K. S. D. Sujatha & Another v. The District Registrar & Others
2005-05-04
R.BANUMATHI
body2005
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment :- (Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus and Certiorarified Mandamus, as stated therein.) W.P.No.1219 of 2005: - This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to de-approve the Members enrolled to the Third respondent / K.L.N.Sourashtra College of Engineering Council (hereinafter referred to as "Council") on 18.08.2001 and for Injunction restraining the Third Respondent / Council from permitting the Members enrolled on 05.09.2001 and 31.01.2002 from voting and approving the Members and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to convene the General Body Meeting of the Third Respondent / Council with the assistance of the First Respondent / District Registrar, Madurai to conduct the Election to the Managing Committee of the Third Respondent / Council and also restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from approving those Members and for other reliefs. 2. W.P.No.3613 of 2005:- This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the First Respondent dated 29.11.2002, wherein he had accepted Form VII submitted by the Third Respondent / Council for the Change of Members enrolled to the Third Respondent / Council on 18.08.2001 and to restrain the Respondents 1 and 2 from in any manner approving Form VII submitted by the Third Respondent / Council for the Members enrolled on 05.09.2001 and 31.01.2002. The prayer in W.P.No.3613 of 2005 is almost the same as in W.P.No.1219 of 2005, but worded differently. 3. These Writ Petitions arise under the following facts and circumstances. The Third Respondent / Council was registered as Society in Registration Certificate No.221/92. The Object of the Council is to promote and impart Technical and scientific knowledge for the benefit of men and women and weaker section particularly for training and studies in the Branches of Engineering and also to promote Research and Development in those areas of Engineering. The Council was formed mainly for the benefit of promoting the Students belonging to Sourashtra Linguistic Minorities and also the promotion of subjects in Sourashtra language. The Third Respondent / Council has its own Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. The Membership and the Administration are governed by the Bye-laws. 4. As on 31.03.2001, there were 208 approved Members. Founder President – K.L.N.Krishnan died on 08.06.2001.
The Third Respondent / Council has its own Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. The Membership and the Administration are governed by the Bye-laws. 4. As on 31.03.2001, there were 208 approved Members. Founder President – K.L.N.Krishnan died on 08.06.2001. On 18.08.2001, K.N.K.Ganesh - the elder Son of K.L.N.Krishnan was co-opted as President. G.R.Radhakrishnan held the post as Joint Secretary. The co-option of K.N.K.Ganesh as President of the existing Managing Committee is objected by the Petitioners on the ground that there is no provision for co-option and that the Managing Committee could only recommend for co-option to the General Body. Likewise, the Bye-laws do not provide for any post as Joint Secretary. After the death of the Founder President, the Members were admitted to the Third Respondent / Council as noted below: - 18.08.2001 - - - - 22 Members - Approved 05.09.2001 - - - - 94 Members – Form VII submitted with delay. Hence to be approved. Yet Form VII accepted. 31.01.2002 - - - -47 Members – Form VII accepted; to be approved since delay condonation for the earlier Form VII pending. 5. The Petitioners are raising objection for the enrolment of the above Members contending that there was no such subject in the Agenda for the Managing Committee Meeting and no donation as required under Bye-law 8 was obtained from the above Members and the General Body did not approve them till date. 6. General Body Meeting was convened on 03.03.2002. The Agenda to the said Meeting has included the subject of approval of co-option of K.N.K.Ganesh as President and K.N.Sethuraman as Manaing Committee Member. The General Body Meeting was attended by 217 Members of which about 110 Members alone are the approved Members. About 109 Members, who attended the Meeting are not approved Members. As per the resolutions passed in the General Body Meeting, the existing Managing Committee was extended for a period of three years. The said resolutions are opposed as illegal on various grounds. The co-option of K.N.K.Ganesh as President and K.N.Sethuraman as Managing Committee Member is opposed as illegal and against the Bye-laws of the Society. The request of the Members of the Council to hold the Election to the Managing Committee was not accepted.
The said resolutions are opposed as illegal on various grounds. The co-option of K.N.K.Ganesh as President and K.N.Sethuraman as Managing Committee Member is opposed as illegal and against the Bye-laws of the Society. The request of the Members of the Council to hold the Election to the Managing Committee was not accepted. One Jagannathan, who has proposed the subject of extension of the term for the Managing Committee was not an approved Member on the date of the General Body Meeting on 03.03.2002. 7. Opposing the convening of the General Body Meeting and the validity of the resolutions passed thereon on 03.03.2002, Manekshaw Babu (petitioner in W.P.No.3613 of 2005) had given representation to the District Registrar on 04.03.2002, complaining about the illegal admission of Members and mis-management of the Society. Several representations were given to the District Registrar, Madurai. Since no action was forthcoming from the District Registrar, the Petitioner – Manekshaw Babu had filed W.P.No.40759 of 2002 for Writ of Mandamus to direct the District Registrar to enquire into the Complaint preferred by him. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 11.11.2002 against which, the Respondents have preferred Appeal in W.A.No.3581 of 2002 and obtained stay. 8. The District Registrar has enquired the matter by examining the Members of the Managing Committee and by perusing the records and passed the order. In the said order, the admission of the above Members of the Third Respondent / Council has been held as proper since the same have been recommended by the Executive Committee through the resolutions. The First Respondent / District Registrar found that there is no irregularity in admitting the Members and submitted a Report to the Inspector General of Registration, Madras on 29.11.2002. Again the District Registrar enquired into the matter and records were perused and satisfied himself about the admission of Members and Registrar has passed an order to that effect on 26.08.2004. The proceedings of Respondents 1 and 2 are pending at that stage. 9. W.P.Nos.38314 of 2003 and 40505 of 2002:- After the First Respondent / District Registrar has submitted the Report on 29.11.2002, these Writ Petitions were filed by other Members raising the same issue of admission of Members. The matter again came up consideration before the District Registrar, Madurai. Against the District Registrar has perused the Records and found that there has been no irregularity in admitting the Members. 10.
The matter again came up consideration before the District Registrar, Madurai. Against the District Registrar has perused the Records and found that there has been no irregularity in admitting the Members. 10. The Executing Committee Members were appointed by the Resolution of the General Body Meeting dated 03.03.2002. The period of Executive Committee of the Third Respondent / Council expires by 03.03.2005. Hence, the Executive Committee announced for holding the Elections on 27.02.2005. J.R.Satchidhanandam appointed as Election Officer of the Executive Committee requested the First Respondent / District Registrar to furnish the Membership List of Third Respondent / Council as on 31.03.2004. Accordingly, the First Respondent / District Registrar has furnished the list of Members available in Form VI as on 31.03.2004. There are 361 Members. During the Election process, the Petitioner herein has filed W.P.No.1219 of 2005 and also obtained Interim Order. One K.V.Ramesh has also filed W.P.No.5793 of 2005 and obtained Interim Direction. Election was held as per the direction of the Court. The votes polled are kept in Two Ballot Boxes – one for the approved Members (including 22 disputed Members)and another for the disputed Members. In the Written Submissions filed onbehalf of the Respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that as per the direction of the Court, the First Respondent has supervised the polling of votes and the election process and the direction of the Court for having two separate boxes is said to have been complied with. The Ballot Boxes were sealed and both the boxes are presently under the custody of the First Respondent. 11. W.P.M.P.No.6366 of 2005 in W.P.No.5793 of 2005 was filed by K.V.Ramesh for Injunction restraining the Third Respondent / Council from in any manner permitting the Members enrolled on 05.09.2001 and 31.01.2001 from attending any meeting or voting in the Election. In W.P.M.P.No.6366 of 2005, Interim Injunction was granted. W.V.M.P.No.939 of 2005 was filed to vacate the Interim Order. After the order was passed in the Madurai Bench in W.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.1188 and 1189 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.107 of 2005 in W.P.(MD)No.1219 of 2005, the Interim Direction was vacated. Several other writ petitions are filed by number of other Members for Permanent Injunction, restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from removing them from Membership. 12. Denying the averments, the Third Respondent / Council has filed the Counter Statement.
Several other writ petitions are filed by number of other Members for Permanent Injunction, restraining Respondents 1 and 2 from removing them from Membership. 12. Denying the averments, the Third Respondent / Council has filed the Counter Statement. In the Counter Statement, it is contended that after the death of Founder President, as an interim arrangement, K.N.K.Ganesh - the Elder Son of the Founder President was co-opted as the President, which has been subsequently approved by the General Body Meeting on 03.03.2002 and the same cannot be challenged after three years. During the General Body Meeting held on 03.03.2002, the Petitioner Maneckshaw Babu had moved before the General Body Meeting that the Election should be conducted immediately even though there was no Item in the Agenda for holding the Elections. Responding to that move, one Jagannathan had proposed a resolution that the same Managing Committee could continue for one more term of three years, which has been the common practice of the Third Respondent / Society from the beginning. Accordingly, the term of Office Bearers has been extended, for which 2/3 Members present in the Meeting have consented. Under these circumstances, the proceedings of the General Body Meeting dated 03.03.2002 cannot be questioned. 13. Section 15(3) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 has a provision for extending the term of the Committee through a resolution. It is further averred that 219 Members, who attended the Meeting on 03.03.2002 are approved Members, who have been admitted on or before 31.01.2002. The allegations in the Writ Petitions are made confusing the provisions of Form VI and Form VII. The General Body Meeting held on 03.03.2002 cannot be called as illegal and as such the resolution passed by the General Body Meeting are invalid. The list of Members admitted has been forwarded to the First Respondent then and there. No objection was raised by the First Respondent. For the first time, through a communication dated 26.08.2004, the First Respondent has raised queries regarding the admission of Members sponsored by the Trust, which has been properly replied. In response to the direction by the Court in W.P.No.40759 of 2002, the First Respondent / District Registrar has conducted an Enquiry and had given a definite finding that the admission of Members is valid and proper. The order of the District Registrar made on 29.11.2002 has been filed in Writ Appeal No.3581 of 2002.
In response to the direction by the Court in W.P.No.40759 of 2002, the First Respondent / District Registrar has conducted an Enquiry and had given a definite finding that the admission of Members is valid and proper. The order of the District Registrar made on 29.11.2002 has been filed in Writ Appeal No.3581 of 2002. In view of the definite order of the District Registrar, Madurai, it is not open to the Petitioner to contend that 163 Members are the unapproved Members. Contentions have been raised in referring to the Full Bench Judgment of this Court regarding the satisfaction of the Registrar. The contention regarding the collection of the amount is opposed referring to the Bye-laws that any person can settle the amount for enrolling more Members besides himself. Out of 163 Members, many Members have got enrolled in that category. The Petitioner in W.P.No.3613 of 2005 himself has not paid Rs.5000/- and he was sponsored by K.L.N.Charities. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner Manekshaw Babu is not entitled to question the admission of Members on the ground that the donation of Rs.5000/- was not collected from the admitted Members. 14. Since common points arise for consideration in both Writ Petitions, both Writ Petitions were taken up together and disposed of by this Common Order. 15. Reiterating the contentions of the Petitioners, learned counsel for the Petitioners has raised serious objection regarding the illegal admission of the Members and the Resolutions passed by the General Body Meeting on 03.03.2002. Learned counsel for the Petitioners inter-alia raised the following contentions:- i. So long as the 163 Members are not admitted / recognised by the First Respondent / District Registrar, they are not eligible to vote; ii. the Registered Society expected to function in a democratic manner and when the Society is functioning in an undemocratic way, the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly intervene to set at right the duties; iii.So long as the Registrar does not conclusively decide the dispute, the Writ Petitioners do not get cause of action to approach the Civil Court.
Even if there is alternative remedy in the Civil Court, the existence of alternative remedy would not be bar for filing the Writ Petitions; iv.Immediately after the General Body Meeting on 03.03.2002, the Petitioner Manekshaw Babu had preferred Complaint on 04.03.2002 before the First Respondent / Registrar and has also filed W.P.No.40759 of 2002, seeking for issuance of direction to the District Registrar. Hence, there is no latches and even if there is any delay, the latches cannot be a ground for declining issuance of the Writ; v.The order of the District Registrar is not conclusive and the same is challenged by several Members in number of Writ Petitions. 16. Countering the arguments, onbehalf of the Third Respondent, learned Senior Counsel has mainly raised the objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions. Submitting that the admission of Members and the holding of Election and extension of the term of the Managing Committee are the internal administration of the Third Respondent / Council and the same are governed by Bye-laws. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in C.M.S.EVANGELICAL SUVI DAVID MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL COMMITTEE ..VS.. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CHERANMAHADEVI, THIRUNELVELI DISTRICT ( 2005 (2) C.T.C. 161 ) learned Senior Counsel has submitted that under Sec.36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "TNSR Act"), the power of the Registrar is only limited to the extent of satisfying himself as to the correctness of Members given in Form VII. Learned Senior Counsel has inter-alia contended that if at all the Writ Petitioners are aggrieved, Civil Court is the competent authority to decide the validity of the Election and that Writ Petition is not maintainable on that score. Drawing the attention of the Court to number of other Writ Petitions, learned Senior Counsel has contended that there is gross abuse of process of Court. It is further contended that for the Members admitted in 2001, the Writ Petitions filed in 2005 with a delay of more than three years. Since there are latches, the Petitioners are not entitled to seek any remedy. 17. Onbehalf of Respondents 1 and 2, Written Submissions is submitted setting forth the facts and the Report of the District Registrar and his satisfaction as to the correctness of particulars in Form VII and that there has been no illegality in admitting the Members. 18.
Since there are latches, the Petitioners are not entitled to seek any remedy. 17. Onbehalf of Respondents 1 and 2, Written Submissions is submitted setting forth the facts and the Report of the District Registrar and his satisfaction as to the correctness of particulars in Form VII and that there has been no illegality in admitting the Members. 18. Shorn of all details and the arguments advanced on the plethora of Writ Petitions, we may confine ourselves to the main contentious points urged by the Third Respondent regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petitions and the nature of the duty cast upon the Registrar under Sec.36 of the TNSR Act and whether there has been any arbitrary exercise of power by the District Registrar. The main point urged by the Petitioners is relating to the admission of 163 Members and that the same is against the Bye-laws. 19. In the light of the contentions urged, it is necessary to refer to certain Bye-laws and the procedure. Bye-law 8 deals with MEMBERSHIP QUALIFICATION, which reads as follows: "...A Member of the Association shall be a Sourashtra of the age of not less than 21 and should satisfy any one of the following conditions: (i) He must have contributed not less than Rs.5000/- in cash or in kind OR He must have got set apart a sum of not less than Rs.5000/- from any other person who has contributed more than Rs.5000/- or its multiples. (ii) A Firm, Company, H.U.F.Trust or Association of persons must have contributed not less than Rs.5000/- in cash or in kind for the use of the Association and / or its Institutions and may be represented by its authorised representative...." 20. Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules (hereinafter referred to as "TNSR Rules") states about Subject matter of Bye-laws. As per Rule 6, the Bye-laws shall contain provisions in respect of the matters stated thereon including enrolment of Members, qualification of Membership, the manner in which the Society shall transact its business.
Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules (hereinafter referred to as "TNSR Rules") states about Subject matter of Bye-laws. As per Rule 6, the Bye-laws shall contain provisions in respect of the matters stated thereon including enrolment of Members, qualification of Membership, the manner in which the Society shall transact its business. Rule 6(j) and 6(k) deals with enrolment of Members and the circumstances for removal of Members which is as under:- "6(j) Enrolment of Members:- i.qualifications for membership, classification, restrictions and conditions, if any, therefore; ii.the entrance and other fees, or subscription, if any, to be collected from members; iii.the dates prescribed for payment of the amounts specified in sub-clause (ii) above and levy of penalties or fines, if any, imposed on defaulting members; (l) * * * * 6(k) removal of members the circumstances under which Members could be removed from the rules and the procedure for such removal and appeal, if any, against such removal......" As per Rule 6(m) of TNSR Rules, the Bye-law shall contain the provision in respect of the manner in which the Society shall transact its business. Rule 6(n) deals with the Constitution of Committee specified in Section 15, the qualification of the members of the Committee, their term of office and the procedure for their appointment and re-appointment. Thus, as per the Scheme of the Act, enrolment of Members, entrance and subsequent fee, if any to be collected from Members, the manner in which the Society shall transact its business, the tenure of the Members of the Committee, their term of office, the procedure for their appointment and re-appointment are the subject matter of Bye-laws. In other words, those subject matters are the internal administration of the Society. 21. Chapter III of TNSR Act relates to MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION. As per Sec.14 of the Act, every registered Society has duty to maintain the Register of Members. Sec.15 deals with the Committee of every Registered Society. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act read thus: "14. Register of Members :- (1) Every registered society shall maintain a register containing the names, addresses and occupations of its Members. (2) The Register of Members shall, during business hours, be open to the inspection of any member free of charge and any member may make extracts therefrom. 15.
Sections 14 and 15 of the Act read thus: "14. Register of Members :- (1) Every registered society shall maintain a register containing the names, addresses and occupations of its Members. (2) The Register of Members shall, during business hours, be open to the inspection of any member free of charge and any member may make extracts therefrom. 15. Committee :- (1) Every registered society shall have a committee of not less than three members to manage its affairs. Every registered society shall file with the Registrar a copy of the register maintained by its under sub-section (1) of Sec.14 and from time to time, file with the Registrar notice of any change among the members of the Committee. (2) A copy of the register shall be filed either at the time of the registration of the society or within such period as may be prescribed from the appointment of the members of the first committee and the notice of any change among the members of the society or of the committee shall be filed within such period as may be prescribed from the date of such change. (3) The members of the committee shall be appointed at a meeting of the society by a resolution of a majority of the members present and entitled to vote thereat. (4) The term of office of the members of the committee shall not exceed three years from the date of their appointment. (5) The members of the committee shall be eligible for re-appointment." 22. At this juncture, we may also usefully refer to Rules 16 and 17 of TNSR Rules which deals with Register of Members in Form VI and filing a copy of the Register of Members and Notice of Change of Members or Committee, which shall be in Form VII and requirement of the Society to inform the Registrar about the change of Members or of the Committee. Rules 16 and 17 are as under:- "16. Register of Members:- The register of Members specified in sub-section (1) of Sec.14 shall be in Form No.VI. 17.
Rules 16 and 17 are as under:- "16. Register of Members:- The register of Members specified in sub-section (1) of Sec.14 shall be in Form No.VI. 17. Filing of copy of the register of members and notice of change of members or Committee:- (1) A copy of the register of members maintained by the society under sub-section (1) of Section 14, if not filed at the time of registration of the society, shall be filed with the Registrar within one month from the date of registration of the society. (2) The Notice of any change among the members of the society or of the committee shall be filed in Form No.VII within (three months) from the date of such change. The Notice of change among the Members of the Committee shall be accompanied by the resolution of the meeting, if any, effecting such change". By virtue of Rule 16, Form VI Register is to be maintained by the registered society. Notice of change of Members or to the Committee is to be formed in Form No.VII within three months from the date of such change. 23. As discussed infra, Form VI – Register of Members maintained by Third Respondent / Society had been produced. The admission of 163 Members as stated above have been verified and signed by the authorities concerned. As elaborated later, Form VII as per the requirement of Rule 7 has also been complied with. 24. Sec.36 of the TNSR Act relates to the Power of the Registrar to enquire into the affairs of the Registered Society. For better appreciation of the powers of the Registrar, it is relevant to extract Sec.36 of the Act, which reads thus:- "36. Power of Registrar to inquire into the affairs of registered society:- (1) The Registrar may, of his own motion or on the application of a majority of the members of the committee of a registered society or on the application of not less than one third of the members of that registered society, or, if so moved by the District Collector hold or direct some person authorised by the Registrar by order in writing in this behalf to hold, an inquiry, into the Constitution, working and financial condition of that registered society.
(2) An application to the Registrar under sub-section (2) shall be supported by such evidence as the Registrar may require for the purpose of showing that the applicants have good reason for applying for an inquiry. (3) The Registrar may require the applicants under sub-section (1) to furnish such security as he thinks fit for the costs of the proposed inquiry, before the inquiry is held. (4) All expenses of, and incidental or preliminary to, the inquiry shall, where such inquiry is held - (a) on application, be defrayed by the applicants therefor or out of the assets of the registered society or by the Members or officers of the registered society, in such proportions as the Registrar may, by order in writing, direct; and (b) On the District Collector's or Registrars motion, be defrayed out of the assets of the registered society, and shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. (5) An order made under sub-Section (4) shall, on application, be enforced by any Civil Court having local jurisdiction in the same manner as a Decree of such court. (6) A person holding an inquiry under this Section shall at all reasonable times have free access to all the books, accounts and documents of the registered society, and shall have power to call upon, the registered society and the officers of society to produce such books, accounts and documents and furnish such statements and other information in relation to its business as he may direct. (7) It shall be the duty of all persons who are or have been officers of the registered society to furnish the inquiring officer with all the books, accounts and documents in their custody or power relating to the registered society. (8) A person holding an inquiry under this Section may summon any person who, he has reason to believe, has knowledge of any of the affairs of the registered society and may examine such person on oath and may summon any person to produce any books, accounts or documents belonging to him or in his custody if the person holding the inquiry has reason to believe that such books, accounts or documents contain any entries relating to transactions of the registered society.
(9) The result of the inquiry shall be communicated to the registered society and to the applicants, if any, and if the Registrar is satisfied that the result of the inquiry does not warrant action under Section 37, he may issue such direction to the registered society, or any member of the registered society, as the Registrar may deem fit." Thus, under sub-section (1) of Section 36, the Registrar may of his own motion or on the application of a majority of the Members of the Committee of a Registered Society or on the application of not less than one third of the Members of that registered society or if so moved by the District Collector hold or direct some person authorised by the Registrar by order in writing in this behalf to hold, an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of that registered society. 25. Drawing the attention of the Court to the expression "an inquiry into the constitution", onbehalf of the Petitioners, it is contended that in view of those words employed in Sec.36, the power of the Registrar shall include such direction to de-approve 22 members admitted on 18.08.2001 and also to inquire into the validity of the 94 Members admitted on 05.09.2001 and 47 Members on 31.01.2002. It is further contended that the Power of the Registrar to hold an Enquiry into the Constitution would also include his power to hold fresh election or assisting the Advocate Commissioner to hold Election to the Third Respondent / Council. 26. The contentious points raised by the Writ Petitioners are fully covered and answered in the Full Bench Decision reported in C.M.S.EVANGELICAL SUVI DAVID MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL COMMITTEE ..VS..
26. The contentious points raised by the Writ Petitioners are fully covered and answered in the Full Bench Decision reported in C.M.S.EVANGELICAL SUVI DAVID MEMORIAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL COMMITTEE ..VS.. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CHERANMAHADEVI ( 2005 (2) C.T.C. 161 ) holding that power under Sec.36 is not power of Appeal, but only to hold summary enquiry for his own satisfaction, the Full Bench has held thus:- "....A conspicuous reading of the above mentioned provisions show that the Act is intended to regulate the affairs of the society in accordance with the provisions contained therein and the rules made thereunder and that the registration is made compulsory on certain contingency and for its enforcement the provisions confer only the administrative power of the Registrar to ensure that the registered society to function strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, more particularly for maintenance of accounts for audit purpose; framing of Bye-laws in conformity with the object of the society for which it is formed and registered; in respect of application of funds of the registered society, conduct of annual General Meetings and extraordinary general meeting and amalgamation and division of registered societies. The Registrar has power to direct the registered society to furnish in writing such information or explanation in respect of any document which the registered society is required to file with him. The power of the Registrar to enquire into the affairs of the society is only to hold a summary inquiry for his own satisfaction. The said power cannot be construed as the power of Appeal. Under Sec.36, the Registrar has not been empowered to adjudicate upon the conflicting claims to represent the society based upon question of fact. A plain reading of Section 36 shows that the Registrar could look only the provisions of the Act and the Rules and prima facie materials to arrive at a conclusion either to believe or not to believe Form No.VII in order to effect change in the register. The power of the Registrar to call for information and explanation under Section 34 does not contemplate any power to examine witnesses or to allow opportunity for cross examination of witnesses. The power in our view is incidental and it is only for the purpose of maintaining correct records.
The power of the Registrar to call for information and explanation under Section 34 does not contemplate any power to examine witnesses or to allow opportunity for cross examination of witnesses. The power in our view is incidental and it is only for the purpose of maintaining correct records. As the power to conduct inquiry is only limited in order to find out whether constitution of members are valid, the inquiry is limited only for the purpose of making entries in the register. However, the exercise of power must not be arbitrary as the orders passed or directions issued by the Registrar is amenable to challenge in the Writ Jurisdiction......." 27. The Full Bench has further held that the Power of the Registrar is only to call for reference to the details furnished in Form VII. Regarding the Power of the Registrar to hold an inquiry to arrive at the prima facie conclusion, the Full Bench has further observed that the validity of the Election could well be decided only by the competent Civil Court. It would be most appropriate to further extract paragraph 20 of the decision, which contains the relevant observations as under:- "...As the power of the Registrar to hold enquiry is only to arrive at a prima facie conclusion as to the correctness of the particulars given in Form VII, the provision of sub-section (9) of Section 36 should also be understood to mean that he could issue such directions to the registered society or any of the member of the society only with reference to the details furnished in Form VII. It must also be borne in mind that the enquiry under Sec.36 is not only limited to the regular affairs of the society but also to the working and financial condition, and hence the power of the Registrar to issue such direction under sub-section (9) of Section 36 of the Act, in regard to the constitution of the registered society must be understood in the context of Form VII. Section 14 obligates the registered society to maintain a register containing the names, addresses and occupations of its members. Section 15 further mandates such registered society shall file with the Registrar a copy of the Register maintained by it under Section 14 and from time to time file with the Registrar notice of any change among the members of the committee.
Section 15 further mandates such registered society shall file with the Registrar a copy of the Register maintained by it under Section 14 and from time to time file with the Registrar notice of any change among the members of the committee. In the absence of failure to comply with Section 14, the Registrar could only resort to to the power under Section 37 to cancel the registration. Hence, the power under sub-section (9) of Section 36 cannot be stretched to a power on the Registrar to direct the registered society to hold fresh election. A direction to hold fresh election would amount to indirectly setting aside the earlier election and such power is not conferred on the Registrar under any of the provisions of the Act. So long as the election is not declared invalid in the manner known to law, no direction for fresh election could be ordered. Validity of the election could very well be decided only by the Competent Civil Court as the parties are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective claims. In the event the Registrar satisfies himself as to the particulars furnished in Form VII as correct, he should enter the names in the register maintained for that purpose. In the event if he does not satisfy as to the particulars and thereby does not accept Form VII, he has to issue a direction relegating the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate orders and thereafter shall act as per the orders of the Civil Court....." (Underlining added) The above dictum of the Full Bench that the power of the Registrar is only to the extent that he could issue such directions to the registered society or any of the Member of the Society only with reference to the details furnished in Form VII. 28. Immediately, we may refer to the Inquiry held by the Registrar as contemplated under Sec.36 of the Act, satisfying himself as to the correctness of the particulars given in Form VII. Regarding the admission of 22 Members on 18.08.2001, Form VII was submitted and the same was approved. Relating to 94 members admitted on 05.09.2001, Form VII ought to have been filed within three months from 05.09.2001 i.e. Before 05.12.2001 (as per Rule 17(2)) For the 94 admitted Members, Form VII was submitted a few days later on 17.01.2002.
Regarding the admission of 22 Members on 18.08.2001, Form VII was submitted and the same was approved. Relating to 94 members admitted on 05.09.2001, Form VII ought to have been filed within three months from 05.09.2001 i.e. Before 05.12.2001 (as per Rule 17(2)) For the 94 admitted Members, Form VII was submitted a few days later on 17.01.2002. The delay in filing Form VII is to be condoned. Hence, the Registrar has passed the following Order:- "....,e;j gotk; VII mwpf;if 17/01/2002?,y; jhkjkhf nfhh;itf;F jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,jw;F Ke;ija mwpf;iffs; jhkj kd;dpg;g[ Miz bgw;W nfhh;it Md gpd; nfhh;it bra;ag;gLk; ...." 29. For admitting 47 Members on 31.01.2002, Form VII was submitted. This Form VII was sent in time but since delay has to be condoned for the earlier instance and due to pendency of the case, the admission of 47 members could not be filed and approved. However, the Registrar has received the same with the following order:- "...ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tHf;F epYitapy; cs;sjhy; nfhh;it bra;ag;gltpy;iy..." Likewise, the appointment of Members of the Committee, changes effected in the Committee was also informed to the Registrar as required under Rule 17(2) of TNSR Rules. The same was received with the following endorsement:- "....Kd;nfhg;g[ epYitahf cs;sjhy; ,e;j gotk; VII nfhh;it bra;ag;gltpy;iy...." 30. On the admission of 94 Members on 05.09.2001 and 49 Members on 31.01.2002 though appropriate orders of Approval are not passed, since Form VII was received by the Registrar, inference being that those members have been admitted to the Third Respondent / Council. This is made clear by the subsequent events. The term of Office of the Managing Committee expires on 03.03.2005. Hence, the Third Respondent / Society has proposed to hold the election. J.R.Satchidhanandam, Election Officer cum Returning Officer has written to the First Respondent (on 21.04.2005) informing that he has been appointed as Election Officer for the Third Respondent / Council and he has requested to furnish the list of Members of the Council as on 31.03.2004. In response to his Letter, the First Respondent / Registrar has sent copy of Form VI containing 361 names (including the disputed 94 Members and 47 Members).
In response to his Letter, the First Respondent / Registrar has sent copy of Form VI containing 361 names (including the disputed 94 Members and 47 Members). Certified copy of Form VI was given to the Election Officer with Endorsement "....2003?04 epjp Mz;L Kotpy; ,r;r';fj;jpy; cs;s 361 cWg;gpdh;fs; gw;wpa ,e;j gotk; VII mwpf;if 17/01/2002?,y; nfhh;itf;F jhf;fy; Mfpa[s;sJ/ jhf;fypy; jhkjk; ,y;iy/ r';fg;gjpt[r; rl;lk; 16(3) kw;Wk; tpjp 22d; go Tl;llg;gl ntz;oa bghJf;FG tpjp tpyf;F gphpt[ 49 kw;Wk; tpjp 48d; go mDkjp bgw;W 26/12/2004y; Tl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,jw;F Ke;ija mwpf;iffs; Fwpj;J jhkj kd;dpg;g[ Miz bgwg;gl;L nfhh;it Md gpd; ,e;j mwpf;if nfhh;it bra;ag;gLk; ...." 31. At this juncture, it is relevant to recapitulate the Form VI Register maintained by the Third Respondent / Council (which has been produced in the Court for perusal) which contains the names of newly admitted Members, which has been verified and signed by the appropriate authorities. Verification of Form VI Register by the Officer and furnishing of list of 361 Members shows that the disputed 94 Members and 47 Members have been included in the list. From the endorsement, it appears that approval is pending only because of the pendency of the condonation of delay and due to pendency of the case. But for the writ proceedings, pendency of litigation between the parties, the condonation of delay in submitting Form VII and approving them is pending. Condonation of delay of few days in filing Form VII regarding 95 Members admitted on 05.09.2001 appears to be more administrative in nature; since it has already been received and those members have also been included in the list of Members of Form VI Register. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to the prayer in W.P.No. 1219 of 2005 viz., restraining the Respondents from approving the Members, who were enrolled on 05.09.2001 and 31.01.2002. 32. Under Sec.36 of the TNSR Act, the power of the Registrar is only limited to the extent of call for information for the purpose of maintaining correct records. It may be demonstrated that the First Respondent has properly acted under Sec.36 of the Act. There is no arbitrary exercise of power warranting interference exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33. W.P.No.40759 of 2002:- Manekshaw Babu (Petitioner in W.P.No.3613 of 2005) has made Complaints before the First Respondent on 04.03.2002 and 16.10.2002 and other dates.
It may be demonstrated that the First Respondent has properly acted under Sec.36 of the Act. There is no arbitrary exercise of power warranting interference exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 33. W.P.No.40759 of 2002:- Manekshaw Babu (Petitioner in W.P.No.3613 of 2005) has made Complaints before the First Respondent on 04.03.2002 and 16.10.2002 and other dates. He has also filed W.P.No.40759 of 2002 for issuance of Writ of Mandamus – directing the Respondents to initiate Inquiry in terms of his representations dated 19.02.2002, 04.03.2002, 26.03.2002 and 16.10.2002. Without going into the merits of the averments, the said writ petition was disposed of directing respondents to enquire into the Complaints made by the Petitioner and to take further action in accordance with law. The representation of Manekshaw Babu dated 16.10.2002 was enquired into by the First Respondent / District Registrar. The First Respondent has enquired into the allegations in the Complaint and held summary enquiry. During the Enquiry, the District Registrar has arrived at a conclusion that there has been no violation of Bye-laws and that there is no illegality in the admission of 163 members and that those 163 members are qualified to be admitted as Members. The District Registrar has further found that the allegations in the Complaint are not true. On such Enquiry, the District Registrar submitted his Report to Inspector General of Registration, Madras, which is as follows: "...,r;r';fk; Fwpj;j cWg;gpdh; gjpntL gotk; VI 18/11/2002y; ele;j Ma;tpd; nghJ rhpghh;j;jjpy; 18/08/2001y; 22 cWg;gpdh;fs; 05/09/2001y; 94 cWg;gpdh;fs; 31/01/2002y; 47 cWg;gpdh;fs; nkw;go njjpfspy; ele;j eph;thf FG Tl;l';fspy; nkw;go cWg;gpdh;fs; nrh;f;fg;gl;L chpa jPh;khd efy;fSld; gotk; VIIy; ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go gotk; VII fojg;nghf;Ftuj;J fhuzkhf nfhh;it bra;ag;glhky; ,Ue;jhYk; nkw;go cWg;gpdh;fs; 163 ngUk; nrh;f;fg;gl;l braw;FG Tl;l';fspy; chpa jPh;khdk; epiwntw;wg;gl;Ls;sjhYk; r';f Jiztpjp 29(1) d;go g[jpa cWg;gpdh;fis nrh;f;Fk; mjpfhuk; braw;FGtpw;F ,Ug;gjhYk;. nkw;go 163 cWg;gpdh;fs; rl;l tpnuhjkhf nrh;f;fg;gl;ljhf TwtJ Vw;fj;jf;fjy;y vd rkh;g;gpf;fpnwd;/ nkYk; g[fhh; kD gj;jp 6y; jFjp ,y;yhj kw;Wk; ed;bfhil juhj egh;fis cWg;gpdh;fshf nrh;j;jjhf TWtJ gw;wp nkw;go 163 cWg;gpdh; tpz;zg;g got';fis mrypy; ghprPypj;jjpy; mtw;wpy; ou!;l; tHp my;yJ jdpg;gl;l egh; tHpapy; ed;bfhil mspf;fg;gl;l tpguKk; Jiz tpjp 8(2)d; go cWg;gpduhf jFjpa[s;sth; jhd; nrh;f;fg;gl;Ls;sdh; vd;gJk; cWjpahf bjhptjhy; ,g;g[fhUk; cz;ikay;y vd rkh;g;gpf;fpnwd;/ ,jw;F Mjhukhf K:d;W cWg;gpdh;fs; tpz;zg;g got';fisa[k; (cWg;gpdh; vz;/216. 227. 371) b$uhf;!; efy; ,j;Jld; rkh;g;gpj;Js;nsd;/ ...." 34. Thereafter, other writ petitions were filed in W.P.No.38314 of 2003 and W.P.No.46205 of 2003.
227. 371) b$uhf;!; efy; ,j;Jld; rkh;g;gpj;Js;nsd;/ ...." 34. Thereafter, other writ petitions were filed in W.P.No.38314 of 2003 and W.P.No.46205 of 2003. Those Writ Petitions have been filed for issuance of direction to the District Registrar to enquire into their representation in accordance with law. In compliance of with the directions in the said writ petitions, again the First Respondent / District Registrar enquired into the matter and the First Respondent has found that there has been no violation of Bye-laws and the Report is as under:- "...r';fj;jhy; epiwntw;wg;gl;Ls;s Jiztpjp 34d; goahd circular resolutions Jiztpjpf;F khw;wkhf nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;ljhf tprhuizapy; epUgpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ vdnt mg;g[fhhpy; cz;ikapy;iy vd Kot[ bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ Jiz tpjp 30?d; go rhjhuzkhf eph;thff;FG Tl;l';fs; khjj;jpw;bfhUKiw Tl;lg;gl ntz;Lk;/ 2000 Mz;L Kjy; ,t;tpguk; ghprPypf;fg;gl;ljpy; 2000 Mz;oy; MWKiwa[k; 2001y; Ie;J Kiwa[k; 2002y; MWKiwa[k; 2003k; Mz;oy; K:d;W Kiwa[k; eph;thff;FG Tl;l';fs; Tl;lg;gl;Ls;sd vdj; bjhpa tUfpd;wJ/ Jiz tpjp 30y; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sthW khjk; xUKiwahtJ eph;thff;FG Tl;lg;gly; ntz;Lk;/ ,Ug;gpDk; ruhrhpahf ,uz;L K:d;W khjj;jpw;F xU Kiw Tl;lg;gl;Ls;s epiyapy; eph;thff; FGtpd; bray;ghl;oy; CHy; ele;jpUg;gjw;fhd Mjhuk; VJk; tprhuizapy; jhf;fyhfp epU:gzkhftpy;iy/ r';f epjp jtwhf ifahsg;gl;ljhfnth. ifahly; bra;ag;gl;ljhfnth tprhuizapy; epU:gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd Kot[ bra;ag;gLfpwJ..." 35. Thus, it is clear that the First Respondent / District Registrar has properly acted under Sec.36 of the Act and found that there is no illegality in the admission of the Members. As noted earlier, Form VII of 94 Members and 47 Members have already been received and their names are included in the list of Members in Form VI – Register. The approval is pending only because of the formal act of condoning the delay and pendency of case. When 94 Members and 47 Members are thus included in the list, the Petitioners are not entitled for Injunction, restraining the Respondents from permitting those Members to vote in the Election. 36. As held by the Full Bench, "the validity of the Election of the Society could very well be decided only by the competent Civil Court as the parties are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective claims". Perhaps, the dissident group is also conscious that only Civil Court is Competent Authority to decide the validity of Election.
As held by the Full Bench, "the validity of the Election of the Society could very well be decided only by the competent Civil Court as the parties are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective claims". Perhaps, the dissident group is also conscious that only Civil Court is Competent Authority to decide the validity of Election. The Member K.V.Ramesh has filed O.S.No.1061 of 2002 on the file of Sub-Court, Madurai for Declaration that the resolution of the Managing Committee of R-3 Society dated 03.03.2002 extending the term of office for a further period of three years is illegal and consequentially granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from managing the affairs of the Society and also for Mandatory Injunction, directing the Defendant to conduct the election of Members of the Managing Committee of the Defendant Society by appointing a Commissioner. In the said Suit, I.A.No.690 of 2002 was filed for Temporary Injunction, restraining the Members of the Managing Committee from functioning as Office Bears and also Temporary Injunction and also for Temporary Injunction from convening General Body Meeting. I.A.No.691 of 2002 was filed for Appointment of Advocate Commissioner. I.A.No.715 of 2002 was filed by the Society to stay the suit in view of the pendency in W.A.No.3581 of 2002. By an elaborate order dated 24.01.2003, learned Principal Subordinate Judge has allowed I.A.No.691 of 2002 - an application for Appointment of Advocate Commissioner to hold the election to the Third Respondent / Council. By the order, learned Subordinate Judge has appointed Thiru.K.Muthaiya, Retired District Judge to be the Commissioner to hold the Election for the Third Respondent / Society. Since the Commissioner was appointed I.A.No.691 of 2002 was ordered permitting the existing managing Committee to manage and administer R-3 Society till the new office bearers are elected and assumed charge. I.A.No.715 of 2002 – Petition to stay the proceedings of the Suit was dismissed finding that the Third Respondent Society is not entitled to seek for stay of the Suit. Thus, the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court has already been invoked and the Civil Court has seized up the matter. 37. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners is that so long as the Registrar does not conclusively determine the dispute of Membership, the Civil Court does not get cause of action to approach the Civil Court. This contention does not merit acceptance.
37. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners is that so long as the Registrar does not conclusively determine the dispute of Membership, the Civil Court does not get cause of action to approach the Civil Court. This contention does not merit acceptance. Even in 2002, resenting Members have already approached the Civil Court challenging the election praying for intervention of the Court and seeking for the Appointment of the Commissioner and the Commissioner was also appointed. Since the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has already invoked, no relief could be granted in these writ petitions challenging the admission of the Members and the extension of the term of the Managing Committee. It is to be noted that the Suit in O.S.no.1061 of 2002 has been filed by Ramesh in a representative capacity. The Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff- Ramesh for himself and onbehalf of other Members of the Society, who are having dissatisfaction with the Management Committee. A perusal of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C would reveal that where numerous persons having same interest in one suit, one or more such person may with the permission of the Court sue or defend any suit onbehalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. The Plaintiff K.V.Ramesh is also the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No. 5793 of 2005. The grievance of the present Petitioners is being well espoused in the Suit in O.S.No.1061 of 2002, which has been filed by the Plaintiff Ramesh in a representative capacity representing all the persons, who are dissatisfied with the admission of Members and the present Managing Committee. Since the Plaintiff Ramesh has already instituted the suit onbehalf of himself and other Members of the Society, no relief could be granted in these Writ Petitions. This is all the more so, when there is no improper or arbitrary exercise of power by the Registrar. The Plaintiffs are to pursue their remedy only in the Civil Suit instituted in the representative capacity. 38.
This is all the more so, when there is no improper or arbitrary exercise of power by the Registrar. The Plaintiffs are to pursue their remedy only in the Civil Suit instituted in the representative capacity. 38. Contending that the existence of the alternative remedy is not absolute bar to the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners has submitted that the availability of alternative remedy is only a circumstance, which the Court may take into consideration and that it does not in any way take away jurisdiction of the Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Submitting that in exceptional circumstances, the Court could grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2004 (7) S.C.C. 166 ; 2004 (3) S.C.C. 553 . It is further contention that availability of alternative remedy could be raised only at the stage of admission and not at the stage when the writ petition was already admitted and final hearing is being heard. In support of this contention, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 2002 (1) L.W. 318 . The remedy under Article 226 is discretionary. The High Court may refuse to grant it where there exists alternative remedy equally adequate. In view of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench, the Election could be challenged only in the Civil Court. The power of District Registrar is only limited to the extent of holding summary enquiry in calling for the information to satisfy himself as to the particulars stated in Form VII. As discussed earlier, the Registrar has properly acted under Sec.36 and has also submitted his Report (finding that there is no illegality in the admission of Members) to the Inspector General of Registration, Madras. Under those circumstances, filing of the Suit before the Civil Court is not the existence of alternative remedy; on the other hand, it is the only appropriate remedy. In this case, where disputes are raised regarding internal administration of R-3 Society, which involves adducing evidence and appreciation of evidence, the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked at all. 39.
In this case, where disputes are raised regarding internal administration of R-3 Society, which involves adducing evidence and appreciation of evidence, the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked at all. 39. Contending that there is no specific provision in the Tamil Nadu Societies Registrations Act, 1975, to challenge the election only the High Court or Civil Court could go into detail, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has relied upon the decisions reported in 2004 (2) L.W. 604 ; 2001 (3) C.T.C. 486. 40. In view of the finding of the Full Bench that the disputes regarding election could be raised only in the Civil Court, this Court is not proposed to go in detail on this point. This is all the more so when there is no arbitrary exercise of power by the First Respondent / District Registrar. Assailing the Writ Petitions learned Senior Counsel for the Third Respondent has raised objection to the writ petitions on the ground of latches. The Members were admitted in 2001. The Petitioner in W.P.No.1219 of 2005 has challenged the admission of those Members nearly after three years. Hence, it is contended that no relief could be granted exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though there is no specific period of limitation, where there is undue delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation, the High Court would decline to grant the relief. Since the Civil Suit filed in a representative capacity and the same is pending and number of other writ petitions are also filed challenging the admission of the Members, this Court is not expressing the view whether there is latches or undue delay which has been explained or not. 41. Rhetoric arguments have been advanced that the Society, which has been registered for the benefit of linguistic Minority has to function democratically and in support of that contention onbehalf of the writ petitioners, reliance has been placed upon the decision reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2378. The merits of this point is to be considered in the forum where the election is challenged and the illegality of the Admission of the Members is being challenged. It is a matter of evidence and appreciation thereon.
The merits of this point is to be considered in the forum where the election is challenged and the illegality of the Admission of the Members is being challenged. It is a matter of evidence and appreciation thereon. The mere allegation that R-3 Council is not functioning democratically is not a ground for this Court to exercise the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 42. Since the District Registrar has properly exercised the power under Sec.36 of the Act and also submitted his Report finding that there is no illegality in admission of Members and the Election of the Members of the Managing Committee, no relief could be granted to the writ petitioners exercising the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the Writ Petitions are bound to fail. 43. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that several batch of writ petitions are filed by other Members restraining the Third Respondent / Counsel and the First Respondent /District Registrar from removing them from Membership. Number of other writ petitions are said to have been filed for instance W.P.Nos.38314 of 2003, 46205 of 2003 and 5793 of 2005 challenging the admission of 94 and 147 Members. The Civil Court has also seized up the matter in the suit in O.S.No.1061 of 2002 filed in a representative capacity. In that view of the matter, dissident group Members are to refrain themselves from filing number of writ petitions. In that view of the matter, it is necessary to infuse the sense of responsibility in the mind of the Petitioners and other petitioners in proliferating the number of litigations by filing number of writ petitions. Under such circumstances, it is appropriate to direct the petitioners to pay costs of Rs.5000/- each, which amount is payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. 44. The period of the present Managing Committee has expired on 03.03.2005. During the Election process the writ petitions were filed and interim orders were passed in W.P.No.5793 of 2005. The Petitioner Ramesh in W.P.No.5793 of 2005 has obtained Interim Direction. As per the directions of this Court, the District Registrar has supervised the polling of votes by keeping two separate boxes for voting as directed by this Court.
During the Election process the writ petitions were filed and interim orders were passed in W.P.No.5793 of 2005. The Petitioner Ramesh in W.P.No.5793 of 2005 has obtained Interim Direction. As per the directions of this Court, the District Registrar has supervised the polling of votes by keeping two separate boxes for voting as directed by this Court. The Ballot papers are kept in two different boxes – one ballot box for the approved Members (including 22 Members) and other Ballot Box for the disputed 141 Members. Apart from these two writ petitions, W.P.Nos. 5793 of 2005, 38314 of 2003, 46205 of 2003 are also filed and pending. In those writ petitions, though the reliefs are differently worded, the main dispute relates to the enrolment of the Members admitted on 05.09.2001 and 31.01.2002. Since the period of the present Managing Committee has already expired on 03.03.2005, appropriate directions are to be given relating to the Election of the Managing Committee. Lest, the object of the Society in permitting the benefit of the linguistic minority would be defeated that apart, the Administration of Educational institutions and properties owned by the Society would become standstill, which would seriously affect the Members of the Society and the beneficiaries. Under such circumstances, it is ordered that the First Respondent / District Registrar is to open the two ballot boxes and count the ballot papers together and announce the result of the election. It is further ordered that the Elected Office Bearers are to hold their respective posts subject to the result of O.S.No.1061 of 2002. 45. Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. For the reasons stated in para (43), the Writ Petitioners are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Madras. The First Respondent / District Registrar is directed to open the two ballot boxes and count the ballot papers together and announce the result of the election. It is further ordered that the Elected Office Bearers are to hold their respective posts subject to the result of O.S.No.1061 of 2002. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps are closed.