IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WA No. 1899 of 2023 and C.M.P.Nos.16383 & 16385 of 2023 Natasha Storey Evergreen, Auroville, Tamilnadu 605 101.

..Appellant(s)

Vs The Auroville Foundation Rep by its Secretary, Auroville Foundation Bhavan, Auroville 605 101.

..Respondent(s)

WA No. 1899 of 2023 To set aside the Order dated 13-10-2022 passed in W.P.No.22895 of 2022.

WA No. 1899 of 2023 For Appellant(s): Mr.P.V.Balasurbrmanain Senior counsel for Mr.M.V.Swaroop For Respondent(s): Mr.Vaibhav r.venkatesh for Mr..Anirudh.A.Sriram

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present intra-Court Appeal has been instituted under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the writ order dated 13.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.22895 of 2022.

2. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The writ petition has been instituted challenging the office order dated 01.06.2022 issued by the respondent Auroville Foundation and to direct the respondent to appoint the members nominated by the Residents’ Assembly through its work council to the Auroville Town Development Committee.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the issues raised in the present writ appeal are no more res integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has already validated the Standing order dated

01.06.2022. Therefore, the writ appeal is to be rejected.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the gazette notification in respect of the Standing Order was made on 15.07.2022 and the order dated 01.06.2022 was passed prior to the gazette notification and therefore, on that ground, the Standing Order is to be set aside.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no specific provision under the Auroville Act mandating gazette notification and by abundant caution, gazette notification was made.

Therefore, the said ground raised on behalf of the appellant is untenable. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves no merit consideration, since the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India elaborately considered the validity of the Standing Order dated 01.06.2022 and para Nos. 16,18 and 19 of the Judgement in the case of Auroville Foundation vs.

Natasha Storey reported in 2020 INSC 348 reads as under:

17. Having regard to the statutory provisions in the Act and the Rules, we are of the opinion that the impugned Standing Order 01.06.2022 containing the Standing Order No. 01/2022 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. There is no legal or statutory right conferred upon the Residents’ Assembly or upon an individual resident to be part of any committee/council constituted by the Governing Board in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 11(3), 16(1) and 17(e) of the said Act read with Rule 5(1) and 5(2) of the said Rules. The functions of the Residents’ Assembly are confined only to advise the Governing Board in respect of the activities relating to the residents of Auroville and to make recommendations as specified in Section 19 of the Act, and not any further.

18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the High Court has thoroughly misdirected itself in misinterpreting the provisions of the A.F. Act and in setting aside the impugned Notification containing the Standing Order dated 01.06.2022. The impugned Order being highly erroneous deserves to be set aside, and is hereby set aside.

19. As demonstrated earlier, some disgruntled and discontented residents kept on filing petitions one after the other dragging the Appellant-Foundation into unnecessary litigations. The Writ Petition filed by the respondent before the High Court was one of such illmotivated petitions filed by her to abuse the process of law, to hamper the development of Auroville and to cause obstructions in the smooth functioning of the Governing Board of the Fou