The availability of public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited when there are disputed questions of fact, and the petitioner's remedy for alleged irregularities in a society's functioning is to approach the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to appoint a Special Officer by invoking Section 34 (A) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 to supersede the Executive Committee which has been acting in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975.)

1. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the 1st respondent to appoint a Special Officer by invoking Section 34 (A) of the Tamil Nadu Societies and Registration Act, 1975 to supersede the Executive Committee of the 6th respondent Society, which according to the petitioner has been allegedly acting in contravention of the Tamil Nadu Societies and Registration Act, 1975 and the rules framed therein.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 6th respondent Society has amended the bye-laws without passing a special resolution as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies and Registration Act, 1975, Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Further it is the contention of the petitioner that there are several irregularities committed by some of the office bearers of the 6th respondent Society and several cases have been lodged against them including lodging of criminal complaints with regard to their irregularities. In such circumstances, this writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for appointment of a Special Officer under Section 34 (A) of the Act to supersede the existing Executive Committee of the 6th respondent Society.

3. The 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 has stated as follows :-

(a) He has admitted that the amendment to the bye-laws of the 6th respondent Society was registered on 19.08.2018 as per the provisions of Section 12 (4) of the Act.

(b) He has stated that the President of the Society is not barred in law in convening the general body meeting.

(c) He has stated that the petitioner without specifically pointing out the irregularities of the 6th respondent Society and without any documentary evidence has raised bald allegations.

(d) He has also stated that there is no necessity for passing of a resolution for appointment of Members of the Executive Committee of a registered Society.

(e) Section 34(A) of the said Act will come into play only if an enquiry is conducted under Section 36 of the said Act and there is a prima facie evidence as to the mismanagement and financial irregularities in the Society to take suomoto action by the 3rd respondent/Registrar of the Societies. According to the 3rd respondent, the case on hand will not fall under the said category. Hence, Section 34(A) of the Act will not get attracted.

6. The respondents 4 to 6 have also filed their counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, they have stated that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of suppression of material facts. According to them, the petitioner has participated in all the meetings convened by the 6th respondent Society, including the meeting convened for the purpose of amending the bye-laws of the Society. They have also denied the allegations of the petitioner that they have committed irregularities while acting as office bearers of the 6th respondent Society. It is also their case that the criminal complaints lodged against them is false and a frivolous one. They have also stated that the petitioner has already approached the District Munsif Court, Erode by filing a Civil Suit in O.S No.10 of 2020 in the name of one E.R.Rajendran. In the said suit, according to them, I.A. No.2 of 2020 was filed by the said Rajendran to restrain the respondents 4 and 5 in this writ petition from conducting the Annual General Meeting on 12.01.2020. It is their case that the petitioner has suppressed all these facts before this Court. Further, it is their case that cheques were also signed by the petitioner on behalf of the 6th respond