The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of affording due opportunity of hearing to the members of a society before passing government orders that affect their rights, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the notice issued by the first respondent in Letter No.4075929/M.1/2023-1 dated 15.05.2023 and quash the same and consequently, directing the 1st respondent to issue notice afresh after recalling it-s order in G.O.Ms.No.17, Commercial Tax and Registration (M-1) Department, dated 01.03.2023, superseding the management committee of Victoria Edward Hall bearing Reg.No.16/1907-08, Madurai.)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the notice of enquiry issued by the first respondent dated 15.05.2023.

2. The petitioners before this Court are the Management Committee members of Victoria Edward Hall Society, Madurai. According to them, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 15.05.2023 for conducting enquiry on the alleged irregularities with regard to the functioning of the Society. However, even before conducting the enquiry, a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.17, Commercial Tax and Registration (M-1) Department, dated 01.03.2023, came to be passed, superseding the Management Committee of Victoria Edward Hall Society. Without recalling this Government Order, the impugned notice of enquiry came to be issued and therefore, they have filed this writ petition.

3. Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the erstwhile members of the Society and some third parties have made some allegations against the then office bearers. In this regard, the first respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 34A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and passed G.O.Ms.No.140, Registration Department, dated 14.10.2021, superseding the then Management Committee of the Society. The said Government Order was challenged by the then office bearers of the Society by filing WP(MD)Nos.18857, 18858 of 2021 and this Court, by order dated 22.08.2022, allowed the writ petitions and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the members of the Society.

4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the meantime, fresh election was conducted and a new set of office bearers assumed charge. They have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7179 of 2023 forbearing the authorities from proceeding with the enquiry initiated under Section 34A of the Act without affording due opportunity to the newly elected office bearers. This Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders after affording due opportunity. However, the respondents have now claimed that they have passed final orders in G.O.Ms.No.17, Commercial Tax and Registration (M-1) Department, as early as on 01.03.2023. According to the learned Senior Counsel, this Government Order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners / the newly elected Management Committee Members and without recalling this Government Order, the first respondent has issued the impugned notice of enquiry, as an eyewash, to show as if they have provided due opportunity.

5. According to the learned Senior Counsel, post decisional opportunity of hearing does not sub-serve the principles of natural justice and in this regard, he has relied on the decision of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in H.L.Trehan & Others v. Union of India & Others, reported in CDJ 1988 SC 029, wherein, it has been held as follows:-

“12. It is, however, contended on behalf of CORIL that after the impugned circular was issued, an opportunity of hearing was given to the employees with regard to the alterations made in the conditions of their service by the impugned circular. In our opinion, the post decisional opportunity of hearing does not sub serve the rules of natural justice. The authority who embarks upon a post-decisional hearing will naturally