Judgment :- All India Indian Overseas Bank Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Association, the petitioner herein, seeks for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring the registration by the first respondent of the second respondent under the name of All India Overseas Bank Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Employees' Welfare Association as illegal and void and being violative of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. 2. The petitioner submits that it was duly registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, vide registration No.163, dated 22.7.1978. The Secretary of the petitioner Association states that motivated by self-interest, a group of a few employees led by one Myilvahanan attempted to thwart the legitimate activities of the petitioner Association by initiating litigation against the holding of election etc. The application filed by the said individuals were dismissed and the said individuals being unable to secure any support within the Association, the said individuals and few others floated a new body by name All India Overseas Bank Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Employees' Welfare Association. The petitioner had objected to the similarity in the name and recognition being accorded to the new body by the Registrar of Societies. Their objection was still pending. 3. Eariler, O.S.No.6749 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram, was filed by the said Mayilvahanan purporting to be the General Secretary of the petitioner Association and he sought for an order of restraint as against the President P.Rajalingam and the General Secretary claiming that they had been removed from the petitioner Association, and the injunction application filed by the said Myilvahanan was dismissed on 7.12.1999. It is further stated that thereafter the said Myilvahanan set up five other individuals and filed a suit in O.S.No.976 of 1999. Several interlocutory reliefs were prayed for restraining the defendant (the petitioner herein) from operating the bank accounts etc. All the interlocutory applications were dismissed on 24.12.1999. It is further stated that the second respondent was interested only in furthering the selfish interests of a few individuals and that the said Association does not enjoy much support from the employees. The affidavit in support of the writ petition also contains certain other details of various controversies between the rival groups. It is further stated that the second respondent was interested only in furthering the selfish interests of a few individuals and that the said Association does not enjoy much support from the employees. The affidavit in support of the writ petition also contains certain other details of various controversies between the rival groups. The dispute appears to have arisen with reference to the visit of the Parliamentary Committee to Pondicherry to hear the grievances of SC/ST employees in the public sector and grievance of the petitioner appears to be that they were not intimated by the management. The said allegations are not directly relevant for the dispute which has been raised in this writ petition. In this writ petition, the correctness or otherwise of the registration of the second respondent Association, is questioned on the ground that the said Association bears similar name as that of the petitioner. 4. In the counter filed by the second respondent-Association, it is stated that they are the true representatives of the SC/ST employees of the Bank. The petitioner-Association though it was originally formed for the purpose of serving SC/ST employees, however, it was not functioning properly and instead there was in fight between the office bearers fighting for the office. Therefore, it necessitated the establishment of a real association to strive for the welfare of the SC & ST employees working in the Indian Overseas Bank. The second respondent Association was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 on 24.1.2000. The petitioner Association though it was started in 1978 was not catering to the needs of the members. It is further stated that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act is very categorical and enjoins a duty on the Registrar to register societies which do not fall within the categories mentioned under Section 9 of the Act. So far as the allegation of similarity in the name was concerned, there was no similarity or identity and therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. The petitioner Association had not complied with the statutory requirements and had committed default in not submitting the members' list, audited balance sheet and other relevant records which were required to be filed periodically and thus the petitioner Association has become defunct. The second respondent Association was functioning in a full-fledged manner and was functioning in a better way. The petitioner Association had not complied with the statutory requirements and had committed default in not submitting the members' list, audited balance sheet and other relevant records which were required to be filed periodically and thus the petitioner Association has become defunct. The second respondent Association was functioning in a full-fledged manner and was functioning in a better way. It is further contended by the second respondent that the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and hence writ petition was liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that the name of the petitioner Association is All India Indian Overseas Bank SC/ST Employees' Welfare Association whereas the name of the second respondent is "All India Overseas Bank Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribe Employees' Welfare Association". Therefore, there is no similarity much less identical. The petitioner has also not made any representation to the Registrar for all these years. Therefore, the entire move of the petitioner was mala fide and motivated. 5. A separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent contending that the petitioner was registered on 22.7.1978 at Chennai and the second respondent Society was registered in the office of the District Registrar on 19.6.2000. Two societies have two different names and location and they are not similar either in names or in location. They do not resemble each other. Therefore, there was no necessity to change its name. Two societies are located at different Headquarters and having different names and there will be no confusion in any manner. 6. Mr.V.Prakash appearing for the petitioner-Association contends that the similarity of the names of both the Associations are very close and identical and the same is bound to result in confusion. He would further submit that the very floating of the second respondent Association was due to the rivalry between the members of the petitioner Association. The second respondent Association was floated by disgruntled elements and as they were not successful in the Civil Suit which was filed by them in the matter of the election to the office-bearers. The first respondent ought to have considered the objection raised by the petitioner and should have considered as to whether there was any other association in the Book of Register resembling the name of the applicant before the first respondent. The first respondent ought to have considered the objection raised by the petitioner and should have considered as to whether there was any other association in the Book of Register resembling the name of the applicant before the first respondent. Learned counsel also refers to Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The said provision mandates that no society shall be registered in a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable. Explanation Section 9 also includes that any association identical with or so nearly resembles, the name by which a society in existence is previously registered, shall not be registered by the Registrar. Though the word "Indian" is omitted in the name of the second respondent Association, the similarity is so close and identical and it is bound to result in confusion. 7. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent Association, contends that there is absolutely no confusion in the name as could be seen on a perusal of names of both the petitioner Association and the respondent Association. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the petitioner Association has become defunct and not functioning as on date, and he was also instructed to state that the registration of the petitioner Association has been cancelled. The petitioner has also approached this court without giving any representation to the Registrar and without seeking for cancellation of the registration of the second respondent in a manner known to law and in terms of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner cannot be permitted to approach this Court directly without making a proper application before the Registrar. 8. I have considered the submissions of both sides. Though it is true that there are certain Civil Suits pending between the parties and filed by both sides as against each other, the prayer in the suits as well as the interlocutory relief claimed thereon pertain to issues which do not directly concern the prayer made in this writ petition, namely, the issue of registration of the second respondent and the objections thereto, as would arise under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. In those suits, individuals have sought for relief in the matter of the functioning of the respective Association and the election of the office-bearers of the respective Association. In those suits, individuals have sought for relief in the matter of the functioning of the respective Association and the election of the office-bearers of the respective Association. Therefore, the contention that the pendency of the Civil Suit would bar the petitioner from pursing the relief in this writ petition, cannot be sustained. 9. I do not also find any substance in the objection that the petitioner should have approached the Registrar before he had approached this Court for seeking writ of declaration. The fact that the petitioner had filed objection before the Registrar as claimed in the petition, has not been denied. Further, it is seen from the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, the District Registrar, Kancheepuram, has taken a positive stand to the effect that there was no similarity between the two Societies and that the registration of the second respondent Association was legal and that there was no violation of Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, it would be futile and purposeless to suggest that the petitioner should be directed to approach the Registrar. 10. The main and only issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the names of both the Association are identical and similar so as to attract the bar under Section 9 of the Act. Except that the word "Indian" is omitted in the name of the second respondent Association, in all other respects the same words have been used by the second respondent Association. It is pertinent to note that the association relates to the Indian Overseas Bank and there is no bank known as "Overseas Bank". There is also no dispute over the fact that the Association seeks to represent the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees of the I.O.B. It is not as though the second respondent Association has been established with reference to some other Bank. Therefore, any authority or individual having access to or dealings with the bank or the employees' Association is bound to be confused by the names adopted by both the Associations. The rival facts also disclose that the management itself has been sponsoring one association or the other and there is controversy as to whether the petitioner Association or the second respondent Association is the true representative of the employees belonging to the Indian Overseas Bank. The rival facts also disclose that the management itself has been sponsoring one association or the other and there is controversy as to whether the petitioner Association or the second respondent Association is the true representative of the employees belonging to the Indian Overseas Bank. It is true that the employees of the same Bank can have two or more Associations as long as they conform to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act or the Regulations relating to the employees of the Indian Overseas Bank. But in order to avoid confusion, the Act itself envisages, a bar on registration of an Association if the names are identical with or so nearly resembles the Society which has been previously registered. In the present case, there is no dispute over the fact that the petitioner Association had been registered earlier on 22.7.1978 itself and that the rival second respondent Association came to be registered only in the year 2000. Therefore, the Registrar ought to have declined the registration of the second respondent Association having regard to the bar contained under Section 9 of the Act. I am unable to sustain the contention of learned Senior counsel for the second respondent that there is no similarity in the names of both the Associations for reasons already stated above. A perusal of the Explanation (c) to Section 9 itself indicates that in order to attract bar under Section 9, it is not necessary that the names should be exactly identical. It is sufficient that even if the names resemble each other closely similar to a Society which has already been registered. 11. The facts relating to the circumstances under which the second respondent came to be registered also disclose that there is rivalry between the office bearers of the petitioner Association resulting in a group of individuals forming a different Association. There is no dispute over the fact that it is open to any individual to constitute and register a different association if they cannot get along well with the existing Association. But before the name of the new Society is registered it is the bounden duty of the Registrar to see that the name of the new Society to be registered does not create any confusion by identity or similarity of the name. 12. The reasons contained in the counter affidavit of the first respondent, cannot also be sustained. But before the name of the new Society is registered it is the bounden duty of the Registrar to see that the name of the new Society to be registered does not create any confusion by identity or similarity of the name. 12. The reasons contained in the counter affidavit of the first respondent, cannot also be sustained. The first respondent had taken the stand as if the location of the Association would make any difference. The said reason cannot be sustained. The registration is operative through out the state and therefore, the fact that the petitioner Society was registered at Chennai and that the second respondent Society has been registered at Kancheepuram, cannot justify registration of societies on identical or similar names. The further contention that both the Associations have different Headquarters, is also not a justification for ignoring the bar under Section 9 of the Act. The provisions of the Act and registrations there under are applicable and operative throughout the State. 13. In the result, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and the registration of the second respondent Association is declared as illegal. It is however, made clear that the relief granted in this writ petition has nothing to do with the rivalry between the office-bearers of the petitioner Association and the second respondent Association. The disputes relating to the election of the office-bearers and the Civil Suits between themselves are totally beyond the scope of this writ petition. It is also open to the employees who are not inclined to be the members of the petitioner Association to form their own Association subject to the name of the said Association not being similar or identical to the petitioner Association and is in conformity with Section 9 of the Act. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.