PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J

1. The District Registrar, Madurai South, was faced with as many as Form-VII filed by the members of the 3rd respondent and returned all the Forms by the order dated 30.10.2008. This order was not attacked. But, instead, the 7th and 8th respondents herein, filed W.P.(MD)No.5528 of 2009 praying for a writ of mandamus for conduct of election for the period from 05.11.2008 to 2011 in respect of the 3rd respondent herein, namely Nadar Mahajana Sangam Kamaraj Polytechnic Paribalana Sabai ("Sabai" in short), along with a direction to the 2nd respondent parent Sangam, namely Nadar Mahajana Sangam ("Sangam" in short) to take charge of the administration of the 3rd respondent Sabai. The learned Single Judge held the election of the 7th respondent, the appellant herein, was invalid, set it aside, ordered fresh election and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to facilitate the election. Against this, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The 2nd respondent Sangam is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act (in short "the Act"). The members of the Nadar Community all over India are eligible to become members of the Sangam. One of the educational institutions run by the Sangam is the 3rd respondent Sabai, which is also registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. As per the bye-laws of the 3rd respondent Sabai, all the special life members of the 2nd respondent Sangam, the parent Sangam, automatically become the members of the 3rd respondent Sabai. It is, in respect of the election to the 3rd respondent Sabai, the present dispute has arisen. Atleast, four elections are alleged to have been held and each party points out defects in the election of the other and thereby they are unable to see eye-to-eye with each other. Smooth functioning amongst the members is necessary for the management and administration of the educational institution.

3. After hearing the counsel on both sides, we asked the counsel whether it would be in the interest of the educational institution to create a vacuum to continue, since the Registrar had returned all the Form-VIIs that were submitted to him and had directed the parties to resolve the dispute in the civil Court? Various suggestions were made by the learned counsel on either side, which naturally were not acceptable to the other side. We asked them whether it was not in the interest of the Democratic functioning of the Sabai that they agree to convene the General Body Meeting and decide how the election should be conducted. All of them agreed. On 04.02.2010, when the matter came up, all the parties agreed for convening an Extraordinary General Body Meeting and agreed that it will be presided over by a retired High Court Judge to be named by us. They also agreed that the Advocate Commissioner Mr.V.Sitaranjan Das will issue notice for calling the General Body Meeting and the conduct of election. This was only because they do not want the notice to be issued by any one party who may claim that it indicates a stamp of approval by this Court on that party. The matter was posted on 05.02.2010. We requested the Advocate Commissioner to suggest the venue which will be suitable for conduct of the General Body Meeting. Therefore, the directions that will be given by us at the end of this order, is really a consensus order which is agreed to by parties.

4. It may have been sufficient not to dilate upon the matters argued by the counsel since they had agreed to a particular course of action, but several legal issues are raised, which we must address. So, we will deal with them and finally give our directions regarding the conduct of the General Body Meeting and the conduct of election.

5. Bye-law 9 of the 3rd respondent Sabai provides that all the special life members of the Parent Sangam will be members of Sabai. Bye-law 10(a) provides a General Body Meeting to be convened once a year in June at Madurai. The date, place, time and the subjects to be