Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 1665
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Latin Catholic Fishermens Educational Society, Thoothoor, St.Judes College Campus
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai – 600 028 & Others
WRIT PETITION (MD) No.6437 of 2006
Decided On : 08-06-2007
For the Petitioner:Issac Mohanlal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & 2, D. Sasikumar, Government Advocate, R3 & 5, S. James, Advocate.
The power of the Registrar under Section 36 of the Societies Act is limited to administrative matters and maintaining correct records. The Registrar cannot set aside certification granted by him and members of the society can resort to civil proceedings to challenge the legality of meetings and validity of amendments.
Headnote:
Societies Registration Act - Section 36(9) - The power of the Registrar under Section 36 is limited to administrative matters and maintaining correct records. The Registrar cannot set aside certification granted by him and members of the society can resort to civil proceedings to challenge the legality of meetings and validity of amendments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered educational society, challenges an order issued under Section 36(9) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975. The order directed the petitioner to restore the original bye-law and include 25 priests in the society. An interim order was granted against the implementation of the order. The main writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner argues that the amendment of the bye-laws was registered by the second respondent and none of the ex-officio members challenged the amendment. The petitioner further argues that the suits pending before the civil court prevent the second respondent from invoking power under Section 36 to set aside the amendment. The petitioner also claims that the impugned proceedings were conducted without prior notice and violated the principles of natural justice. The respondents argue that the second respondent has the power to inquire into the constitution of the society and that the pendency of the suits does not bar the second respondent from invoking Section 36. The court refers to a Full Bench decision that limits the power of the Registrar to administrative matters and maintaining correct records. The court concludes that the second respondent cannot set aside the certification granted by him and that the members of the society can resort to civil proceedings to challenge the legality of the meeting and validity of the amendments. The court also notes that a person who becomes a member of the society cannot challenge the bye-laws accepted by him. The court sets aside the impugned order and allows the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court refers to a Full Bench decision that limits the power of the Registrar to administrative matters and maintaining correct records. The court concludes that the second respondent cannot set aside the certification granted by him and that the members of the society can resort to civil proceedings to challenge the legality of the meeting and validity of the amendments. The court also notes that a person who becomes a member of the society cannot challenge the bye-laws accepted by him. The court sets aside the impugned order and allows the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The power of the Registrar under Section 36 of the Societies Act is limited to administrative matters and maintaining correct records. The Registrar cannot set aside certification granted by him and members of the society can resort to civil proceedings to challenge the legality of meetings and validity of amendments. A person who becomes a member of a society cannot challenge the bye-laws accepted by him.
Result: The impugned order of the second respondent is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The parties are not awarded any costs. The suits pending in various civil courts can still be pursued.
The petitioner, a registered educational society with Registration No.13 of 1978 (K.K.Dist.), has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order of the second respondent dated 27.7.2006, issued under Section 36(9) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 (In short "Societies Act").
2. Under the direction issued by the second respondent/Registrar, the petitioner was directed to restore the original Bye-law No.11(A), which was in existence right from the time of registration of the Society, and also to include the 25 Priests under Colachal and Thoothoor Dioces Parish Priests and further convene a General Body Meeting to conduct affairs of the Society and to elect Executive Committee in General Body Meeting. This direction was to be implemented within 30 days by the petitioner/Society.
3. An Interim order was granted on 31.7.2006 against the implementation of the said order and it was further extended from time to time. Thereafter, respondents 3 to 5 got themselves impleaded by order dated 22.9.2006. They have also filed a vacate stay application. Thereafter, with the consent of all the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.
4. Heard the arguments of Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. S.James, learned counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents 3 and 5, and 4th respondent having not been represented by any person. Perused the records.
5. It is admitted by all the parties that the petitioner/Society is a Society registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 and it is bound by the provisions made thereunder. Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that bye-laws of the society were amended by a special resolution and the amendments were sent to the second respondent for being registered in terms of the Societies Act. The second respondent being a statutory authority and having been satisfied, registered the amendments on 7.11.2002. The amendment of the bye-laws were registered as Document No.3/2002 and amendment of the memorandum of the society was registered as Document No.2/2002 under his name and seal.
6. None of the persons who are ex-Officio Members of the Society and whose membership was removed by amendment have challenged the said amendment and the subsequent approval by the second respondent. On the contrary, 4th respondent Rev.Fr.A.Rajendran, participated in all the further proceedings and attended the subsequent meetings of the Society.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the bye-laws were amended in the General Body Meeting held on 14.9.2002 and submitted to the second respondent/Registrar on 7.11.2002. In the General Meeting held on 14.9.2002, 4th and 5th respondents have participated and the Board of Directors were elected. In the said election, 4th and 5th respondents were also elected as the Board of Directors. Subsequently, the Board met and the 4th respondent was elected as the Vice President and he continued for the elected term i.e. for a period of three years viz., from 2002 to 2005. Thereafter, on 27.8.2005, the General Body Meeting was held in which the 4th respondent had participated and once again by resolution No.10, he was elected to the Board for a further period from 27.8.2005 to 26.8.2008 and is also continuing in the said position. Therefore, it is not open to the 4th respondent to get impleaded and support the order of the second respondent/Registrar, which is impugned in the Writ Petition.
8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the 5th respondent/Rev.Fr.Xavir Alexander, who was a signatory to the 2002 meeting, has subsequently filed a suit against the Society in O.S.No.328 of 2004 for the relief of holding that the General Body Meeting held on 30.9.2000 was illegal and the amended bye-laws of the Society passed in the meeting held on 21.9.2002 was also null and
