ORDER :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent passed in No.3629/D2/2016 dated 24.06.2016 and quash the same.)

1. The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the order passed by the first respondent in proceedings dated 24.06.2016.

PETITIONER'S CASE:

2. The petitioner is Ankur Grand Owners Association, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The petitioner-Association is the Flat Owners Association and the Bye-Laws of the Association was registered before the Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. In the year 2009, the Apartment Builder Constructed the building consisting of 60 apartments at Door No.252 and 254, EVR Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. The Corpus Fund was collected at the rate of Rs.25 per square feet from all the 60 flat owners and the said amount was handed over to the petitioner- Association by the builder after registration of the petitioner-Association.

3. On 09.05.2010, the Committee members of the petitioner- Association passed a resolution enhancing Corpus Fund from Rs.25 per sq.ft., to Rs.40 per sq.ft. The Resolution was approved by the General Body to enhance the Corpus Fund from Rs.40 per sq.ft., to Rs.50 per sq.ft or.1% of the sale value of the flat, whichever is higher. The said Resolution was passed by the General Body on 19.09.2011.

4. The fourth respondent purchased Flat No.33 on 04.04.2013 from Smt.Indhu Bala and paid a Transfer Fee amount of Rs.1,47,800/- to the petitioner-Association.

5. The fifth respondent purchased Flat No.43 in the year 2015 from the owner of Smt.Indhu Bala of Ankur Apartments. When the petitioner-Association demanded the Transfer Fee amount, the said Smt.Indhu Bala informed to the petitioner-Association that the fifth respondent agreed to pay the said amount to the petitioner-Association. However, the fifth respondent did not pay the said Transfer Fee amount to the petitioner-Association and he filed a civil suit in OS No.4081 of 2015 and subsequently the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The fifth respondent did not pay the Transfer Fee amount and other two members of the petitioner-Association did not pay the maintenance amounts to the petitioner-Association. The defaulters names were put on the Notice Board of the petitioner-Association.

6. The fourth respondent sent representation to the respondents 2 and 3 claiming to declare that Clause-8 of the Bye-Laws as null and void and sought for a direction to refund the Transfer Fee collected from the fourth respondent. In the year 2016, the petitioner filed the Bank Accounts of the petitioner-Association before the second respondent. The fourth respondent thereafter filed WP No.5449 of 2016 and the High Court has issued a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 16.12.2015.

7. The first respondent-District Registrar (Administration) passed the impugned order declaring that Clause-8 of the Bye-Laws of the petitioner-Association is null and void and further direction was issued to the petitioner-Association to refund the Transfer Fee amount to the fourth respondent. Thus the petitioner-Association is constrained to move the present writ petition.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-Association contended that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. The third respondent-Registrar of Societies has no jurisdiction to forward the representation of the fourth respondent dated 16.12.2015 to the first respondent contrary to the orders passed by this Court in WP No.5449 of 2016. The first respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice and no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner-Association to put forth their submissions before passing the impugned order. Thus the order impugned passed by the firs