ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the certificate of registration of the fourth respondent association dated 07.12.2020 issued by the second respondent as null and void.

2. The case of the petitioner is that since there are two associations with the very same objectives, under section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 1994, the second respondent ought not to have registered the fourth respondent association as he does not have the jurisdiction to do so.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 1994 and would submit that it talks only about only one Association in its singular form and does not talk about Associations in plural form. According to him, once an association is registered under the Societies Registration Act and is already in existence, with regard to payment of maintenance amount by the apartment owners, the question of registering one more association with the very same object will not arise.

4. The petitioner claims that he has been paying the maintenance amount to the third respondent association. While that be so, the question of registering another society in the name of the fourth respondent will not arise and it is also barred as per provisions of section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Apartment Owner Act, 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that being an administrative action, the present writ petition is maintainable seeking for declaration as according to him, the second respondent without jurisdiction has registered the fourth respondent Association. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to section 10 of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and would submit that the Registrar ought to have been satisfied before registering the fourth respondent Association.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by total non application of mind to section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the fourth respondent Association has been registered. According to him, since the fourth respondent Association has been registered by the second respondent without jurisdiction, there is no necessity for the petitioner to seek for cancellation of registration of the fourth respondent Association under section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2007 passed in W.A.No.1333 of 2007 in the case of R.Muralidaran and others vs. The District Registrar and another and would submit that as seen from paragraph No.21(a) of the said judgment, section 10(1) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 empowers the Registrar to issue a Certificate of Registration to a Society, on being satisfied that the association has complied with the provisions of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, unless and until the fourth respondent association has satisfied the statutory requirement as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the second respondent ought not to have registered the fourth respondent association. According to him, for similar objects, the third respondent association is already in existence and therefore, the registration of the fourth respondent association by the second respondent is illegal.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that the petitioner is a defaulter in the payment of the maintenance amount to the fourth respondent association. He would also submit that even as per the invoices filed by the petitioner in the additional typed set of papers, the petitioner has not paid the invoice amount to the third respondent also. According to him, the petitioner is a chronic defaulter in the payment of the maintenance amount. He would also submit that as per section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it is clear that word