The Registrar has the power to initiate an inquiry into the affairs of a registered society under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, based on a representation, and the power of judicial review is limited to the decision-making process.

1. This Writ Petition is directed against the proceedings dated 15 July, 2014 on the file of Inspector General of Registration and the consequential notice dated 17 July, 2014, on the file of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Madurai, whereby and whereunder, proceedings under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, was initiated to enquire into the constitution, working and financial condition of Karandhai Tamil Sangam, Thanjavur.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The Society, by name Karandhai Tamil Sangam was registered as a Society on 01 May, 1914 to advance and to improve the cause and conditions of Tamil and Tamilians and related objects. The Society established as many as seven Educational Institutions in and around Thanjavur. The institutions are affiliated to Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli and it was duly approved by the National Council for Teacher Education.

3. While so, Thiru.Arivudainambi stated to be a resident of Thanjavur submitted a representation dated 15 July, 2014 to the Inspector General of Registration. The Inspector General of Registration took the said representation on file and immediately, initiated proceedings, directing enquiry into the affairs of the Society. The second respondent, on the basis of the said proceedings, issued notice to the petitioner to appear on 18 July, 2014.

4. The proceedings initiated under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is challenged primarily on the following grounds:

(a) The complainant is not a member of the Society and as such, he is not entitled to initiate action under Section 36(1) of the Act.

(b) Even if the action is construed to be a suo motu one, still there are no materials before the first respondent to hold an enquiry into the affairs of the Society.

(c) The first respondent, before initiating proceedings, failed to arrive at a subjective satisfaction as to whether the available materials are sufficient to hold an enquiry under Section 36(1) of the Act.

5. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the second respondent, the petitioner has already subjected to the jurisdiction and took time to produce the records. The Secretary of the Society wanted documents to be supplied. Accordingly, the relevant documents were all furnished to him. It is the contention of the second respondent that there are several allegations made against the Society, besides various acts of mismanagement which would go to the root of the matter. There was a public interest litigation in W.P.No.36210 of 2012 against certain private parties and Government officials. The Secretary of the petitioner Society was arrayed as sixth respondent. The Secretary is also involved in criminal cases. The statutory authorities have already initiated action against the Society for encroaching upon Government land. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Thanjavur, registered a case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act against the Secretary, his wife and children for having acquired pecuniary resources which are disproportionate to the known sources of income and the first information report is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam. The police have already laid three charge sheets against the Secretary and his family. There are other similar charges pending against the Society including financial misuse, tampering of records, falsification of accounts, forgery, embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. The second respondent submitted that the enquiry would be conducted without bias and as such, the statutory authority should be permitted to exercise the function in accordance with law.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS:

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:

(a) The proceedings in