BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
SENTHIL KUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
P. Jeyasingh Malraj - Appellant
Versus
The District Registrar (Administration), Cheranmahadevi Registration District, Tirunelveli & Others – Respondent
W.P(MD)No. 11311 of 2021 & W.M.P(MD) Nos. 8832 & 10803 of 2021
Decided on : 21-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 - Sections 34 and 36 - Management Committee - members/office bearers and such disputes - Elections for triennium - Seeking to implead himself in two pending suits - Tirunelveli CMS Evangelical Church is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 - All members of said society constitute general body - Such general body elects Management Committee for a period of three (3) year - Management Committee, office bearers such as President, Secretary, Treasurer and the like are appointed. Disputes arose between groups of members/office bearers and such disputes resulted in the filing petitioner herein was a party second defendant - decision of the appellate Court was challenged disposed of on 21.01.2020. The said second appeal was disposed of on ground that it had become infructuous inasmuch as it pertained to the elections for the triennium – Held, petitioner still has the option of challenging elections by approaching jurisdictional civil court in such regard or seek to implead himself in pending suits - In such proceedings, given the wide ambit of the civil court's jurisdiction, it would be possible for the civil court to examine validity of the general body meeting as well as validity of constitution of the management committee and election of office bearers - Although sixth respondent raised issue pertaining to removal of petitioner from the membership of the Society, it is not necessary to enter findings on such issue in view of the conclusion drawn above as regards challenge to the impugned order. It is open to the sixth respondent to canvass such issue in future proceedings - Acceptance of such a Form by Registrar would neither affix a seal of approval on the validity of the election nor would the rejection of Form No. VII by the Registrar, invalidate an election properly conducted. Therefore, a person, who is aggrieved by an election, should only go before a Civil Court challenging the election - W.P(MD).No.11311 of 2021 is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3701/A2/2020 dated 21.06.2021 on the file of first respondent and quash the same and further directing the first respondent to conduct an election to the Tirunelveli CMS Evangelical Church Society by appointing a Special Officer.)
1. The petitioner assails an order dated 21.06.2021 of the first respondent by which the Form VII submitted by the sixth and seventh respondents herein was taken on file. A consequential prayer is also made for the conduct of elections to the Tirunelveli CMS Evangelical Church Society by appointing a special officer for such purpose.
2. The Tirunelveli CMS Evangelical Church is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. All the members of the said society constitute the general body. Such general body elects the Management Committee for a period of three (3) years, which is referred to as a triennium. From and out of the members of such Management Committee, office bearers such as President, Secretary, Treasurer and the like are appointed. Disputes arose between groups of members/office bearers and such disputes resulted in the filing of O.S. No.418 of 2012. The petitioner herein was a party, namely, the second defendant in O.S.No.418 of 2012. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.418 of 2012 was carried in appeal by filing A.S.No.110 of 2018 before the appellate Court. The said appeal suit was disposed of on 23.07.2019. The decision of the appellate Court was challenged in S.A.(MD).No.543 of 2019. S.A.(MD).No.543 of 2019 was disposed of on 21.01.2020. The said second appeal was disposed of on the ground that it had become infructuous inasmuch as it pertained to the elections for the triennium 2012 to 2014. Since the elections for the triennium 2020 to 2022 had been conducted in the mean time and the validity thereof was under question, the Court left it open to the parties to challenge the validity of the election held on 16.11.2019 by way of separate appropriate proceedings.
3. Thereafter, the sixth and seventh respondents endeavoured to file Form VII in relation to the election held in 2019. By proceedings dated 29.06.2020, the first respondent declined to receive and take on file such Form VII. This formed the subject matter of two separate writ petitions filed by the sixth and seventh respondents herein. The said writ petitions were W.P.(MD).No.10532 of 2020, which was filed by the sixth respondent herein, and W.P.(MD).No.11099 of 2020, which was filed by the seventh respondent. By a common order dated 28.09.2020, the said writ petitions were disposed of by setting aside the order dated 29.06.2020 and remanding the matter to the District Registrar (Administration), Cheranmahadevi Tirunelveli District (the District Registrar) with a direction to hold a fresh inquiry and pass orders in accordance with law after hearing both parties. By such order, it was also indicated that it is open to the District Registrar (Administration) to issue notice to other interested parties also in view of the suits filed by such parties. The impugned order dated 21.06.2021 was issued pursuant to the directions issued in the above mentioned Writ Petitions.
4. The petitioner assails the impugned order on multiple grounds. The principal ground on which he assails the order is that he was not heard before such order was passed. Indeed, the petitioner contends that the impugned order contravenes the order passed by this Court on 28.09.2020 in the two Writ Petitions adverted to above. The second contention of the petitioner is that only persons in the Management Committee can be elected as office bearers. For such purpose, Clause 14 of the bylaws of the society is relied upon. The third contention is that both Paul George and the petitioner were removed at the same meeting and that, there
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.