The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid reasons for initiating an enquiry under the Tamil Nadu Societies Act, the importance of maintaining status-quo, and the need for a fair and unbiased enquiry process.

C.T. SELVAM, J.

1. Appellant in W.A.(MD) No.1130 of 2014 is the Karanthai Tamil Sangam (hereinafter referred to as “Sangam”). The Inspector General of Registration under proceedings No.32789/I3/2014 dated 15.07.2014 directed enquiry u/s.36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Act by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration. Forwarding a copy thereof as also that of the original complaint received against the Sangam, the second respondent under proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5041/Aa2/2014 dated 17.07.2014 called for response from the Sangam, on 18.07.2015. Challenging the same, the Sangam preferred W.P.(MD) No.11820 of 2014 seeking quash of such proceedings. Such writ petition was dismissed under orders of the learned Single Judge dated 11.09.2014. Aggrieved, the Sangam has preferred W.A.(MD) No.1130 of 2014.

2. Informing the dismissal of W.P.(MD) No.11820 of 2014, that in the affidavit in support of such writ petition, the preference of false complaints, conduct of enquiry pursuant thereto and reports therein repeatedly having found no wrong doing on the part of the Sangam that the petitioners are members of the Sangam who had not been put on notice or been called for enquiry and that the second respondent inimically was disposed towards the Sangam and its members, W.P.(MD) No.19846 of 2014 stands filed seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents, their men, agents and officials from conducting any enquiry in respect of similar nature of complaints which were already dropped by the fourth respondent. Stay of the order under appeal was sought.

3. At the stage of admission in W.A.(MD) No.1130 of 2014, this Court had directed that the enquiry being conducted by second respondent shall go on and no final decision shall be taken by second (sic first) respondent till further orders are passed by this Court.

4. Upon being informed that the enquiry stood completed and report had been made ready, this Court had directed learned Additional Government Pleader to file a copy of the report in a sealed cover for purposes of court perusal. Under orders dated 21.12.2015, this Court inter alia directed the Deputy Inspector General of Registration to furnish copies of enquiry report upon the written request made by concerned parties, at their cost. The members of the Sangam/ petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.19846 of 2014 have preferred W.P.(MD) No.2717 of 2016 seeking quash of the Enquiry Report submitted by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.5041/A2/2014 dated 26.02.2015.

5. In preferring W.P.(MD)No.19846 of 2014, petitioners therein sought permission to join together and to file a single writ petition and the same came up for consideration in M.P.(MD)1 of 2014 in W.P.(MD)No. SR 61985 of 2014. The order therein dated 13.10.2014 reads thus :

“MP (MD) No.1 of 2014 is ordered on payment of separate court fee.

2. Mr. R. Singgaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted before this court that the petitioners have no hesitation or grievance to face any enquiry whatsoever, if the scope of subsequent enquiry is not related to the previous enquiry, upon which three enquiry reports dated 23.12.2011 respectively, have already been made in favour of the petitioners. The said submission is recorded. However, he has again stated that the impugned notice without carrying any specific allegation should not be allowed to remain, as the respondents under the guise of enquiry, are again going to put the petitioners in embarrassment, inconvenience, mental agony etc.

3. A perusal of the impugned notice does not reflect on what charge and allegation, the respondents have proceeded to hold enquiry. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to maintain status-quo, since the enquiry reports mentioned supra have clearly indicated that there is no room for enquiry. Hence, the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo as on today, until further orders.

4. Notice to the respondents return