The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar with respect to the filing of a statement in Form-VII under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, as interpreted by the Full Bench and the Division Bench.

1. This Writ Petition, at the instance of a person stated to be the President of Lakshmipuram College Society, seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the District Registrar, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, to issue a copy of Form-VII, dated 27 August, 2012, submitted by the Society in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.

THE FACTS:

2. According to the deponent, he was elected as the President of the Society, for a three year period, more particularly, from 20 September, 2012 to 19 September, 2015. The Society submitted the particulars in statutory Form-VII on 27 August, 2012 before the District Registrar. The Society wanted a certified copy of Form-VII and as such, application was submitted before the District Registrar on 24 September, 2012. Since there was no follow-up action, at the instance of District Registrar, the Society was constrained to file the Writ Petition.

3. While the Writ Petition was pending, the District Registrar, as per communication dated 12 December, 2012, informed the petitioner that the second respondent also filed a Form-VII and as such, the matter was kept pending. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an application in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012, to implead him as a party to the Writ Petition. The said Miscellaneous Application was allowed. Accordingly, the second respondent was impleaded as a party-respondent in the Writ Petition.

4. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner as well as the second respondent filed separate statements in Form-VII and he is in the process of deciding the genuineness of Form-VII for the purpose of filing. The second respondent disputed the claim made by the petitioner. According to the second respondent, there are proceedings pending between the parties including a civil suit in O.S.No.111 of 2009 before the learned District Munsif, Eraniel. There are also two other Writ Petitions pending with respect to the very same subject matter in W.P.Nos.9633 of 2009 and 26385 of 2009, on the file of this Court.

5. The second respondent in his response contended that the petitioner was not elected as the President of Society. The Society elected one Subramanian as the President of the Society and accordingly, Form-VII was submitted before the District Registrar.

SUBMISSIONS:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case a direction is issued to the District Registrar to conclude the proceedings initiated by him, as indicated in the communication dated 12 December, 2012.

7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is in the process of considering the Form-VII submitted by the petitioner and the rival faction and a decision would be taken shortly with regard to the filing of Form-VII.

8. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that a comprehensive suit is now pending before the civil Court and as such, it is not open to the Registrar to decide the contentious issue in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.

DISCUSSION:

9. The petitioner initially wanted a direction to the District Registrar to provide a copy of Form-VII stated to have been filed on 27 August, 2012. The District Registrar, in his communication dated 12 December, 2012, made it clear that there were two sets of statements in Form-VII and a decision would be taken with regard to filing of Form-VII. The petitioner now wanted a direction to conclude the proceedings already initiated by the District Registrar.

10. The jurisdiction of the Registrar with respect to the filing of a statement in Form-VII is very limited. The Courts have, time and again, indicated that the Registrar exercises only a limited jurisdiction and he cannot extend the scope of his powers by deciding contentious issues. It is true that Section 34 of the