Judgment :- The petitioners, who are 41 in number, seek for a writ of Declaration, declaring the election held by the eighth respondent (Election Officer) to the Executive Committee of the first respondent society on 29.5.2003 and the election result published on the same day as null and void and directing the eighth respondent to prepare a fresh list of voters including the petitioners and others whose agricultural lands are irrigated by the first respondent Society and to hold fresh election to the Executive Committee of the first respondent Society according to the Rules and bye-laws. 2. According to the petitioners, the Navalidian Small Farmers' Group Irrigation Society, the first respondent society, (hereinafter called "the society"), was formed and registered on 13.6.1994 under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The society is managed by an Executive Committee consisting of a President, Secretary, Treasurer and four Executive Officers to be elected by the General Body, once in three years. By G.O.Ms.No.192 dated 15.3.1995, the Government permitted the society to pump water from three wells in the paddy lands belonging to its members in Survey No.131/3 of Mohanur Village, by installing three electric pump sets and laying pipelines to irrigate 214 acres of dry lands owned by 199 members of the society. 3. The petitioners contend that the first Executive Committee of the society consisted of seven persons, the second respondent as the President, one Ramalingam as the Secretary and respondents-4 to 7 as Executive Members and the third respondent as Treasurer. However, the Committee, according to the petitioners, did not conduct the affairs of the society properly. Though the lands of the petitioners were being irrigated by the society, their names were not entered in the register of members. However, the society was collecting the charges from all persons whose lands were supplied with water. After the expiry of the tenure of the first committee, no General Body Meeting was held for the election of fresh committee. Two different groups, one headed by the second respondent and another headed by Ramalingam, who was the Secretary of the first Committee, were claiming that the Committee headed by them was the properly elected Executive Committee. They were running parallel administration, creating confusion and obstacles in the smooth running of the society. 4. Two different groups, one headed by the second respondent and another headed by Ramalingam, who was the Secretary of the first Committee, were claiming that the Committee headed by them was the properly elected Executive Committee. They were running parallel administration, creating confusion and obstacles in the smooth running of the society. 4. Complaints were made to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, regarding the mismanagement of the society and he conducted an enquiry and passed an order on 31.12.1998, whereby, inter alia, the society was directed to enrol all the farmers whose lands are irrigated, as members of the society. 5. However, according to the petitioners, in spite of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioners were not made members. Therefore, a memorandum dated 23.6.1999 was given to the District Collector by 52 persons, referring to the non-compliance of the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Another complaint was given on 30.10.2000. A further complaint was again given on 29.12.2000, requesting the immediate intervention of the Collector. A memorandum to the Registrar General of Societies was also given with a list of persons who have to be made as members of the society. 6. In the meantime, Ramalingam and others filed O.S.No.94 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif, Namakkal, against the second respondent for a declaration that they are the legally elected Executive Committee of the society and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants-1 to 6 from interfering with the management of the society. A counter suit was filed by the second respondent and his supporters in O.S.No.136 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif, Namakkal, for a declaration that they are the legally elected Executive Committee. Both the suits were tried together, and by a common judgment dated 18.12.2002, the trial Court dismissed both the suits, holding that neither of the Committees was a legally constituted Committee of the society. As against the judgment in O.S.No.94 of 2001, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.16 of 2003, while the rival group filed A.S.No.19 of 2003 as against the judgment in O.S.No.136 of 2001. I.A.No.1 of 2003 was filed for appointment of Receiver to take charge of the administration of the society. On the dismissal of the said application on 28.1.2003, Ramalingam and others filed C.M.A.No.514 of 2003 before this Court. I.A.No.1 of 2003 was filed for appointment of Receiver to take charge of the administration of the society. On the dismissal of the said application on 28.1.2003, Ramalingam and others filed C.M.A.No.514 of 2003 before this Court. By consent order dated 31.3.2003, this Court appointed the District Registrar of Societies, Namakkal, to be the Election Officer to hold an election to the society in terms of the bye-laws. The Registrar was also directed to prepare the electoral roll of all eligible persons to vote, publish the list of members, notify the election and to hold the election by secret ballot in terms of the bye-laws. The petitioners submit that pursuant to the order of the High Court, the eighth respondent issued a notice on 16.4.2003, directing the Executive Committee headed by the second respondent to appear before him with a list of members of the society. The society filed a list of members whose lands were being irrigated through the society with details regarding the survey numbers and extent comprising of 199 members. It was also brought to the notice of the eighth respondent that some of the original members died and that their legal representatives have become the permit holders and in respect of some of the members, there was transfer of ownership by partition or by sale and that the total number of permit holders had increased to 247. 7. On 9.5.2003, the eighth respondent published the election schedule and in the schedule, only seven persons were shown as members of the society. On 10.5.2003, some of the petitioners gave telegram to the eighth respondent, requesting him to consider the applications filed by 247 persons before proceeding with the election and to enrol them as members. They also requested the eighth respondent to stop the election proceedings till the voters' list was finalised. As no action was taken on the application, a petition was submitted on 15.5.2002 to the eighth respondent, stating that all the 247 persons who were irrigating the lands should be made as members and any election conducted with seven members alone will be an invalid election. The Election Officer passed an order on 16.5.2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioners as well as the other members. The Election Officer passed an order on 16.5.2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioners as well as the other members. The only ground stated therein was that they have not been made members of the society with the approval of the Executive Committee and that there was no evidence to show that they have been made members of the society. After rejecting the petitioners' claim, the Election Officer published the final list and nominations showing only the names of seven members contesting for the seven posts. Protesting against the manner in which the election was conducted, one of the candidates, Ramalingam, withdrew his nomination for the post of President. His withdrawal was not accepted by the Election Officer on the ground that it was beyond the time granted for withdrawal of the nomination. On 29.5.2003, the election was conducted and the result was declared on the same day, declaring the second respondent as President and respondents-3 to 7 as members of the Executive Committee. Aggrieved by the said action of the Election Officer, the petitioners have approached this Court. 8. The first respondent society has filed a counter affidavit denying the various contentions raised in the affidavit in support of the writ petition. It is stated that after the expiry of the term of the first Executive Committee, General Body Meetings were held once in three years and new Committees were constituted. There were no two groups nor any parallel administration. The second respondent was the founder of the first respondent society, and with his efforts, the society was formed and permission was granted in G.O.Ms.No.192 dated 15.3.1995. He had convened the General Body Meetings as per the bye-laws of the society and he was acting as the President right from the inception of the society. While so, two suits came to be filed before the District Munsif, Namakkal, and they were dismissed. In the appeals, application for appointment of Commissioner was filed and the second application was dismissed. In C.M.A.No.514 of 2003, this Court had appointed the District Registrar to conduct the election. The first and second respondents, after convening a General Body Meeting, had submitted the necessary documents to the District Registrar, Namakkal, upto the year 2003. On 29.6.2003, a resolution was also passed in the General Body Meeting to admit 109 persons as members of the society. The first and second respondents, after convening a General Body Meeting, had submitted the necessary documents to the District Registrar, Namakkal, upto the year 2003. On 29.6.2003, a resolution was also passed in the General Body Meeting to admit 109 persons as members of the society. Prior to this, only seven members were registered as members of the society. All the necessary records have been submitted to the District Registrar upto the year 2004. The accounts of the society were properly maintained and audited and there was no mismanagement of the society, as averred by the petitioners. The petitioners are not members of the society and hence, they have no locus standi to complain against the society. When the petitioners themselves have admitted that they are not the members, they cannot claim any right to participate in the election. 9. It is further stated that the petitioners and others approached the first respondent to admit them as members of the respondent society and promised to contribute the necessary subscription charges. On the basis of the said request, the respondent forwarded the list to the District Registrar without placing it before the General Body and getting its approval. Hence, the District Registrar rejected the said list. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to be the members of the society. As there are only seven members in the society they alone can participate in the election. The election was conducted as per the directions of the Division Bench. 10. The second respondent, in his counter affidavit, has denied the allegations of the petitioner that the affairs of the society was not properly conducted. After the expiry of the term of the First Executive Committee, General Body Meetings were held once in three years and new committees were constituted. It was false to allege that there were two groups, one headed by the second respondent and the other by one Ramalingam, running parallel administration. The second respondent claims to be the Founder of the Society, which was formed with the permission granted by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.192 dated 15.3.1995. Thereafter, he was elected as the President. He has been convening General Body Meetings as per the bye-laws and had been functioning as the President right from the inception of the Society. The second respondent claims to be the Founder of the Society, which was formed with the permission granted by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.192 dated 15.3.1995. Thereafter, he was elected as the President. He has been convening General Body Meetings as per the bye-laws and had been functioning as the President right from the inception of the Society. However, one suit by the petitioner and another suit by the respondents were filed before the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, and the same were dismissed. Separate appeals were filed by both the parties. In I.A.No.1 of 2003 in A.S.No.16 of 2003, the appointment of a Commissioner was sought for. The said I.A. was dismissed and Ramalingam and others filed C.M.A.No.514 of 2003. While disposing of the said appeal, this Court was pleased to appoint the District Registrar to conduct the election of the Society. Again, the second respondent was elected as the President in the election conducted by the District Registrar in terms of the directions of this Court in C.M.A.No.514 of 2003. On 29.6.2003, a resolution was passed in the General Body Meeting to admit 109 persons as members of the Society, and prior to this, only seven persons were registered as members of the Society. The necessary records were submitted to the District Registrar. 11. The second respondent further contends that the petitioners have no locus standi to complain against the Society, as they themselves admit that they are not the members of the Society. The said Ramalingam was interfering with the effective management of the Society by filing vexatious suits. The petitioners and others approached the first respondent to admit them as members of the Society and promised to contribute the necessary charges and subscription. On the basis of the said request, the first respondent forwarded the list to the District Registrar without placing it before the General Body and getting its approval by a resolution. Therefore, the District Registrar rightly rejected the list and hence, the petitioners are not members of the Society and cannot claim any legal right as members. Since they are the only seven members of the Society, they alone can participate in the election. The election was conducted as per the directions of this Court and there was no illegality in the conduct of the election. Since they are the only seven members of the Society, they alone can participate in the election. The election was conducted as per the directions of this Court and there was no illegality in the conduct of the election. It is further stated that the said Ramalingam has not challenged the election and the writ petition filed by the petitioners, who have no locus standi, cannot be entertained. 12. It is further stated that neither 199 persons nor 247 persons were admitted as members of the Society. The mere passing of the Government Order will not confer any right on the petitioners unless they are admitted as members. The Revenue Divisional Officer and officers have no authority to direct the respondents to admit persons as members of the Society. 13. Mr.K.Yamunan, learned counsel for the petitioner, after referring to G.O.Ms.No.192 P.W.D. Dated 15.3.1995, recognising the rights of 199 members of the Society to irrigate their lands of an extent of 214 acres of dry land, also referred to the direction of the Division Bench of this Court, appointing the District Registrar of Societies, Namakkal, to conduct the election after preparation of the Electoral Roll, to decide who are eligible to vote, publish the list of members and notify and conduct the election in terms of the bye-laws of the Society and to declare the results before 30.5.2003. On the contrary, the Registrar chose to call only the seven members of the Executive Committee. However, a list of 199 members appears to have been submitted by the Society itself. Even so, the Registrar sent a letter again only to the seven members to meet him on 5.5.2003. In the election notice dated 9.5.2003, the Registrar observes that in terms of the Annual Report, only seven members were entitled to vote. The election schedule was also announced to be conducted on 19.5.2003. Even before the said date, on 12.5.2003, the other members had sent an objection to the manner in which the election was sought to be conducted. On the same day, applications were also submitted by 110 persons for being enrolled as members. However, without any justification, the said objections and the applications were rejected and only seven persons were permitted to participate in the election. On the same day, applications were also submitted by 110 persons for being enrolled as members. However, without any justification, the said objections and the applications were rejected and only seven persons were permitted to participate in the election. This was contrary to the specific directions of this Court in the C.M.A. The action and the conduct of the Election Officer was also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.192 and the specific directions of the Court. The petitioners were complaining that the Society was refusing to accept the payment of subscription and it is not the case of the Society that the members had not paid the subscription in spite of any notice or directions from the Society to pay the subscriptions. Therefore, in the interest of proper functioning of the Society, there has to be a direction for proper enlistment of the members, if necessary, by asking them to pay the arrears of subscription, if any, and to conduct the election only thereafter. 14. Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Secretary of the society, contends that the petitioners have not furnished any particulars regarding their membership. No individual, who is not a valid or effective member, as approved by the Executive Committee, could claim to be a valid member and be permitted by the Election Officer to vote in the election. If any such permission was granted, it would be against the bye-laws and the directions of this Court. The petitioners have, therefore, no locus standi. If they had lost their own status of membership by defaulting the payment of subscription and thereby ceased to be members, they cannot be heard to complain against the Society or the President. 15. The next submission of the learned Special Government Pleader was that the issues raised by the petitioners being purely factual, namely, whether they are the members of the Society or not, cannot be entertained in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Contested facts have to be adjudicated and the same cannot be entertained in a writ petition. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in 1997 (2) CTC 507 (M.S.D.THENRAJA V. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT, ST.THOMAS MOUNT, CHENNAI) in support of his contention that the petitioners should be directed to pursue alternate remedies available to them. 16. Contested facts have to be adjudicated and the same cannot be entertained in a writ petition. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in 1997 (2) CTC 507 (M.S.D.THENRAJA V. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTONMENT, ST.THOMAS MOUNT, CHENNAI) in support of his contention that the petitioners should be directed to pursue alternate remedies available to them. 16. Learned counsel for the second respondent, while adopting the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader, also contended that the appropriate forum for deciding the issue was only the civil Court and not by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners could have also approached the higher authorities under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 17. Learned Additional Government Pleader, representing the Registrar, contended that the Registrar will abide by any directions which may be issued by the Court in the background of the facts and circumstances. The Registrar had proceeded with the holding of the elections, as there were no materials before him disclosing that the petitioners were, as on the date, valid members having paid the subscription upto date. 18. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 19. The facts and circumstances indicate that the affairs of the Society had not been properly conducted, consistent with the object under which the Society was permitted to utilise water from the three wells to irrigate 214 acres of dry lands. To appreciate this conclusion, it is necessary to deal with the facts relating to the establishment of the first respondent Society and the Government Order issued by the Government. 20. The Society was formed and registered in the year 1994 and on the representation made by the Society to the Government, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.192, P.W.D. dated 15.3.1995, treating the request of the Society as a special case. The Government ordered as follows, with certain specific conditions as enumerated in the enclosure to the order: "3. 20. The Society was formed and registered in the year 1994 and on the representation made by the Society to the Government, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.192, P.W.D. dated 15.3.1995, treating the request of the Society as a special case. The Government ordered as follows, with certain specific conditions as enumerated in the enclosure to the order: "3. The Government after careful consideration of the whole matter and pending a final decision on the question of imposing a general ban on such water drawal, have decided, as a special case, to permit Navaladian Small Farmers' Lift Irrigation Society, Mohanur Village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District, in relaxation of G.O.Ms.No.838, Public Works, dated 15.3.63, to pump water from three wells, in the patta lands belonging to its members only, in S.No.131/3 of Mohanur Village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District, located at a distance of 10 metres from the river Cauvery boundary, by installing three electric motor pumpsets and laying pipelines, to irrigate 214 acres of dry lands owned by 199 members of the Society, subject to the conditions stipulated in the annexure to this order and also to any other conditions which might be imposed by the Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Public Works Department, Madras, in future. " 21. From the beginning, there appears to have been controversy relating to the administration of the Society between two groups. In the year 1998, the dispute spilled over the Society, resulting in a Peace Committee Meeting consisting of the District Superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar and the Member of Legislative Assembly, Kabilarmalai Constituency. There appears to have been arrears of contribution to be made by the Society to the Government for the implementation of the Scheme. A perusal of the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, dated 31.12.1998 in Ka.Mu.Ve.187/98 reveals that it was resolved that all arrears should be recovered by 10.11.1998, and for the future, on the second day of every month. The Tahsildar shall scrutinise the collection and fix the contribution per acre. A Committee of five members headed by the Tahsildar was also constituted. One of the resolutions discloses that all the ryots/agriculturists entitled to irrigation should be enrolled as members. This resolution signifies that there has been a controversy regarding the enrolment and grievance of a large Section that they were not permitted to be enrolled and no receipts were issued for their contribution which they have paid. One of the resolutions discloses that all the ryots/agriculturists entitled to irrigation should be enrolled as members. This resolution signifies that there has been a controversy regarding the enrolment and grievance of a large Section that they were not permitted to be enrolled and no receipts were issued for their contribution which they have paid. Another resolution states that under no circumstances, there should be extension of the extent of lands to be irrigated beyond 329 acres. It is not known as to how the extent of the land was increased from 214 acres as contemplated under the Government Order and owned by 199 members. 22. Even thereafter, there appears to have been controversy regarding the enrolment, collection of contribution and non-issue of receipts. By a representation dated 23.6.1999, addressed to the Collector and other authorities by about 52 persons, they have complained that none of the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.12.1998 had been complied with by the President and allegations have been made against him, inclusive of financial irregularities. There is also a demand that the owners are not enrolled as members and that for payment of all amounts, proper receipts should be issued. In a further representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 30.10.2000 also, the same allegations have been made and there is also a demand that that there should be a proper election of the President in a democratic manner. In a representation to the District Collector dated 29.12.2000, signed by about 52 persons, they have alleged that their request to be enrolled as members was not complied with by the second respondent and that he had appointed about seven persons of his own choice as Committee Members. It is also alleged that he was accustomed to regulate the supply of water by himself in an arbitrary manner. 23. This Court need not adjudicate at this stage on the allegations against the second respondent, more so in this writ petition which is directed only against the holding of the election by the Registrar pursuant to the directions of this Court in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, except to the extent that the allegations signify unfair conduct of the election. 23. This Court need not adjudicate at this stage on the allegations against the second respondent, more so in this writ petition which is directed only against the holding of the election by the Registrar pursuant to the directions of this Court in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, except to the extent that the allegations signify unfair conduct of the election. Suffice it to say that complaints given by a sizable group of persons had not attracted the attention of the Authorities to look into the allegations and to rectify the same and to find out whether there was any truth in the allegations against the second respondent. The most important allegation relevant for the purpose of this writ petition is the allegation that the second respondent was refusing to enrol them as members and that receipts were not being issued for the payments under various heads. It is pertinent to note that such allegations have not surfaced only now in this writ petition, questioning the conduct of the election and declaration of result by the Registrar. Such allegations have been made from the beginning eversince the issue of G.O.Ms.No.192 dated 15.3.1995. 24. It is rather unfortunate that neither the Revenue Divisional Officer nor the Collector had thought it fit to devote their attention to the complaints pertaining to the irrigation rights granted for about 199 families of agriculturists as a special case under G.O.Ms.No.192. The Government Order visualises proper supervision by the Authorities, which does not appear to have been complied with even in the face of serious and repeated complaints. 25. Now, coming to the impugned issue of holding of the election, the Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 31.3.2003 in C.M.A.No.514 of 2003, directed the Registrar to "prepare the electoral roll who are eligible to vote, publish the list of members, notify the election, hold the election by secret ballot in terms of the bye-laws of the Society and declare the result before 30th May, 2003." It is further stated that the Registrar would be competent to decide all disputes as regards qualification or disqualification of the members regarding their right to contest and vote. In the said background, the least which is expected of the Registrar was to have called both the parties and to have asked for proof of membership. In the said background, the least which is expected of the Registrar was to have called both the parties and to have asked for proof of membership. On the contrary, it is surprising to see that he specifically calls for only seven members of the Committee. By a letter dated 16.4.2003, he calls upon only the said seven persons to appear before him on 22.4.2003 with proof of membership. In the meantime, the Society itself furnishes the list of 199 members (194 in Unit-I and 5 in Unit-II). Ramalingam, one of the Committee Members, also submits a list of members containing more than 250 members. The Registrar, even then, does not choose to issue a general notice calling on the said members, if not individual notice, at least a notice on the notice board of his office or of the society. But again he issues a letter on 30.4.2003 only to the second respondent and Ramalingam with a direction that the seven members of the Committee may attend the meeting convened on 5.5.2003. He does not even choose to issue notice to all the seven appellants in the C.M.A., for reasons known only to the Registrar. It would be a different issue if after the issue of notice to the said six persons they are unable to properly satisfy their membership by production of proper materials. But the fact remains that the Registrar does not even send any notice to all the contesting parties who are the appellants in C.M.A.No.514 of 2003, and proceeds to fix the Election Schedule. 26. Aggrieved by the fixation of Election Schedule and the action of the Registrar not taking steps to give opportunity to the other members regarding their claim of membership, about 41 members sent a representation to the Registrar on 9.5.2003, objecting to the action of the Registrar and bringing to his notice, the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, dated 31.12.1998 that all the ryots should be made members of the Society and that the said directions have not been complied with. Another representation of one P.Ganesan, the sixth petitioner in the writ petition, dated 12.5.2003, is also sent to the Registrar, enclosing 110 applications by various individuals seeking enrolment as members. Another representation of one P.Ganesan, the sixth petitioner in the writ petition, dated 12.5.2003, is also sent to the Registrar, enclosing 110 applications by various individuals seeking enrolment as members. All the said representations are ignored by the Registrar, and by order dated 16.5.2003, he passes an order that none of the objectors have produced any material to show that their membership had been approved by the Executive Committee and that in terms of the Rules of the Society, members can be enrolled only on approval by the Executive Committee and consequently rejecting their objections and applications. 27. On 19.5.2003, he accepts the nominations/ applications of only seven members of the Committee and rejects 21 other applications on the ground that they do not satisfy Bye-law No.10 of the bye-laws of the Society. For the post of President, the second respondent and Ramalingam submitted their nominations. On 20.5.2003, Ramalingam, one of the seven Executive Members who had filed the nominations for the post of President, objects to the order of the Registrar and withdraws his nomination. But, by a letter dated 21.5.2003, the Registrar rejects the letter of withdrawal of Ramalingam on the ground that the letter of withdrawal had been submitted belatedly. On 29.5.2003, the Registrar passes an order, announcing the results of the election, declaring the second respondent as President and from among the other five members of the Executive Committee, Chinnasamy is declared elected as Secretary, Srirangan as Treasurer and three others as Executive Committee Members. 28. In the background of the facts stated above, I find that the action of the Registrar is not only irregular, but also partisan, betraying an attitude to favour the second respondent and his group of members of the Executive Committee at any cost. My conclusion is based on the following facts and circumstances: (i) The Division Bench, by its order in the C.M.A., directed the Registrar to decide all the disputes relating to the qualification or disqualification of the members. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the Registrar to bear in mind the disputes relating to qualification or disqualification. That could be achieved only by calling upon all the parties to the C.M.A. and to substantiate their claims. In the appeal, there are seven appellants and seven respondents whose addresses are disclosed and nothing prevented the Registrar to give notice to them and call upon them to substantiate their claims. That could be achieved only by calling upon all the parties to the C.M.A. and to substantiate their claims. In the appeal, there are seven appellants and seven respondents whose addresses are disclosed and nothing prevented the Registrar to give notice to them and call upon them to substantiate their claims. On the contrary, he sends notice only to the respondents in the appeal and Ramalingam who is one of the seven members of the Committee. Curiously, he directs that only those seven persons should meet him. This signifies the partisan attitude on the part of the Registrar from the very inception. (ii) The Society itself has submitted a list of 199 members, which is very conveniently ignored by the Registrar. What is the basis on which he assumes that they are not members, is not clearly stated. In the meantime, he is confronted with two representations objecting to the approach of the Registrar meeting only seven members of the Executive Committee alone and holding that they are alone entitled to vote. Even then, he does not make any attempt to call at least some of the rival members who were parties to the C.M.A. before this Court, to substantiate their claims. But, without any enquiry, only on the basis of the one-sided information furnished to him by the seven members, he concludes that nobody else has the approval of the Executive Committee and that hence, none of them are valid members. (iii) Again, by letter dated 30.4.2003, he calls for only the seven members of the committee. From among seven members, notice is sent only to the second respondent and Ramalingam. (iv) 41 objectors, in their letter dated 12.5.2003, have represented that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, had directed on 31.12.1998 that all the agriculturists under the Scheme should be enrolled as members and that the said direction had not been complied with by the second respondent. They also pointed out that their repeated representations for enrolment and payment of subscription have been ignored and that it would be meaningless to conduct the election only with seven members of the Executive Committee. The Registrar, who is the competent authority under the Societies Registration Act, ought to have seen that all is not well with the constitution and the functioning of the society. The Registrar, who is the competent authority under the Societies Registration Act, ought to have seen that all is not well with the constitution and the functioning of the society. In G.O.No.192 itself, the Government had clearly indicated that the society consists of 199 members owning 214 acres and they are the beneficiaries under the Government order. In the said background, he ought to have felt that it would be a ridiculous exercise to conduct the election with seven members. There was time enough for him to have approached the High Court for further directions and guidance in the matter on the basis of the facts gathered by him. On the contrary, he pushes through the election schedule and again calls only on the seven members of the Committee to be present, by his letter dated 30.4.2003. It does not strike him that there cannot be an Executive Committee without a General Body. In the said background, he ought to have approached this Court, placed all the facts and requested for further directions.` (v) The Registrar did not care to ask the first or second respondents as to what happened to the 199 members, as disclosed in the list submitted by the Society. The Registrar does not appear to have raised any such query to the second respondent, nor has he recorded any reference or order indicating any enquiry with the second respondent or the first respondent regarding the fate of 199 members. (vi) The Registrar had allowed himself to be guided by the second respondent and his supporters blindly, who are the respondents in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Ramalingam had been expressing his protest, as could be seen from his letter of withdrawal. In the said background, the truth of the membership and claim of the other objectors in their letter dated 12.5.2003 and the applications by 110 members by their letter dated 12.5.2003 could have been ascertained only by giving them the opportunity to appear before him by producing materials to support their claims. But, on the contrary, from the beginning, he had chosen to entertain only the seven members of the Committee by his letters dated 16.4.2003 and 30.4.2003 and he has been very careful enough only to call upon the seven members and guided only by them. But, on the contrary, from the beginning, he had chosen to entertain only the seven members of the Committee by his letters dated 16.4.2003 and 30.4.2003 and he has been very careful enough only to call upon the seven members and guided only by them. In his letter dated 16.4.2003, after enlisting the names of the seven members, he specifically directs that only those seven members should meet him on 22.4.2003 and substantiate their claims. In his subsequent letter dated 30.4.2003 also, even after he had received the objections from the other members, he is careful enough to call only the seven members alone which is very strange. (vii) The entire action of the Registrar is contrary to the directions of the High Court in C.M.A.No.514 of 2003. As pointed out earlier, the High Court had directed to decide all the disputes regarding the qualification and disqualification of the members. In his letter dated 16.4.2003, the Registrar had called upon the Executive Committee Members to produce the list of members. That being so, the only basis on which the Registrar comes to the conclusion that there are no other valid members is based on the representation of the second respondent on the ground that they do not have the approval of the Committee in terms of the bye-laws. Such a conclusion is arrived at by the Registrar without issuing notice to the appellants in the C.M.A. at whose instance the High Court had passed orders. 29. The above facts clearly establish that the election thus conducted by the Registrar is only a farce and not in keeping up with the expectations of the High Court when it directed him to hold the election after resolving all the disputes relating to qualification and disqualification. The fact that the Registrar had colluded with the second respondent and acted on his dictation is very clear from the above-stated facts. It is rather unfortunate that the second respondent, who claims to have been instrumental in the creation of the Society, had become autocratic and his very counter affidavit itself in this writ petition is sufficient proof of some of the allegations made against him by the other members. It is rather unfortunate that the second respondent, who claims to have been instrumental in the creation of the Society, had become autocratic and his very counter affidavit itself in this writ petition is sufficient proof of some of the allegations made against him by the other members. The tone of his counter affidavit discloses that even 57 years after independence, such autocracy and highhandedness do exist and the Executive meekly submits to the whims and fancies of the second respondent and no action is taken against him by any of the responsible authorities in spite of several complaints. Not even an attempt is made to investigate into the complaints against him. 30. To appreciate my conclusion as above, it is appropriate to bear in mind certain factual details. The Society had been formed even prior to the issue of G.O.Ms. No.192 dated 15.3.1995. That is admitted by the second respondent himself, in the counter affidavit. In the Government Order, it is clearly stated that the proposal relates to irrigate 214 acres of dry lands owned by 199 members of the Society. I have already referred to the fact that from the beginning, there are demands and objections from among most of the owners that they are not being enrolled as members and receipts were not issued for the contribution/payments made by them. Repeated representations were made raising such complaints. A Peace Committee Meeting is held and the Revenue Divisional Officer directs that all the ryots should be enrolled as members. As a result of non-compliance of the said direction, further complaints are made to the Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer without any result. The contention of the second respondent before the Registrar/Election Officer, as reflected in the order of the Registrar, is that there are only seven valid members as on date. 31. In this background, the stand taken by the second respondent in the counter affidavit has to be considered, which reflect not only self-contradictory statements, but also utter disregard to truth and the authority of the Revenue Divisional Officer to properly regulate the Scheme, as approved by the Government. 32. While denying the allegation that the affairs of the Society is not properly managed, he would state that after the expiry of the term of the First Executive Committee, General Body Meetings were held once in three years and new Committees were constituted. After G.O.Ms. 32. While denying the allegation that the affairs of the Society is not properly managed, he would state that after the expiry of the term of the First Executive Committee, General Body Meetings were held once in three years and new Committees were constituted. After G.O.Ms. No.192 dated 15.3.1995 was issued, it is stated that General Body Meetings were convened and he was being elected as the President. If the said statement of the second respondent is true, then, the General Body should have been in existence at the time of the impugned election as well. For the purpose of contending that the affairs of the Committee were being conducted properly, he would state that there was a General Body and that the meetings of the General Body were periodically convened and that he was being elected as President from the inception. But, when it comes to the issue of members/voters eligible to vote, only seven members of the Executive Committee alone are stated to be valid members. 33. In paragraphs 15 and 16 of the affidavit, the petitioner had stated that the first and second respondents had furnished a list of members whose lands are being irrigated through the Society. But, in the election schedule, only seven persons have been shown as eligible to vote. In dealing with the said allegation, in paragraph 9 of his counter affidavit, the second respondent would state that when the petitioners had approached the Society, on the basis of the request of the petitioners, the Secretary (first respondent) had forwarded the list to the Registrar without placing it before the General Body and getting its approval by a resolution and therefore, it was rightly rejected by the Registrar. At this stage, it is pertinent to bear in mind that it was the Secretary of the Society who had given the list of members of the Society (199) to the Registrar. When the members wanted to pay the necessary charges, though the Secretary sent it to the Registrar, the second respondent promptly objects to the same on the ground of non-approval by the General Body. In other words, according to him, it is only the seven members of the Executive Committee who are members of the General Body. There is no explanation as to what happened to the 199 members of the Society, the list of which was furnished by the Society itself. 34. In other words, according to him, it is only the seven members of the Executive Committee who are members of the General Body. There is no explanation as to what happened to the 199 members of the Society, the list of which was furnished by the Society itself. 34. Another revelation by a subsequent event after the conclusion of the impugned election is also enlightening as to what extent the second respondent is prepared to go. In paragraph 5, it is stated that on 29.6.2003, a resolution was passed in the General Body Meeting to admit 109 persons. This means, within one month after the impugned election, 109 persons are admitted into the General Body, but it was not possible to do so before the election on 29.5.2004. There is no reason why such enrolment was not made before the election which would have sanctified the election more real and meaningful instead of seven members of the Committee calling themselves as "all in all" and that the General Body comprises of only themselves. It is thus obvious that the election thus conducted is totally illegal. Finding that the Court may come down heavily on the stand of the respondents, and that there was no General Body worth mentioning, the respondents hurriedly enrol 109 members after the election. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit in the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the agriculturists who have been irrigating the lands in terms of the Government Order, have not been entered in the register of members, even though the society was collecting charges from all the said individuals. It is pertinent to note that in the counter affidavit of the first respondent/Society, there is no denial at all of the said allegation, except for stating that the petitioners were not members of the Society. The allegations thus made are very serious, but curiously, the Society does not plead any specific denial. Only the second respondent would say that the members have not paid the charges. The allegations thus made are very serious, but curiously, the Society does not plead any specific denial. Only the second respondent would say that the members have not paid the charges. This is proved to be false by his own subsequent statement to the following effect in paragraph 17 of his counter affidavit while dealing with the allegation of the petitioner regarding the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer: "I respectfully submit that with regard to the averments made in ground (h) and (g), it is submitted that the R.D.O. and officers have no authority to direct the respondents to admit persons as members of the Society. " 35. The above contention of the second respondent not only reveals his determined refusal to enrol all the members, but also exposes the highhandedness on his part in stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer and other officers have no authority to direct the respondents to admit persons as members of the Society. His attitude is one of "come what may", but he will not obey the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, which was issued on the understanding reached at the Peace Committee Meeting. 36. The Peace Committee Meeting was itself conducted obviously in view of the law and order situation which arose as a result of the complaints against the second respondent and his refusal to enrol the members. The Peace Committee consisted of the top officers of the District, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar and the local Member of Legislative Assembly. The decision taken in the Peace Committee Meeting pertains to the manner of collection of the charges payable to the authorities on behalf of the Society and a direction to properly enrol all the owners entitled to receive the supply as members of the Society. The decision of the Peace Committee Meeting was specifically addressed to the second respondent. In this background, that second respondent should contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no business to issue such directions, exposes his views on the need to enrol members and the deplorable attitude of the second respondent. It is also pertinent to bear in mind that even in G.O.Ms.No.192 dated 15.3.1995, the Government had directed the Public Works Department and Revenue Officials to oversee the implementation of the Scheme in a proper manner. It is also pertinent to bear in mind that even in G.O.Ms.No.192 dated 15.3.1995, the Government had directed the Public Works Department and Revenue Officials to oversee the implementation of the Scheme in a proper manner. Clause No.8 of the Annexure to the Government Order makes it clear that the Public Works Department and the Revenue Department authorities will have the right to inspect the pumping installations and all other accessories and the ayacut area at any time. Under Clause 14, the Collector is given the power to levy penalties in case of irrigation being permitted outside the area. Therefore, the right of the Revenue Authorities to oversee the manner of utilisation of the scheme of irrigation cannot be underscored. It may be that the Revenue officers may not be directly concerned with the functioning of the Society. But when the Revenue Divisional Officer is confronted with allegations from the owners regarding their rights to receive water being curtailed and denied in the matter of utilising the irrigation facility and also a law and order situation arises, it is certainly open to the Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer to direct proper implementation of the Scheme which was sanctioned by the Government as a special case and under specific conditions. If their directions are not complied with, they have to report about the violations to the Government and suggest cancellation of the Government Order. When the Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer were informed that the Scheme is not being properly implemented and the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer are not complied with, they ought to have taken immediate and proper steps, which they have failed to do. It is no surprise that the second respondent is emboldened to contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer has no business to issue instructions to enrol all the ryots as members. 37. The attitude of the second respondent is, therefore, very clear, namely, he is not prepared to enrol all the owners of 214 acres who are entitled to the benefits of the scheme, as members of the Society, and when it comes to the question of election to the office bearers, he would say that there are no valid members, which contention had been readily accepted by the Registrar. The injustice done to the large section of the owners is glaringly obvious and the Registrar ought to have immediately reported this to the High Court and sought for further directions. 38. From the beginning, the agriculturists are fighting for their rights to be enrolled and the directions given by the Revenue Divisional Officer to comply with the same is not only violated, but the second respondent is prepared to go to the extent of questioning the right of the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue such directions. 39. The further stand of the second respondent is, no less, provoking. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, he would say that the mere passing of the Government Order will not confer any right upon the petitioners as members unless they are admitted as members. A perusal of G.O.Ms. No.192 discloses that permission was sought for by the President of the Society to pump water from the well "to irrigate 214 acres of dry lands owned by 199 members of the Society." In the operative portion of the Government Order also, it is specifically emphasised that motor pumpsets and pipelines have to be laid to irrigate 214 acres of dry lands owned by 199 members of the Society. Having obtained a Government Order on such representation, the second respondent appears to arrogate himself as the sole proprietor of the Scheme and would not heed to the repeated demands of the owners to be enrolled as members, nor would he comply with the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer to do so. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the entire exercise of the impugned election treating only seven members of the Executive Committee as the General Body and that they are alone entitled to vote, is a farce and a ridicule of the process of democratic functioning of the Society, to which the Registrar had readily agreed. Keeping out of the other agriculturists as members of the Society is the outcome of a determined attitude and style of functioning of the second respondent and highhanded manipulations. 40. With the result, the impugned election deserves to be set aside and a direction for fresh election after proper enrolment has to be issued. 41. The objection on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners should be either asked to approach the civil Court or the appropriate appellate authority under the Act, cannot be sustained. 40. With the result, the impugned election deserves to be set aside and a direction for fresh election after proper enrolment has to be issued. 41. The objection on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners should be either asked to approach the civil Court or the appropriate appellate authority under the Act, cannot be sustained. Reference was made to the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in M.S.P.THENRAJA V. EXECUTIVE OFFICER CANTONMENT, ST. THOMAS MOUNT, CHENNAI (1999 (2) CTC 507). That is a case which arose out of the election held by the Cantonment Board governed by the Cantonment Rules, 1945, which provides for alternate remedy. It was, therefore, held that election petition under the relevant statute was the proper remedy. In this case, the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, does not provide for any appellate authority in the matter of election to the office bearers. Moreover, the impugned election proceedings arise out of a direction issued by this Court in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which itself arose out of a civil suit between the parties. Hence, there is no justification for the contention of the respondents that on this issue, the petitioners should be again driven to the civil Court. When the illegality in the impugned proceedings are obvious and stares at the face of this Court, the pleading by the respondents who have not conducted themselves properly, that the petitioners should be asked to go before some other forum cannot at all be appreciated. 42. Having regard to the resultant position of setting aside the impugned election, any further election could be held only after proper enumeration of the members. It therefore becomes necessary to ensure (a) proper enumeration of the members and (b) proper administration of the society, till the process of election to the office bearers are completed. 43. The composition of the Society is well defined and admits of no uncertainties or vagueness. In G.O.MS.No.192 itself, it is made clear that the Scheme was intended for a specific extent of 214 acres owned by 199 members of the Society. In fact, the Society itself has furnished the list of 199 members along with the extent of the properties owned by each of them. However, there appears to have been expansion of the area to 329 acres, as could be seen from the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.12.1998. In fact, the Society itself has furnished the list of 199 members along with the extent of the properties owned by each of them. However, there appears to have been expansion of the area to 329 acres, as could be seen from the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.12.1998. Such expansion, whoever has allowed the same, is illegal and violative of the Government Order. The membership has to be strictly restricted only to the owners of 214 acres. There could be an increase or decrease in the number of owners of the same extent of 214 acres as a result of the death of any owner being replaced by the legal heirs or transfer of any property by sale to others. But, the extent of ayacut cannot exceed 214 acres, unless and otherwise the Government itself permits such expansion of the area of irrigation by passing another Government Order. This Court cannot recognise the rights of parties beyond the said ayacut area of 214 acres. This unexplained expansion of the area itself signifies how the Society has been functioning in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Therefore, the actual owners of 214 acres alone are eligible to receive the benefits of the Government Order and to be enrolled as members of the Society and they have to be properly identified. This exercise could be complied with only by a properly constituted Committee consisting of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Irrigation), having jurisdiction over the area. In the operative portion of this order, the constitution of the said Committee, the nature of the work they have to discharge are enumerated. 44. Though under normal circumstances, I would have directed the District Registrar of Societies to be the Special Officer, in view of the partisan manner in which the present incumbent had functioned, I feel that he cannot be entrusted with the administration of the Society. In the said background, as a proper alternative, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal, may be directed to be the Special Officer to be in charge of the administration of the first respondent Society till the elected office bearers take over the administration and till further orders of this Court. 45. In the said background, as a proper alternative, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal, may be directed to be the Special Officer to be in charge of the administration of the first respondent Society till the elected office bearers take over the administration and till further orders of this Court. 45. This Court is constrained to issue the following directions, in view of the galore of violations of the terms and conditions of the Government Order, viz., the repeated demands of the ryots for several years to be enrolled as members being scuttled by vested interests, direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer being ignored and violated and even after the Division Bench of the High Court passes an order to ensure proper election, the Registrar/Election Officer yielding to the pressure of the vested interests and conducting a mockery of election. In fact, after orders were reserved in this writ petition, the ryots had to rush to the Court by filing W.P.M.P.No.37420 of 2004, praying for the supply of water during the season which was denied on the ground that they are not valid members. Such denial is proved to be the result of improper functioning of the Society and in utter violation of the Government Order. If this Court does not step in to do justice, there would be no salvation for the agriculturists who are very poor and holding small extent of lands. 46. With the result, the writ petition is ordered as follows: (i) This writ petition is allowed and the impugned election results declared by the eighth respondent is set aside and the office bearers declared as elected shall cease to hold office forthwith. (ii) The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal, is appointed as the Special Officer of the first respondent Society. Respondents-1 and 2 are directed to hand over all the records, accounts and properties of the Society to him forthwith. (iii) The Special Officer will continue to hold the office until further orders of this Court and till the process of enrolment of the members of the Society and election of the new office bearers are completed in terms of the directions hereinafter contained. (iii) The Special Officer will continue to hold the office until further orders of this Court and till the process of enrolment of the members of the Society and election of the new office bearers are completed in terms of the directions hereinafter contained. (iv) A Committee consisting of the following officials will function as Enrolment Committee to ensure proper enrolment of the members of the General Body of the Society: (a) Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Special Officer); (b) Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal; (c) Executive Engineer having jurisdiction over the area (P.W.D. - Irrigation). This Committee will be assisted by the Tahsildar and the Village Administrative Officer for properly identifying the lands and owners of the lands of 214 acres, as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.192, P.W.D. dated 15.3.1995. (v) The Enrolment Committee will first identify the 214 acres of land for the benefit of which the said Government Order was issued. (vi) The Enrolment Committee will next identify the owners (199) for whose benefits the Government Order was issued. The number of owners may fluctuate. Some of the owners may have expired and some of the owners may have conveyed the property to other parties or partitioned between themselves. The Committee may ascertain all the present owners of the said extent of 214 acres. It is made clear that while ascertaining the present owners, it is necessary to bear in mind that the ayacut area is only 214 acres and the Committee shall not entertain any claim from anyone beyond the said extent of 214 acres. If there has been any expansion of the irrigation area beyond the said extent, it would be illegal and unauthorised and hence, cannot be recognised. It is stated that 109 persons were enrolled as members subsequent to the impugned election. The Committee shall examine their credentials and verify whether they are among the owners of 214 acres. Such of them who do not satisfy the requirement shall not be admitted as members. Membership subscription or charges received from them have to be refunded to them. It is stated that 109 persons were enrolled as members subsequent to the impugned election. The Committee shall examine their credentials and verify whether they are among the owners of 214 acres. Such of them who do not satisfy the requirement shall not be admitted as members. Membership subscription or charges received from them have to be refunded to them. (vii) After finalisation of the enquiry, a list of owners will be prepared, also giving the details of the lands belonging to each of them and the list shall be signed by all the three members of the Committee, a copy of which shall be sent to the Collector of the District and a copy shall be retained by the Special Officer. (viii) The Special Officer will then publish the list of owners in the notice board of the Society, calling upon the members to apply for membership by paying the subscription and other charges, if any, in terms of the bye-laws, to be applied within a period of ten days after such notice. Only such of those persons who comply with the said directions shall be enrolled as members and they may be issued with Membership Cards. (ix) On completion of the said period, the Special Officer shall publish a list of members of the Society in the notice board and initiate the process for the election of the office bearers and the Executive Committee. The Special Officer shall be the Election Officer for the purpose of conduct of election. (x) In accordance with the bye-laws of the Society, there will be an election to the Office Bearers and the Election Committee. The Special Officer/ Election Officer shall fix the election schedule, complete the process of election and announce the results of the election. (xi) The process of enumeration shall be completed on or before 10.2.2005. The process of election shall be completed on or before 31.3.2005. (xii) The Joint Registrar/Special Officer shall file a compliance report before this Court through the Government Pleader on or before 8.4.2005. (xiii) The Joint Registrar shall continue to function as Special Officer until further orders of this Court. (xvi) If any difficulty is faced by the Special Officer at any stage in complying with the directions herein, he may approach this Court promptly. (xv) Learned Government Pleader is directed to communicate this order immediately to the Collector of the District. (xiii) The Joint Registrar shall continue to function as Special Officer until further orders of this Court. (xvi) If any difficulty is faced by the Special Officer at any stage in complying with the directions herein, he may approach this Court promptly. (xv) Learned Government Pleader is directed to communicate this order immediately to the Collector of the District. The Collector of the District may monitor and ensure prompt compliance of the directions in this order strictly and in accordance with the time schedule. Call the writ petition on 15.4.2005 for reporting compliance.

K. Thangavel & Others v. Navaladian Small Farmers & Others