directed to communicate this
order to the Election Officer forthwith, to enable him
to take suitable action,
9. The joint director of Tirunelveli Collegiate
Education is required to render all support and
assistance to the Election Officer in conduct of the
election and the society will also pay a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) for the election
expenses, which will be accounted for by the Election
Officer.
10. Report by 20.06.2022. We leave it open to
the Election Officer to seek advancement of hearing
of the appeal, if he completes the election process
earlier.
11. Post the matter on 20.06.2022”.
6. Thereafter, the said Election Officer conducted election on
25.07.2022. After the election, the Election Officer had submitted Form-
VII with particulars of selection of the Mr. K.Rajagopal, 1st respondent in
W.A.(MD).No. 1481 of 2022 as president of the society. The said 1st
respondent filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD).No. 19756
of 2022 with a prayer to approve the same, without impleading the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
appellant. This Court allowed the writ petition by the order dated
26.08.2022. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.M.P.(MD).No.15510 of
2022 to recall the said order by filing a Review Application(MD).No.62
of 2022 and the writ Court passed the following order :-
9. 9.The Honble Division Bench noted that
the triennium for which the office bearers were
elected had expired on 19.03.2022 and that election
for Society for the next triennium 2022 ~ 2025 was
due. It also noted that the District Registrar of
Societies vide order dated 22.03.2022 had appointed
one Pulipandian as Special Officer for conducting
the election. Before the Hon’ble Division Bench, the
parities agreed that a retired District Judge or some
other responsible person can be appointed to
conduct elections. In view of the consensus between
the parties, a retired District Judge was appointed
as Election Officer to conduct the election as per the
bylaws. He was required to conduct the election with
the assistance of the Special Officer appointed for
the College by the Government within a period of
two months. Pursuant to the direction given by the
Hon’ble Division Bench, the Special Officer
conducted the elections on 25.07.2022. He also
certified that Mr.K.Rajagopal was duly elected as
President of the Society. Form~7 was also presented
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
by him before the District Registrar Societies on
27.07.2022. It is true that the Hon’ble Division
Bench in its order dated 08.04.2022 had mandated
that the report of the Election Officer shall be filed
before a particular date and if before the said date,
the election process has been completed, it was open
to the Election Officer to seek advancement of the
hearing of the appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench
had not said anything more. It is well settled that
filing of Form~7 is only a ministerial act and
nothing more. If there were rival forms submitted
before the authority, then obviously the District
Registrar cannot undertake an adjudication. Before
the District Registrar there was only one Form.
10. Since the election itself was conducted by
a retired District Judge pursuant to the direction of
the Hon’ble Division Bench and since there were no
rival Form, I directed the District Registrar to file
the same. I had not passed any other direction. The
direction given by this Court by itself will not affect
the rights of the petitioner in W.M.P or Review
applicant. If according to them, the election process
was not properly conducted, it is definitely open to
them to have place their case before the Hon’ble
Division Bench in S.T.A(MD)No.1 of 2022. The
direction given by me to the District Registrar for
filing Form 7 will not in any way infringe the rights
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
of the parties. It is for the Hon’ble Division Bench
to take the final call. I make it clear that the
direction given in W.P(MD)No.19756 of 2022 will
not in any way foreclose the contentions of the
review applicant or the petitioner in W.M.P(MD)No.
15509 of 2022”.
7. The appellant filed the writ appeal in W.A.(MD).No.1481 of
2022 challenging the said order of the writ Court. Both writ appeals and
S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022 are clubbed together and taken for final
hearing.
8.Submission of Mr.K.N.Thambi, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant:
Mr.K.N.Thambi, the learned counsel for the appellant in both
S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022 and W.A.(MD).No.1481 of 2022 would submit
that without giving statutory opportunity, the special officer was
appointed to manage the administration of the college under section 14-A
of the Tamil Nadu Private colleges Act (Regulation) Act, 1976, till the
controversy connected to the election of the valid office bearers to the
society is resolved and the the same is in violation of principles of
natural justice. He would also further submit that when the Act prescribes
to do certain things in a certain manner, the same is to be followed. But
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
in this case, the special officer was appointed without giving mandatory
statutory opportunity under section 14-A of the Act, for which, he relied
the following judgments:
R.S.Kalyanasundaram vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department reported in 2022 (5) CTC 145
Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibers (India) Pvt.Ltd, reported in 1996
5 SCC 550
Pohla Singh Alias Pohla Ram (D) by Lrs vs. State of Punjab and
others reported in 2004 6 SCC 126
In the case of S.Nagaraj and others vs. State of Karnataka and
another reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595
In the case of Dharmin Bai Kashyap vs. Babli Sahu and others
reported in 2023 10 SCC 461
In the case of Bhavnagar Universtiy vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P)
Ltd and others reported in 2003 (2) SCC 111
In the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke by Lrs. vs. Govind Joti
Chavare and others reported in AIR 1975 SC 915
In the case of Nidhi Kaim and Anr vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors reported in AIR 2017 SC 986
In the case of Union of India and others Vs. Ramesh Gandhi
reported in 2012 1 SCC 476
Therefore, he seeks to set aside the order of appointment of special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
officer.
8.1.As per the interim order passed in S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022,
the appointed Election Officer has not conducted a fair election and he
acted in a biased manner and selected one group of people. The same was
properly intimated by one of the contesting group by filing a memo
before this Court. The entire contents of the memo demonstrated the
unfairness on the part of the Election Officer in conducting election,
counting the votes, declaring the result and informing the same to the
District Registrar. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the
election was not properly conducted and hence, he seeks to set aside the
same.
8.2.The learned counsel would further elaborate his argument that
the writ Court in W.P.(MD).No.19756 of 2022 exceeded its jurisdiction
and directed the District Registrar to accept the Form-VII of the elected
representative when the subject matter of the election was pending before
the Division bench. In all fairness, the writ Court should direct the
parties to seek the appropriate relief before the said Division Bench. In
the writ petition, the writ petitioner suppressed many facts and hence, the
writ Court committed error and on the basis of the erroneous direction,
Form-VII was accepted by the District Registrar and hence the order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
the writ Court in W.P.(MD).No.19756 of 2022 is liable to be set aside.
8.3. The learned counsel also submitted that the Election Officer is
duty bound to submit a report before this Court as per direction of this
Court vide order dated 08.04.2022. He has no authority to declare the
result of the election and announce the result of the election and submit
the report to the District Registrar. In the said circumstances, the
apparent bias on the part of the Election Officer in the process of
conducting election and the completion of the election can be easily
presumed.
8.4.The learned counsel further submitted that this Court directed
the Election Officer to conduct the election and submit a report on or
before 20.06.2022. If he is unable to conduct the election within the
period, he has to obtain extension of time and continue the election
process. In this case, without obtaining extension of time, the election
was conducted without jurisdiction. The order of the Court is more
specific, i.e., to complete the election process and submit the report on or
before 20.06.2022. More particularly, this Court passed a specific order
to make the mentioning before this Court if he completed the election
before that date. From this, it is understandable that, the Election Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
has no authority to conduct the election beyond the period of 20.06.2022.
Therefore, he seeks to set aside the election.
9. Submission of Mr.K.Govindarajan, the learned counsel
appearing for the elected person:
Once Election Officer is appointed to conduct the election, he
holds the post till the completion of the election. On verification, he
would submit that the Election Officer has already sent the requisition to
this Court seeking extension of time. Therefore, he has power to conduct
the election and he rightly conducted the election.
9.1. The learned counsel would further submit that the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court specifically directed to conduct the
election. “To conduct the election” includes “the declaration of the
result” also. Therefore, there is no infirmity in declaring the names of
the elected candidates and informing the same to the District Registrar.
9.2. The writ Court in W.P.(MD).No.19756 of 2022 on the basis of
the report of the Election Officer correctly directed the District Registrar
to accept their Form-VII as per the District Society Registration Act.
Therefore, there is no error in the direction of the writ Court in W.P.
(MD).No.19756 of 2022 and hence, the learned judge of this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
correctly disposed the recall petition filed to recall the order of
W.P.(MD).No.19756 of 2022 and the review petition.
9.3. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the order of
this Court, election was conducted and the party was duly elected and the
same was duly informed to the District Registrar. Form-VII submitted by
the elected group was accepted by the District Registrar and the elected
group is in the administration for the past couple of years and there is no
challenge to the election result in an appropriate manner and therefore,
he seeks to dismiss the petitions as infructuous.
10.Submission of Thiru.R.Baskaran, learned Additional
Advocate General:
Thiru. R.Baskaran, the learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.N.Sarangan, the learned Additional Government Pleader
on behalf of the official respondent would submit that there was dispute
between the management and there were number of groups and the
administration of the institution was in peril and strict adherence to the
principle of natural justice is not probable one. Section 14-A of the Act
mandates notice to the Educational Agency. Due to the dispute in the
management, there was no Educational Agency. Therefore, the argument
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
of violation of principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement
of giving notice to the Educational Agency is a misconceived one.
Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the government to appoint
the administrator to the said college as per section 14-A of the Act. Now,
pending the appeal in S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022, election was conducted
as per direction of this Court and new officer bearers assumed the
charges and their Form-VII was accepted and they are in the
administration of the college and hence no further adjudication is
necessary in this case. The District Registrar has accepted the Form-VII
of the elected group as per the direction of this Court. But, due to the
interim order of this Court, no approval was given to the elected body.
Therefore, he seeks to dismiss both the appeals.
11.Submission of Mr.Godwin learned counsel appearing for the
rival group:
Mr.Godwin, learned counsel for one of the rival groups would also
make his submission in the line of Mr.K.N.Thambi, the learned counsel
for the appellant and he would further submit that his party has filed a
detail objection relating to the manner of the election immediately on the
next day of the declaration of election before this Court and the writ
Court in the review petition and recall petition clearly stated that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
subject matter of election is to be decided in S.T.A.(MD).No. 1 of 2022
and hence, he prays to set aside the election by taking into account the
objection raised by him dated 27.07.2022. He also reiterated the points
raised by Mr.K.N.Thambi, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
12. This Court considered the detailed submissions made by both
parties and perused the materials available on records and precedents
relied upon them.
13. To consider the submissions of the counsels, this Court frames
the following points for determination:-
1.Whether the contention that the government
appointed the special officer under section 14-A of the
Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Act without
notice to the appellants in S.T.A.(MD).No. 1 of 2022 is
correct?
2. Whether the Election Officer is right in
conducting election on 19.07.2022 without obtaining
any judicial order to extend the time limit fixed by this
Court in the order dated 08.04.2022?
3. Whether the Election Officer has conducted
the election in a fair manner?
4. Whether the order of the writ Court in W.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
(MD).No.19756 of 2022 is in accordance with law?
5. Whether the District Registrar is right in
accepting the Form-VII submitted by the elected group
without any direction in the S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022?
14. To consider the above issues, this Court makes the discussion
on the following heading:-
14.1. Appointment of special officer under section 14A of the Act.
14.2. Power of the Election Officer to conduct the election beyond
the period mentioned in the order.
14.3. Validity of the election conducted by the Election Officer.
14.4. Validity of acceptance of the Form-VII by the District
Registrar.
15. Appointment of Special Officer under section 14 A of the
Private College Regulation Act :-
The Lekshmipuram College Society is registered under the Society
Registration Act as No.10 of 1964. Lekshmipuram College is an aided
college and comes under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Private College
Regulation Act. As per the bylaws of the society, every triennium, officer
bearer election is to be conducted. In the year 2019, two groups of people
submitted Form-VII with declaration that election was conducted by both
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
the groups and both were elected. The District Registrar Societies refused
to accept one Form-VII and accepted the other form. In this regard,
number of writ petitions were filed in W.P.(MD).Nos.13041, 13709,
13710, 20280 and 16276 of 2019. The writ Court was unable to persuade
the parties to settle their issue in the interest of the management of the
college and passed the following orders :-
“20. This Court, having taken a decision as above in
respect of the above batch of writ petitions, cannot leave the
state of affairs of the Society and the administration of the
College in a state of limbo. Therefore, some arrangement or
system has to be put in place so that the affairs of the Society
and administration of the College do not suffer from any
needless dislocation or disturbance. In consideration of the
avowed objects of the Society, for which, it was established in
1964 and also the object for which the College was founded
in the same year, both the Society and the College, need to be
rid off from the warring office bearers, who obviously and
presumably have no legitimate interest over the genuine
affairs of the Society and the College. They are probably or
ostensibly interested in taking over the affairs of the Society
and the College for promoting their personal interest and
towards serving their own ends. The unyielding and obdurate
stand of the parties in not allowing one party to gain control
over the Society or the College for years together has been a
brazen show of self interest over the interest of the Society or
the College. In these repeated fight for control over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
affairs of the Society and the College for self
aggrandizement, the Society or the College cannot be
allowed to suffer from the attritional effect of incessant
internecine quarrel.
21. In the above circumstances, while disposing of the
writ petitions, it is imperative to issue the following
directions:
i) As far as the Society is concerned, the District
Registrar of Societies is directed to approach the competent
authority of the Government for appointment of a Special
Officer to take over the Society as expeditiously as possible
but not less than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. If any Special Officer is appointed under
the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, the Special
Officer shall explore the possibility of conducting election to
the Society on a priority basis and hand over the
administration of the Society to the newly elected office
bearers of the Society in the election to be conducted under
his supervision. The competent authority, while appointing
the Special Officer, may fix any time limit for this purpose as
he deems fit.
ii) As far as Lekshmipuram College of Arts and
Science, Kanyakumari District is concerned, the Director of
Collegiate Education shall pass orders for bringing the
Institution under direct payment till the conflict as to who is
the Secretary of the College is resolved in terms of the
election to the Society. The Director of Collegiate Education
is also at liberty to approach the Government for
appointment of Special Officer to manage the administration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
of the College in terms of Section 14A of the Tamil Nadu
Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, till the controversy
connected to the election of the valid office bearers to the
Society is resolved.
iii) The Director of Collegiate Education is directed to
pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He is
also directed to simultaneously approach the Government
with his report seeking appointment of Special officer as
expeditiously as possible.
iv) As regards the election dispute to the Society, it is
open to the parties to approach the competent Civil Court if
need arises for resolving any conflicting claims as this Court
is of the view that such batch dispute cannot be resolved by
mere acceptance or non-acceptance of Form-VII by the
District Registrar of Societies. Such dispute can eventually
and ultimately to be resolved only by the Civil Court and not
by the Registrar or by this Court, exercising its writ
jurisdiction.”
15.1. Thereafter, dispute between the various groups relating to the
management of the college had continued. Therefore, the government
obtained the report from the Joint Director of Collegiate Education and
acted as per the direction (ii) of the above judgment. On the basis of the
report, the special officer was appointed by the government by passing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 257 Higher Education (D2) department, dated
15.12.2021. In the impugned order, the government specifically stated
that there was strained relationship between various groups to manage
the college and there was no peaceful atmosphere in the administration
of the college the circumstances was not conducive to conduct the
election and hence in the interest of the administration of the college, the
special officer was appointed. In the impugned order, it is stated about
various emergent situations to appoint the special officer including the
stagnation of various functions of educational institution.
15.2. The only contention raised by Mr.Thambi, the learned
counsel for the appellant is that notice was not served upon his client
before invoking section 14-A of the Act. Therefore, there is a statutory
violation apart from violation of principle of natural justice. To
appreciate the said contention, this Court inclines to extract the said
section:-
16.14-A of the Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Act:-
“14A. Appointment of special officer in certain cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
(1) (a) Where the Government, on receipt of a report from the
Director of Collegiate Education or otherwise, are satisfied
that the management of any private college-
(i)is responsible, whether on, or after the date of
commencement of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private
Schools (Regulation) and Private Colleges (Regulation)1
Amendment Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 48 of 1982), for the
maladministration, lapses or irregularities of such private
college; or
(ii)has neglected whether on or after the date of
commencement of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private
Schools (Regulation) and Private Colleges (Regulation)
Amendment Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 48 of 1982) to
discharge any of the duties imposed on, or to perform any of
the functions entrusted to such management by or under this
Act, or any rule or order made or direction issued thereunder,
the Government may, after giving to such management an
opportunity to make representation and for reasons to be
recorded in writing, by an order, suspend the management
and appoint a special officer for a period not exceeding one
year or till the reconstitution of the management (in
accordance with the law applicable to the reconstitution of
such management), whichever is later:
Provided that in no case the maximum period of such
suspension of management shall exceed two years
irrespective of the reconstitution of the management in
accordance with the law applicable to the reconstitution of
such management.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
Provided further that where the management of any minority
college is suspended, the Government shall appoint a special
officer belonging to that minority which has been
administering the said minority college immediately
preceding such suspension.(b)On the making of an order
under clause (a) suspending, the management of a private
college;(i)the management shall cease to discharge the duties
imposed on, and to perform the functions entrusted to it;
and(A)shall take all such steps on may be necessary to
efficiently manage and run the private college in accordance
with any law applicable to the private college in so far as
such law is not inconsistent with this Act; and(B)may afford
such special educational facilities as were immediately before
the making of the order under clause (a), afforded at the
private college.(ii)the special officer-Explanation. - In item
(A) of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b), the expression "law"
includes any bye-law, rule, regulation, custom, usage or
instrument having the force of law.(C)Where the Government
are satisfied that the manager alone is, whether on or after
the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Recognised
Private Schools (Regulation) and Private Colleges
(Regulation) Amendment Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 48 of
1982), responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the
private college, action shall be taken against him by the
management as recommended by the Government.[(1-A) The
Government may appoint an advisory committee to advice the
special officer for the administration of such private college.
The advisory committee shall consist of the following persons
employed in the private college, namely:-(a)the Principal;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
(b)the senior-most Selection Grade Lecturer or Reader;(c)one
other Selection Grade Lecturer; and(d)the senior-most
Superintendent:Provided that if there is no Selection Grade
Lecturer in the private college, the senior-most Lecturer and
one other Lecturer shall be included in the advisory
committee:Provided further that if the senior-most Selection
Grade Lecturer or the senior-most Lecturer, as the case may
be, or the senior-most Superintendent is not willing to be
included in the advisory committee has a member, the next
senior person in the respective category who is willing to be
included as member shall be included in the advisory
committee:Provided also that if there only one post in the
category of Superintendent and the-person holding the post is
not willing to be included in the advisory committee as a
member, the senior-most Assistant shall be included as
member in the advisory committee.] [Inserted by Tamil Nadu
Private Colleges (Regulation) Amendment Act, 1998 (Tamil
Nadu Act 16ofl 998) with effect from the 1st November 1998.]
(2)The Government may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing by an order, declare a person to be unfit to be the
manager of a private college after giving to such person a in
opportunity of making his representation against such
declaration and under intimation to the management and on
such declaration, the person aforesaid shall cease to be the
manager of the private college and the management of such
private college shall nominate another person as a manager
in his place.
(3)For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
any willful failure or willful negligence on the part of
management to take action against the manager as required
under clause (c) of sub-section (1) or to nominate another
person as manager under sub-section (2) shall constitute an
act of maladministration and action shall be taken against the
management of private college under this Act
accordingly.Explanation. - for the purposes of this Chapter-
(a)"management" includes the college committee or
any person, body of persons, committee or any other
governing body, by whatever name called, in whom the power
to manage or administer the affairs of a private college is
vested:Provided that the Board of Trustees, or governing
body of Wakf Board, by whatever name called, constituted or
appointed under any other law for the time being in force
relating to the charitable and religious institutions and
endowments and wakfs, shall be deemed to be a management
for the purposes of this Chapter;
(b) “manager" means the secretary, or any person holding
office as president, manager-or correspondent of a private
College, who is managing or administering the affairs of such
private college;
(c) private college" includes a minority college.
(4)Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply to a minority
college, in so far as they are not repugnant to clause (1) of
Article 30 of the Constitution.”
16.1. “After giving to such management an opportunity to make
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
representation and for reasons to be recorded in writing, by an order,
suspend the management and appoint a special officer for a period not
exceeding one year or till the reconstitution of the management (in
accordance with the law applicable to the reconstitution of such
management), whichever is later”. It is true that there is a statutory
requirement to give opportunity of hearing to the management before
passing the order. But, in this case, as observed by the learned judge of
this Court in W.P.(MD).No. 13041 of 2019 etc., there were different
group of people claiming the right of management and hence the learned
judge observed as follows:-
20. This Court, having taken a decision as above in
respect of the above batch of writ petitions, cannot leave the state
of affairs of the Society and the administration of the College in a
state of limbo. Therefore, some arrangement or system has to be
put in place so that the affairs of the Society and administration of
the College do not suffer from any needless dislocation or
disturbance. In consideration of the avowed objects of the Society,
for which, it was established in 1964 and also the object for which
the College was founded in the same year, both the Society and the
College, need to be rid off from the warring office bearers, who
obviously and presumably have no legitimate interest over the
genuine affairs of the Society and the College. They are probably
or ostensibly interested in taking over the affairs of the Society and
the College for promoting their personal interest and towards
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
serving their own ends. The unyielding and obdurate stand of the
parties in not allowing one party to gain control over the Society
or the College for years together has been a brazen show of self
interest over the interest of the Society or the College. In these
repeated fight for control over the affairs of the Society and the
College for self aggrandizement, the Society or the College cannot
be allowed to suffer from the attritional effect of incessant
internecine quarrel.
ii) As far as Lekshmipuram College of Arts and Science,
Kanyakumari District is concerned, the Director of Collegiate
Education shall pass orders for bringing the Institution under
direct payment till the conflict as to who is the Secretary of the
College is resolved in terms of the election to the Society. The
Director of Collegiate Education is also at liberty to approach the
Government for appointment of Special Officer to manage the
administration of the College in terms of Section 14A of the Tamil
Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, till the controversy
connected to the election of the valid office bearers to the Society
is resolved.
16.2. The said order of the learned judge is not in dispute and there
was no further adjudication challenging the said finding. In the said
circumstances, seeking compliance of the principle of natural justice is
not probable one. Apart from that, the appellant in S.T.A.(MD).No. 1 of
2022 was not holding the management on the date of passing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
impugned order. The appellant's right to hold the management and the
rival group's right to hold the management was in dispute. Therefore, the
plea of non compliance of principle of natural justice is a misconceived
one. The word “such management” in the Act itself has its own
significance. 'Such' means existing management. In this case, there was
no existing management. The existence of the management itself was in
dispute. The same was observed by the learned judge in the W.P.
(MD).No. 13041 of 2019 in the above stated paragraph. Therefore, the
primordial contention of non issuance of notice raised by the Mr.Thambi,
learned counsel for the appellant to quash the impugned G.O. is liable to
be rejected and hence the order of the government in passing G.O. by
taking into consideration the various emergent situations in the interest
of the administration of the college is in accordance with the provision of
the 14A of the Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Act. Hence, the
impugned order is in accordance with law.
17. Power of the Election Officer to conduct the election
beyond the period mentioned in the order:-
17.1. In S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022 Division Bench of this Court
passed the following interim order:-
6. Mr. J.Prabhudoss, District Judge (Retd.,),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
formerly District Judge, Tuticorin, who is permanent
resident of No.6/27-B, IV Cross Street, Rajalakshmi
Nagar Extension, Parvathipuram, Nagercoil -3 and now
residing at Plot No.8, F3-Jayanthi Flats,
Sigamaninagar First Street, F3, Madipakkam, Chennai
– 600 091, Cell No.9444339161, email-
[email protected], is appointed as an Election
Officer the election as per the bye-laws. He is required
to conduct the elections with the assistance of the
special officer appointed for the college by the
Government within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
7. The petitioner as well as the parties are
directed to co-operate with the person nominated for
conducting the elections. The society shall pay an initial
remuneration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only)
to the said Election Officer.
8. The registry is directed to communicate this
order to the Election Officer forthwith, to enable him to
take suitable action,
9. The joint director of Tirunelveli Collegiate
Education is required to render all support and
assistance to the Election Officer in conduct of the
election and the society will also pay a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) for the election
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
expenses, which will be accounted for by the Election
Officer.
10. Report by 20.06.2022. We leave it open to the
Election Officer to seek advancement of hearing of the
appeal, if he completes the election process earlier.
11. Post the matter on 20.06.2022”.
17.2. From the order, it is clear that the Election Officer would
complete the election before 20.06.2022. The specific contention of
Mr.K.N.Thambi, the learned counsel for the appellant is that once the
period expired, the Election Officer has no authority to conduct the
election. Normally, such a contention would not be acceptable but the
peculiar circumstances of this case is an exception. This Court,
specifically directed the election officer to complete the election process
in view of the emergent situations on or before 20.06.2022 by order
dated 13.04.2022. More than two months time was granted and also this
Court impliedly expected to complete the process before that date. It is
clear from the following observation:-
Report by 20.06.2022. We leave it open to the
Election Officer to seek advancement of hearing of the
appeal, if he completes the election process earlier”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
17.3. Therefore, the Election Officer could have sought the order
for extension of time before he continued the election process. The
submission of the counsel for the elected candidate that he sent the
requisition to get extension of time is enough, is not acceptable. When a
judicial order was passed to do a particular act and the same is not
completed within the period, further period ought to have been obtained
to complete the said process. Without seeking further period of
extension, the Election Officer has no authority to conduct the election.
More particularly, the Election Officer only published the final list of
share holders on 22.06.2022 and conducted the election on 19.07.2022.
He submitted requisition on 14.06.2022 to grant further time of one
month from 20.06.2022. This Court finds no judicial order was passed on
the said requisition. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that
the Election Officer without authority has conducted the election on
19.07.2022.
18. Validity of the election conducted by the Election Officer:-
18.1. Mr.K.N.Thambi, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.C.Godwin, learned counsel for the rival group would make a specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
submission that the Election Officer has not conducted election in a fair
manner. Mr.C.Godwin, learned counsel for the rival group specifically
submitted that his client has filed the memo on 27.07.2022, immediately
after the election before this Court on 20.07.2022. The contents of the
memo is as follows :-
On the basis of the memo, they submitted that
the election was not conducted in fair manner and
the Election Officer betrayed the confidence reposed
upon him in the manner of the conducting election
and therefore they seeks to take appropriate action
on the basis of the report of the election.
18.2. The elected group even though had knowledge about the said
memo filed before this Court, have not disputed the same. There is no
denial of the fact. Even though hearing of this case continued for many
number of days, the learned counsel appearing for the elected group has
not chosen to dispute the same by filing a proper reply.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
18.3. The objection prima facie impels this Court to presume the
election was not conducted in fair manner. On an earlier occasion, a
government official was appointed to conduct the election. But, this
Court in order to conduct the election in a fair manner appointed an
Election Officer namely, respected retired District Judge. There is
violation of bylaws in conducting the election. More particularly, the
Election Officer received the proxy votes according to his own whims
and fancies. Similarly, he rejected the proxy votes on his own whims and
fancies. This Court painfully observes that the Election Officer has not
conducted the election in a fair manner. The unfairness on the part of the
Election Officer is further strengthened by his post election conduct. As
per direction of this Court, he would submit the report before this Court.
He has no jurisdiction to issue the declaration certificate and
communicate the result of the election and the names of the elected
members to the District Registrar under Form-VII. According to this
Court, this conduct not only amounts to violation of the order of this
Court and also impels this Court to presume the bias on the part of the
Election Officer towards the elected group. Therefore, this Court without
any hesitation holds that the election was not conducted in a fair manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
19. Validity of acceptance of the Form-VII by the District
Registrar:
It is further duty of the Election Officer to submit a report before
this Court. But without authority, the Election Officer sent the result of
the election to the District Registrar of societies and he requested the
District Registrar to act on the same. He has no authority to issue the
following declaration certificate without submitting the report before this
Court on 25.07.2022. The declaration is as follows :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
LEKSHMIPURAM COLLEGE SOCIETY
REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT XII OF 1955 TRAVANCORE-COCHIN STATE
AND
THE TAMILNADU SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1975
ERANIEI, NEYYOOR, KANNIYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
I, J.Prabhudas, District Judge (Retired) hereby declare and certify that the following Six Executive Committee Members have been duly elected in the Board of
Directors Meeting and the election held on 25.07.2022 for the triennium 2022- 2025 in pursuant to the orders of the Honourable High Court of Madras Madurai Bench in
STA (MD) 1 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD).No.3303 of 2022 dated 08.04.2022
FOR THE POST OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMEBR ELECTED FROM B CLASS
1 A.RAJENDRA PRASAD
FOR THE FOUR POST OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM C CLASS
1 K.RAMESH
2 A.PERUMAL PILLAI
3 M.S.MUTHUKUMAR
4 A.GANGADHARAN
FOR THE POST OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER ELECTED FROM B OR C CLASS MEMBERS SINCE 'NO' A CLASS MEMBER
1 N.RAJAGOPALANM-C CLASS MEMBER
LEKSHMIPURAM Election Officer
25.07.2022 Election Officer
LEKSHMIPURAM COLLEGE SOCIETY NO.10 OF 1964
ERANIEL, NEYOOR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
19.1. In view of the above submission, the declaration leads to the
further complication in the course of the proceedings of the S.T.A.
(MD).No. 1 of 2022. On the basis of the declaration submitted by the
Election Officer, the elected group have filed the writ petition before this
Court to accept their Form-VII. When this Court has not recorded any
finding about the acceptance of the election report of the Election
Officer, the elected group have no right to submit Form-VII. The writ
Court also without directing the elected group to approach the division
bench of this Court to seek further remedy in the pending S.T.A.
(MD).No. 1 of 2022, committed error in issuing direction to accept the
Form-VII at the admission stage itself in W.P(MD)No.19756 of 2022
without notice to the any of the rival parties including the appellant. The
writ Court hasalso not considered the review and recall petition filed by
the appellant and has observed as follows :-
9. The Honble Division Bench noted that the
triennium for which the office bearers were elected
had expired on 19.03.2022 and that election for
Society for the next triennium 2022 ~ 2025 was due.
It also noted that the District Registrar of Societies
vide order dated 22.03.2022 had appointed ne
Pulipandian as Special Officer for conducting the
election. Before the Hon’ble Division Bench, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
parities agreed that a retired District Judge or some
other responsible person can be appointed to
conduct elections. In view of the consensus between
the parties, a retired District Judge was appointed
as Election Officer to conduct the election as per the
bylaws. He was required to conduct the election with
the assistance of the Special Officer appointed for
the College by the Government within a period of
two months. Pursuant to the direction given by the
Hon’ble Division Bench, the Special Officer
conducted the elections on 25.07.2022. He also
certified that Mr.K.Rajagopal was duly elected as
President of the Society. Form~7 was also presented
by him before the District Registrar Societies on
27.07.2022. It is true that the Hon’ble Division
Bench in its order dated 08.04.2022 had mandated
that the report of the Election Officer shall be filed
before a particular date and if before the said date,
the election process has been completed, it was open
to the Election Officer to seek advancement of the
hearing of the appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench
had not said anything more. It is well settled that
filing of Form~7 is only a ministerial act and
nothing more. If there were rival forms submitted
before the authority, then obviously the District
Registrar cannot undertake an adjudication. Before
the District Registrar there was only one Form.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
10. Since the election itself was conducted by
a retired District Judge pursuant to the direction of
the Hon’ble Division Bench and since there were no
rival Form, I directed the District Registrar to file
the same. I had not passed any other direction. The
direction given by this Court by itself will not affect
the rights of the petitioner in W.M.P or Review
applicant. If according to them, the election process
was not properly conducted, it is definitely open to
them to have place their case before the Hon’ble
Division Bench in S.T.A(MD)No.1 of 2022. The
direction given by me to the District Registrar for
filing Form 7 will not in any way infringe the rights
of the parties. It is for the Hon’ble Division Bench
to take the final call. I make it clear that the
direction given in W.P(MD)No.19756 of 2022 will
not in any way foreclose the contentions of the
review applicant or the petitioner in W.M.P(MD)No.
15509 of 2022”.
The said finding of the writ Court is not correct and the learned
counsel for the appellant correctly relied the following judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to entertain re-hearing and review order:
19.2. In the case of Pohla Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in
(2004) 6 SCC 126:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
18.1. In this petition Gurcharan Singh, son of
Dhanna Singh was arrayed as Respondent 4 and the
judgment shows that the petition was contested only by
the said respondent. If a decision rendered in a writ
petition adversely affects the interest of a third person
who was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition,
it is always open to him to ask for recall of the
judgment which has been rendered without affording
any opportunity of hearing to him. An identical
question has been examined by a Constitution Bench
in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC
1909] . Here in a writ petition filed by A for
cancellation of the order of allotment passed by the
Director of Rehabilitation in favour of B, the High
Court cancelled the order in favour of B though he
was not a party to the writ proceedings.
Subsequently, B filed a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution for impleading him as a party to A's
writ petition and rehearing the whole matter. The High
Court allowed the writ petition. It was held by this
Court that the second writ petition filed by B was
maintainable and the High Court had not acted
without jurisdiction in reviewing its previous order at
the instance of B, who was not a party to the previous
proceedings. It was further held that there is nothing
in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High
Court from exercising the power of review which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave or
palpable errors committed by it. In entertaining B's
petition, the High Court thereby did what the
principles of natural justice required it to do.
19.3. In the case of Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P)
Ltd., reported in (1996) 5 SCC 550:
20. By filing letter No. 2775 of 26-8-1991 along
with the review petition and contending that the other
letter, namely, letter No. 2776 of the even date, was
never written or issued by the respondent, the appellant,
in fact, raised the plea before the Commission that its
judgment dated 16-11-1993, which was based on letter
No. 2776, was obtained by the respondent by practising
fraud not only on the appellant but on the Commission
too as letter No. 2776 dated 26-8-1991 was forged by
the respondent for the purpose of this case. This plea
could not have been legally ignored by the Commission
which needs to be reminded that the authorities, be they
constitutional, statutory or administrative, (and
particularly those who have to decide a lis) possess the
power to recall their judgments or orders if they are
obtained by fraud as fraud and justice never dwell
together (Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). It has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
repeatedly said that fraud and deceit defend or excuse
no man (Fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).
21. In Smith v. East Elloe Rural Distt.
Council [1956 AC 736 : (1956) 1 All ER 855 : (1956) 2
WLR 888] the House of Lords held that the effect of
fraud would normally be to vitiate any act or order. In
another case, Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1
QB 702 : (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 2 WLR 502] (QB
at p. 712), Denning, L.J. said:
“No judgment of a Court, no order of a
Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has
been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels
everything.”
22. The judiciary in India also possesses inherent
power, specially under Section 151 CPC, to recall its
judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on Court. In
the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings,
the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate
suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud.
Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all
Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These
powers spring not from legislation but from the nature
and the constitution of the tribunals or Courts
themselves so as to enable them to maintain their
dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules,
protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to
punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
the orderly administration of the Court's business.
23. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity
and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and
also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the
Courts have been held to have inherent power to set
aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that
Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party
or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a
party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its
order. (See: Benoy Krishna Mukerjee v. Mohanlal
Goenka [AIR 1950 Cal 287] ; Gajanand
Sha v. Dayanand Thakur [AIR 1943 Pat 127 : ILR 21
Pat 838] ; Krishnakumar v. Jawand Singh [AIR 1947
Nag 236 : ILR 1947 Nag 190] ; Devendra Nath
Sarkar v. Ram Rachpal Singh [ILR (1926) 1 Luck 341 :
AIR 1926 Oudh 315] ; Saiyed Mohd. Raza v. Ram
Saroop [ILR (1929) 4 Luck 562 : AIR 1929 Oudh 385
(FB)] ; Bankey Behari Lal v. Abdul Rahman [ILR
(1932) 7 Luck 350 : AIR 1932 Oudh 63] ; Lekshmi
Amma Chacki Amma v. Mammen Mammen [1955 Ker
LT 459] .) The Court has also the inherent power to set
aside a sale brought about by fraud practised upon the
Court (Ishwar Mahton v. Sitaram Kumar [AIR 1954 Pat
450] ) or to set aside the order recording compromise
obtained by fraud. (Bindeshwari Pd.
Chaudhary v. Debendra Pd. Singh [AIR 1958 Pat 618 :
1958 BLJR 651] ; Tara Bai v. V.S. Krishnaswamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
Rao [AIR 1985 Kant 270 : ILR 1985 Kant 2930] .)
19.4.The writ Court ought to have considered the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant that order was obtained by playing
fraud upon Court and should have set aside the same on the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following case:
19.4.1.In the case of Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 1
64... We need to say no more, in the manner how
fraud has to be dealt with, whenever it is established.
However, stated simply, nothing... nothing...and nothing,
obtained by fraud, can be sustained, as fraud unravels
everything.
75... Even the trivialist act of wrong doing, based
on a singular act of fraud, cannot be countenanced, in the
name of justice. The present case, unfolds a mass fraud.
The course suggested, if accepted, would not only be
imprudent, but would also be irresponsible. It would
encourage others to follow the same course.
19.4.2. Due to the above erroneous direction of the writ Court,
further complication in the administration of the college arose. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
District Registrar inspite of the knowledge about the pendency of S.T.A.
(MD).No. 1 of 2022, and the interim order passed in S.T.A.(MD).No. 1
of 2022 without seeking any clarification from the Division Bench of this
Court erroneously, accepted the Form-VII.
19.4.3. Therefore, the District Registrar is not correct in accepting
the Form-VII when the entire matter pertaining to the election was
pending before the Division Bench of this Court. Hence this Court
inclines to set aside the acceptance of the Form-VII by the District
Registrar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
20. Plea of Equity:
Plea of the elected group that they were in management without
the order of the government revoking the appointment of special officer
is not accepted. The government on the basis of the order of this Court
and considering the emergent situation had passed the impugned order in
G.O.(St).No. 257, Higher Education (D2) Department, dated 15.11.2021,
with the specific condition:-
Paragraph 3:- Nkw;fz;l fy;Y}hpf;
fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; fUj;JUtpid muR ftdKld;
Ma;T nra;jJ. jkpo;ehL jdpahH fy;Y}hpfs;
(xOq;fhw;W) rl;lk;> 1976 gphpT 14-A d; gb jdpahH
fy;Y}hpfspy; fy;Y}hpfis epHtfpf;f jdp mYtyH
epakdk; nra;a Kjypy; fy;Y}hp epHthfj;jpw;F
fhuzk; Nfl;G mwptpg;G mDg;gg;gl Ntz;Lk;.
vdpDk; ,e;NeHtpy;> fy;Y}hp rq;fj;jpw;fhd NjHjy;
eilngwhj epiyapYk; fy;Y}hp epHthfk; ,y;yhj
epyiapYk; fy;Y}hpf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd;
ghpe;Jiuapid Vw;W> NkNy xd;whjtjhfg;
gbf;fg;gl;l ePjpkd;w jPHg;gpid epiwNtw;wk;
nra;ag;gl Ntz;bajpd; mbg;gilapy;> jkpo;ehL
jdpahH fy;Y}hpfs; (xOq;fhw;W) rl;lk; 1976> gphpT
14-A d; gb fd;dpahFkhp khtl;lk;> nea;A+H>
nyl;RkpGuk; fiy kw;Wk; mwptpay; fy;Y}hpf;F
mf;fy;Y}hp epHthfj;ij xOq;FgLj;jpl> Xuhz;L
fhyj;jpw;F my;yJ Kiwahd NjHjy; eilngw;W
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
cWg;gpdHfis NjHT nra;Ak; tiu> ,tw;wpy; vJ
gpe;ijNah mJtiu mf;fy;Y}hpapid epHtfpf;f>
jpUney;Ntyp kz;ly fy;Y}hp
fy;tp ,iz ,af;Feiu jdp mYtyuhf epakdk;
nra;J muR MizapLfpwJ.
20.1. From the reading of the above order, more particularly, the
words “Kiwahd NjHjy; eilngw;W cWg;gpdHfis NjHT
nra;Ak; tiu . This court has to find out whether the election was
conducted in a proper manner or not. Unless this Court accepts the report
of the Election Officer, there shall be no conclusion of the election and
selection of the candidate. In the said circumstances, as submitted by the
non elected group, before the acceptance of the report of the Election
Officer by this court, they cannot be treated as elected candidates.
Therefore, the case of the elected candidate that they are in management
on the basis of the improper receipt of the Form-VII by the District
Registrar cannot be accepted. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
special officer was appointed by government and the same was
challenged by the appellant. In that event as per the impugned order of
the government, the government has power to revoke the order and not
any of the subordinate authorities. In the said circumstances in this case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
it is revealed that the director of collegiate education passed the order of
entrusting the management of the college without authority. From the
manner of the sequence of the events, the director of collegiate education
had acted without authority for some other extraneous consideration and
the same is to be looked into by the principal secretary to the
Government education department and suitable action is to be taken after
giving opportunity to him. He is neither the authority under the Act to
appoint the special officer nor the authority to revoke the government
order appointing the special officer to the college. Therefore, the elected
group has no authority to call for the appointments to various posts in the
college. The appellant has repeatedly approached this Court and brought
to the notice the illegalities committed by the District Registrar and
higher educational authority in calling for the recruitment of various post
in the college. This Court also passed the following interim order:-
4.The grievance of the petitioner is that the
first respondent is now proceeding with the
appointment of 12 non-teaching staffs in the
Institution.
5.The limited prayer sought for by the
petitioner is that the person who are participating
in the selection process also should know the
pendency of this proceedings and that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
appointment will be subject to the outcome of the
pending appeal.
6.The respondents cannot have any
objection to this limited prayer.
7.Therefore, the first respondent is directed
to inform every candidate and shall cause a Public
Notice that every selection and appointment
pursuant to the process initiated by the first
respondent will be subject to the outcome of the
writ appeal.
20.2. From the above interim order, it is clear that the persons who
participated in the interview have no right to seek equity. They have
sufficient knowledge about the dispute of the elected group’s right to call
for the recruitment. In the said circumstances, they have no right to seek
approval. The appointment is subject to the result of this S.T.A.(MD).No.
1 of 2022. Therefore, the government need not approve the said
appointment. Further, this Court finds that the recruitment is not made in
accordance with the law. The college is an aided college. The
government is paying the salary to the staff of the said college. In the
said circumstances, this Court finds from the file, they have no say
particular candidate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
20.3. In view of the above discussion, this Court is unable to
accept the argument of the learned counsel Thiru.K.N.Thambi, appearing
for the appellant that the impugned order was passed in utter violation of
principles of natural justice and without notice to the appellant suffers
infirmity. This Court holds that the impugned government order in G.O.
(St).No. 257, Higher Education (D2) Department, dated 15.11.2021, is in
accordance with law.
20.4. But, the direction of the writ Court in W.P(MD)No.19756 of
2022 and the order in the W.M.P(MD)No.15509 of 2022 is not in
accordance with law and the consequential acceptance of the Form-VII
of the elected group without any order of this Court in S.T.A.(MD).No. 1
of 2022 by the District Registrar is also not in accordance with law. The
case of the elected group that they are holding the office, without any
order from the government either by revocation of the impugned G.O.
(St).No. 257, Higher Education (D2) Department, dated 15.11.2021 or
decision of the government to remove the appointment of special officer,
cannot be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
20.5. The election was held for the triennium period 2022-2025,
In view of the interim orders passed by this Court. The acts of the elected
group and the District Registrar and the Director of Collegiate Education,
without approval of the election conducted by the Election Officer are
unfair and also against the interim order. The interim order has also been
passed observing that the appointment was subject to the result of this
S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022. The appointment was not approved and the
participants also participated in the recruitment process with the
knowledge that their appointment is subject to the result of this S.T.A.
(MD).No.1 of 2022. Apart from that, even the writ Court passed the order
in W.M.P(MD)No.15509 of 2022 with specific finding that the
acceptance of the Form-VII is subject to the result of the S.T.A.(MD).No.
1 of 2022. Further, the government has not revoked the order. The order
was challenged before this Court. The government has passed the order
appointing Election Officer to conduct election. But this Court appointed
respected retired District Judge to conduct the election. In the order, even
though the period is mentioned as one year in view of the intervening
circumstances of the direction of this Court to conduct election, the
impugned order of the Government still holds good.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
20.6.In view of the special circumstances and also the grave
situation noted by this Court to show the unfairness in the conduct of the
election, this Court holds that Election Officer has not conducted the
election in fair manner. To resolve the issue, this Court appoints Hon’ble
Justice Thiru. D.Hariparanthaman (retired) as a Election Officer of the
college. The Hon'ble Judge is at liberty to conduct the fair election and
submit a report before this Court in the sealed cover without declaration
of the result on or before 04.08.2025. All the parties to the litigation and
members of the society, Government officials are hereby directed to co-
operate with the Election Officer to complete this assignment.
21.Accordingly, this Court disposes S.T.A(MD).No.1 of 2022 and
W.A.(MD).No.1481 of 2022 in the following terms:
(i) Impugned Government Order in G.O.St.No.257 Higher
Education (D2) Department dated 15.11.2021 is valid and the same is
passed in accordance with law.
(ii)The election dated 19.07.2022 conducted by the election officer
as per interim order of this Court in S.T.A.(MD).No.1 of 2022 is not fair
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
and hence, hereby it is declared as invalid.
(iii)The direction issued by the writ Court in W.P.(MD).No.19756
of 2022 to approve the form VII is illegal and hence, the same is hereby
set aside.
(iv)The dismissal order of W.M.P.(MD).No.15510 of 2022 filed to
recall ex-parte order in W.P.(MD).No.19756 of 2022 is hereby set aside
and this Court allows W.M.P.(MD).No.15510 of 2022.
(v)Appointment of 12 Non-teaching staff is illegal.
(vi) Since the appointees have particiapted in the interview process
on the basis of interim order of this Court and within the knowledge of
election dispute, equity is against them and hence, the Government is
hereby directed not to approve their appointment
(vii)This Court appoints Hon'ble Thiru.Justice.D.Hariparanthaman
(retired) as the election officer of the college. The Hon'ble Justice shall
conduct the election and submit a report before this Court in a sealed
cover without declaring the result, on or before 04.08.2025.
(viii)The Hon'ble Judge is at his liberty to seek the assistane of any
one of advocates who has reasonable experience and this Court fixes his
remuneration for the Hon'ble Judge as Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
Lakhs Only) and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousands only) for the
Advocate.
22. Suggestion to the Government:-
The aided college has right of management and the constitution
also recognized the same. But, government has power to regulate the
recruitment. In the case of the private college appointment, they have not
followed the procedure adopted by the government in appointing the
staffs. The service of the private college staffs also come under the
purview of the Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Act and Rules. As
per the UGC Act, in the committee will make the recruitment. From the
file this Court unable to find any examination conducted by calling the
recruitment notice to the paper publication. Therefore the selection of the
recruitment itself without following any procedure. This Court perused
the entire Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Act and Rules and also
UGC Act. There is a implied condition to make the recruitment by the
educational agency of the college by following the recruitment process as
done in the government appointment i.e., three tier mechanism.
1.Calling the public notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
2.Conducting the examination
3.Conducting the interview.
4.Making appointment.
22.1. But the present practice of making appointment without
conducting examination is amount to the total infraction of the
recruitment process. Hence, there are malpractice in the appointment of
the private college staffs. There is a war in conquering the college
management election. Hence, this Court suggests the government to
bring the suitable recruitment process in the line of the government
recruitment process for the appointment of private college staffs.
[P.V.J,] [K.K.R.K.J,]
12.05.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
P.VELMURUGAN.J.,
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J.,
sbn
and
12.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/05/2025 03:49:10 pm )
