Judgment :- 1. The writ petitioner prays for issue of a writ of certiorafified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in M.M. No. 22108/A/86 dated 3.10.1986 on his file confirming the order of the first respondent in ADM 2129/A.2/86 dated 24.3.1986 on file and quash the same. 2. The petitioner, a foreman under the Chit Funds Act 1982, who had submitted an agreement for registration before the 1st respondent, the Joint Registrar of Chits, Tuticorin has filed the above Writ Petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by the deletion of the term “Foremans commission of 5% of the Chit amount in clause IV of the Agreement”. The petitioner Foreman contends that he is entitled to 5% of Chit amount as Foremans commission even from a non prized subscriber. Only in respect of defaulting subscriber, the 1st respondent declined to register the agreement in respect of specific portion of clause IV, by which the stipulation is sought to be provided that the defaulting subscriber is also liable to pay 5% Commission of the chit amount to the Foreman. Clause IV of the agreement for which approval and registration sought for reads as follows:— “The contribution of any defaulting subscriber who is not removed till the termination of the Chit or the contributions of any defaulting subscriber removed under Article VI(3) but not substituted under Article VI(5) under provision of Sec. 29(1) till the termination of the Chit shall, in accordance with Sec. 30(3), if and when he turns up to collect the same within 15 days from the date of termination of the Chit subject to deduction of Foremans commission of 5% of Chit amount . Penalty and interest, if any, paid by him under Sec. 21(1) (c) and Article VI(3), postage, stationery and other incidental charges and any amount due to the Foreman mentioned under Art. 12(2) be paid to the respective defaulting subscriber, or if he does not turn up to collect as aforesaid, be deposited with the approved bank mentioned in Art. 11” The respondent have objected to the underlined portion of Clause IV, on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the provisions of The Chit Funds Act and Rules. The 1st respondent has passed orders on 24.3.1986. The appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent, was also rejected on 3-10-1986. The 1st respondent has passed orders on 24.3.1986. The appeal preferred before the 2nd respondent, was also rejected on 3-10-1986. The order passed by the 2nd respondent, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has not decided the issue, but has merely confirmed the proceedings of the 1st respondent without application of mind. 3. The respondents have filed a counter. In the counter, they have contended that the Foreman of the Chit is entitled to collect or charge 5% or the commission only from the prized subscirbers and not from the non-prized defaulted subscriber. The respondents further contend that the claim of the Foreman for payment of 5% commission even in respect of defaulting subscriber cannot be permitted as it is not in conformity with the statutory provisions. The respondents further contended that under Sec. 30(3) o f the Act, the contributions of any defaulting subscriber who has not been substituted till the termination of the Chit shall be paid to him writhin 15 days from the date of termination of the Chit, subject to such deductions as may be provided for in the Chit agreement”. The respondents further contend that deduction of 5% arise only when the subscriber become a prized-subscriber and only in respect of prized subscriber alone, the Foreman is entitled to deduct 5% commission and not in respect of default ting subscriber. 4. The question that has to be decided in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the Foreman could stipulate in the agreement for payment of 5% commission in respect of defaulting subscriber who had not been substituted. 5. The counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents fairly stated that there is no controversy with regard to the liability to pay 5% commission by the prized subscriber as well as the substituted subscriber when he becomes a prized subscriber. In a given case, whether the Foreman had not substituted the defaulting subscriber whatever be the reason, whether Foreman could stipulate in the agreement to take 5% commission out of the amount payable to the defaulting subscriber at the end of the Chit, while making the payment under Sec. 30 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. 6. The learned counsel Mr. 6. The learned counsel Mr. V. Shanmugam, argued the matter elaborately and he took me through the definition clauses as well as Chapter III, IV and V of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and the corresponding Rules as well as the Format prescribed under the Rules. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Foreman cannot be allowed to deduct or collect 5% commission in respect of the subscriber who has committed default, as according to the counsel, such stipulation runs counter to the provisions of the Act and the Act does not authorise or enable the Foreman to collect 5% commission from the non prized defaulting subscriber. 8. The validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 has already been upheld by the Supreme Court. The challenges made to the Rules framed by the Tamil Nadu Government under Sec. 89 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 have also been rejected. 9. In the Chit business, Foreman enrole a number of subscribers and draws up the terms and conditions of the scheme in the form of an agreement. Every subscriber has to pay his subscription in regular instalments. The Foreman charges, for his service, a commission on which there is a ceiling fixed by law by the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The Foreman is also authorised to take the entire Chit amount at the first or second instalment as prize. Depending upon the terms of the agreement, a fixed amount is also sometimes set aside for distribution among the non-prized members. After making provision for the above deductions, the balance is put to auction (except at the last instalment) and given as prize to the member who is prepared to forego the highest discount. The amount of discount is distributed as dividend among the members. In case more than one person is prepared to offer the same discount or when there are no bidders, lots are drawn to choose the prize winning member. The number of subscribers in a Chit series equals the number of instalments so that every member is assured of the opportunity of getting the prize. The prize winner can get the prize only on furnishing security acceptable to the Foreman for the payment of the remaining instalments. The number of subscribers in a Chit series equals the number of instalments so that every member is assured of the opportunity of getting the prize. The prize winner can get the prize only on furnishing security acceptable to the Foreman for the payment of the remaining instalments. In the event of default by subscribers in payment of instalment on due dates, penalties are imposed in various forms, example forfeiture of dividends or levy of penal interest. Though no rate of interest is specifically mentioned, the deductions on account of discount and the Foremans commission make the loan in a majority of the cases, an interest-bearing one the interest rate depending on the specific terms and conditions under which the scheme operates. 10. Section 2(b) defines the term “Chit” 2(d) defines Chit amount. 2(g) defines discount. 2(m) defines prize amount. Section 6 provides that the agreement shall be signed by each of the subscribers and it shall contain the particulars enumerated in that section. The Chit agreement has to be filed in duplicate by the Foreman with the Registrar in terms of Sec. 7. and a copy of the Chit agreement has to be given to the highest subscriber as provided under Sec. 10 of the Act. Chapter III deals with the Rights and Duties of Foreman. Section. 21 of the Act provides that the Foreman shall be entitled to (1) obtain Chit amount at the first instalment without deduction of the discount specified in the Chit agreement, 2) to such amount not exceeding 5% of the Chit amount as may be fixed in the Chit agreement by way of commission remuneration or for meeting the expenses to run the Chit and (3) to interest and penalty, if any, payable to any defaulter in payment of instalments which are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. Section. 22 defines duties of Foreman. Section. 29 enables the foreman to substitute a subscriber in the place of defaulting subscriber, whose name has been removed under sub-section (1) of Section. 28. Section. 28 provides that non-prized subscriber who defaults in paying the subscription in accordance with the chit agreement, shall be liable to have his name removed from the list of subscribers. Section. Section. 29 enables the foreman to substitute a subscriber in the place of defaulting subscriber, whose name has been removed under sub-section (1) of Section. 28. Section. 28 provides that non-prized subscriber who defaults in paying the subscription in accordance with the chit agreement, shall be liable to have his name removed from the list of subscribers. Section. 30 provides that a Foreman shall, out of the amounts payable by and realised from the substituted subscriber towards the instalments relatable to the period before the date of the substitution, has to be deposited in a separate identifiable account and the same has to be paid as provided for under sub-section (2) of Sec. 30. Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 30 provides that the contribution of any defaulting subscriber who has been substituted till the termination of the Chit shall be paid within 15 days from the date of termination of the Chit, subjects to such deductions as may be provided for in the Chit agreement. 11. The relevant statutory provisions which requires to be considered for the purpose of answering the point raised in this Writ Petition are Sec. 21(1)(d), Sec. 2(d), Sec. 22(4) as well as Sec. 30(1)(3). Section. 21(1)(b) provides that the Foreman shall be entitled to such amount not exceeding 5% of the Chit amount as maybe fixed in the Chit agreement, by way of commission, remuneration or for meeting the expenses of running the Chit. Section 2(d) defines Chit amount. “Chit amount “means sum total of the subscriptions payable by all the subscribers for any instalment of a Chit without any deduction of discount or otherwise.” Section 21(1)(b) read with Sec. 2(d) enables the Foreman to deduct 5% of the Chit amount. Section 21(1)(b) nowhere makes a distinction between the prized subscriber and a non-prized-defaulting subscriber. There is no reason to deny the Foremans 5% commission in respect of non-prized defaulting subscriber. Section 22 prescribes the duties of Foreman. Sub-Sec. (4) of Sec. 22 provides that the Foreman shall not appropriate to himself any amount in excess of what he is entitled to under clause (b) or clause (c) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 21. This provision makes it clear that the Foreman shall not be entitled to any amount in excess of what has been provided for in clause (b) or clause (c) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 21. 12. This provision makes it clear that the Foreman shall not be entitled to any amount in excess of what has been provided for in clause (b) or clause (c) of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 21. 12. Section 30 provides for the payment of the amounts towards instalments relatable to the period before the date of substitution. Section 30(3) directs that the Foreman shall pay the defaulting subscriber who has been substituted till the termination of the Chit, such amount as provided for, subject to deductions as may be provided for in the Chit agreement. The respondents contention that the payment of 5% commission in respect of non-prized-defaulting subscriber would be contrary to the provisions of the Act or Rules, cannot be applied out from any of the aforesaid provisions of any other provisions of the Act. The counter filed by the respondents is also silent, so also the impugned proceedings. Except a general statement, the respondents have not pointed out any portion of the statutory provisions in the Act or the Rules. 13. The established principle of interpretation that the words of the statute are clear, plain or umambiguous i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meeting irrespective of consequences. Tindal, C.J. in Susex Peerage case (1844 II CI & F. 85 page 143) has held thus: “If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves do alone in such cases best declare the intent of the lawgiver.” The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also the what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. It has also been reiterated that the words of the statute are first to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary. 13. It has also been reiterated that the words of the statute are first to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary. 13. The Apex Court in A.I.R. 1992 SC page 1981 ( Nelson Notis v. Union of India) has also laid down the principle thus:— “The language of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 is absolutely clear and does not permit any artificial rule of interpretation to be applied. It is well established that if the words of a statute are clear and free from any vagueness and are, therefore, reasonably susceptible to only one meaning. It must be construed by giving effect to that meaning, respective of consequences. The language of sub-rule here is precise and unambiguous and, therefore, has to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense, As was observed in innumerable cases in India and in England, the expression used in the statute alone declares the intent of the legislature. In the words used by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj (1963) I SCR ( AIR 1963 SC 946 ). When the language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of construction of a statute arises, for the act speaks for itself. Reference was also made in the reported judgment to Maxwell stating:— “The construction must not, of course, be strained to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of the words” Thus on consideration of the provisions of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and the rules framed thereunder and a conjoint reading of Sec. 21(1)(b), Sec. 22(4), and 30(1)(3) and the definition of the Chit amount in Sec. 2(d), indicates that there is nothing in the said provisions or in any other provision of the said enactment to support the contention of the respondents. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. V. Shamugam, is justified in contending that in respect of commission payable to the Foreman, there is no reason at all to allow the commission in respect of prized subscribers alone and deny commission in respect of non-prized-defaulting subscriber. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. V. Shamugam, is justified in contending that in respect of commission payable to the Foreman, there is no reason at all to allow the commission in respect of prized subscribers alone and deny commission in respect of non-prized-defaulting subscriber. As already set out in respect of the substituted prized subscriber, the respondents admit that the Foreman is entitled to 5% commission. In a given case, the default may arise either in the second month or it may arise towards the last quarter of the total period of subscription. There is nothing in the rule which requires the Foreman to substitute for a defaulting subscriber. Taking into consideration of all these aspects and on a consideration of the aforesaid statutory provisions, I am of the view that there is no justification to deny 5% commission to the foreman even in respect of the non-prized-defaulting subscriber. The only amount which the Foreman could deduct from a subscriber is provided for a Sec. 21(1)(b) and such amount has already been stipulated, not to exceed 5% of the Chit amount. Such 5% is by way of commission, remuneration or for meeting the expenses of running the Chit. I do not find any reason to deny the Foreman, his remuneration or reimbursement of expenses incurred by him for running the Chit, even in respect of a non-prized-defaulting subscriber. There is no reason to differentiate between the prized subscriber and a defaulting subscriber with reference to the entitlement of the Foreman to deduct 5% of the Chit amount, as provided for in Sec. 21. 14. In the circumstances, while accepting the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I hold that the Foreman is entitled to 5% commission out of the Chit amount or the amount which is being paid to the defaulting subscriber by the Foreman in terms of Sec. 30 of the Act. The objections raised by the respondents in this respect cannot be sustained. 15. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to register the Chit agreement as originally proposed by the writ petitioner and I further held that there is nothing in the Act which disables the Foreman to collect 5% as commission and other expenses as provided for in the Act from and out of the amounts payable to a non-prized-defaulting subscriber. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.