Judgment :- 1. Theni Melapettai Hindu Nadarkal Uravinmurai is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it also stood registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 bearing Registration No.37/1975. The Society runs several Educational Institutions, by name Nadar Saraswathy Higher Secondary School, Nadar Saraswathy Girls Higher Secondary School, Nadar Saraswathy Primary School, Theni Melapettai Hindu Nadarkal Uravinmurai Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Nadar Saraswathy Palar Palli, Nadar Saraswathy College of Arts and Science and Nadar Saraswathy B.Ed. College, Nadar Saraswathy Technical Institute. The Society is also running a Milk Dairy Farm, Printing Press, Kalyana Mandapams and it is also administering several temples. 2. An election was held on 21.4.2004 for the posts of President, Vice-President, General Secretary, Treasurer and 12 Executive Committee members of the said society. A person by name M. Maruthaiah who was elected as General Secretary of the society in the said election, resigned on 21.11.2006. In his place, a person by name M. Ramarpandian was co-opted as General Secretary, by the Executive Committee, in its Meeting held on 1.12.2006. He issued a notice dated 14.3.2007 convening a general body meeting on 7.4.2007. 3. Since the procedure adopted by the Executive Committee for filling up the vacancy in the post of General Secretary, was not authorised by law, a Civil Suit was filed by a member of the society by name V. Sivasubramanian, in O.S. No.19/2007 on the file of the District Court, Theni, for declaration and injunction. The Suit was filed on 2.4.2007. Pending Suit, the plaintiff also sought an interim order of injunction in I.A. No.21 of 2007 to restrain the co-opted General Secretary from acting as such and from convening the General Body Meeting on 7.4.2007 as proposed in his notice dated 14.3.2007. The said Application for injunction was allowed on 5.4.2007. But in the order dated 5.4.2007, the District Court made it clear that the said order will not be an obstacle for convening the General Body Meeting in accordance with the bye laws of the Society for electing new office bearers. 4. As a result of the said interim order, the President of the Society convened another General Body Meeting on 14.5.2007 and conducted an election. In the said election, one I.C. Murugesan who has filed Writ Petition No.5966 of 2007 appears to have been elected as General Secretary. 4. As a result of the said interim order, the President of the Society convened another General Body Meeting on 14.5.2007 and conducted an election. In the said election, one I.C. Murugesan who has filed Writ Petition No.5966 of 2007 appears to have been elected as General Secretary. In pursuance of the said election, the Society filed Form No.VII, prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, with the first respondent on 16.5.2007. 5. However, another group also filed Form No.VII with the first respondent, on 20.4.2007 contending that they were elected in the General Body Meeting held on 7.4.2007. The said Form No.VII filed by two office bearers, in pursuance of the election allegedly held on 7.4.2007, was taken on file by the first respondent, on 2.6.2007. But when the other group represented by I.C. Murugesan objected to the first respondent taking Form No.VII, on the file on 2.6.2007, the first respondent cancelled the entry. Challenging the cancellation of the entry of Form No.VII, in respect of the meeting held on 7.4.2007, one M. Jayasankar filed Writ Petition No.5666 of 2007 and the said Writ Petition is pending. No interim order has been passed in the said Writ Petition. 6. In the meantime, there was a change of guard in the office of the first respondent and the first respondent passed an order dated 2.7.2007, taking on file Form No.VII which was rejected earlier by his predecessor in office. For doing so, the first respondent has relied upon the provisions of Section 55 of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 7. On behalf of the group which allegedly got elected on 14.5.2007, One I.C. Murugesan has come up with the Writ Petition No.5966 of 2007 challenging the order passed by the first respondent on 2.7.2007, by which the Form No.VII filed by the other group had been again taken into file. 8 . By a separate order 13.7.2007, the first respondent also rejected the Form No. VII filed by the group which allegedly got elected in the meeting held on 14.5.2007. Therefore, challenging that order of the first respondent dated 13.7.2007, the second Writ Petition No.6450 of 2007 has been filed by the group led by I.C. Murugesan. 8 . By a separate order 13.7.2007, the first respondent also rejected the Form No. VII filed by the group which allegedly got elected in the meeting held on 14.5.2007. Therefore, challenging that order of the first respondent dated 13.7.2007, the second Writ Petition No.6450 of 2007 has been filed by the group led by I.C. Murugesan. Since, the order dated 2.7.2007 passed by the first respondent is an order by which Form No.VII filed by one group of persons is accepted and the order dated 13.7.2007 is an order by which Form No.VII filed by the other group is rejected, both the Writ Petitions involve a common question. Hence, they were taken up together, despite the fact that W.P. No.5966 of 2007 came up after issue of notice and W. P. No. 6450 of 2007 has came up for admission. 9. Heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, Mr. Pala Ramasamy, Special Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents in W.P. No.5966 of 2007 and first respondent in W.P. No.6450 of 2007 and Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned counsel appearing for third respondent in W.P. No.5966 of 2007 and second respondent in W.P. No.6450 of 2007. 10. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows: (a) A person by name A. Maruthaiah elected as General Secretary of the Society in the election held on 21.4.2004 resigned on 21.11.2006. Therefore, the Executive Committee co-opted one Mr. M. Ramarpandian in its meeting held on 1.12.2006. (b) This M. Ramarpandian, as General Secretary, convened a General Body Meeting by a notice dated 14.3.2007. The General Body Meeting was scheduled to be held on 7.4.2007 and there were only three items in the agenda for the meeting as seen from the notice itself. The agenda for the meeting was (i) to verify and accept the accounts of the Society for the year ending 31.3.2007; (ii) to consider and take a decision with regard to election of the office bearers for next three years and (iii) any other special matter brought by the General Secretary. (c) Challenging the said notice dated 14.3.2007 issued by Mr. (c) Challenging the said notice dated 14.3.2007 issued by Mr. M. Ramarpandian, convening the General Body Meeting on 7.4.2007, a Suit was filed in O.S. No.19 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Theni, by a member of the Society by name S. Sivasubramanian. In I.A. No.21 of 2007 taken out by the plaintiff in the said Suit, the Principal District Court, Theni passed an order dated 5.4.2007, granting interim order of injunction, restraining the said M. Ramarpandian from convening a meeting of the General Body, as per his notice dated 14.3.2007. However, it was made clear by the Principal District Judge, that the interim order of injunction will not prevent the society from convening a General Body Meeting and electing a new set of office bearers in accordance with the bye laws. (d) On account of the liberty granted to the Society to convene a General Body in accordance with the bye laws, the President went ahead with the meeting as scheduled, on 7.4.2007, though the said M. Ramarpandian withdrew from the conduct of meeting, on account of the interim order of injunction. In the said meeting held on 7.4.2007, a resolution was passed under Resolution No.5, electing a new set of office bearers for the period from 3.6.2007 to 2.6.2010. It is stated in the resolution that the resolution was passed with a majority of 312 members out of a total of 324 members present. (e) In accordance with the said resolution, Form No.VII was filed with the first respondent by K. Thirupathy, who is the contesting respondent in both the Writ Petitions. Though it was originally taken on file by the first respondent, on 12.6.2007, the first respondent cancelled the entry by an endorsement dated 22.6.2007, on account of the interim order of injunction dated 5.4.2007 granted in I.A. No.21 of 2007 in O.S. No.19 of 2007. (f) Challenging the cancellation of the entry by the endorsement of the first respondent dated 22.6.2007, one M. Jayasankar filed W.P. No.5666 of 2007 and the same is pending. (g) In the meantime, another General Body Meeting was convened by the rival group on 14.5.2007. Claiming that a new set of office bearers had been elected in the said election held on 14.5.2007, that group filed another Form No.VII with the first respondent on 16.5.2007. (g) In the meantime, another General Body Meeting was convened by the rival group on 14.5.2007. Claiming that a new set of office bearers had been elected in the said election held on 14.5.2007, that group filed another Form No.VII with the first respondent on 16.5.2007. (h) However, by a detailed order dated 2.7.2007, the District Registrar, first respondent herein, has ordered the restoration of the entry dated 12.6.2007 made in favour of the group represented by the contesting respondent in these Writ Petitions, in pursuance of the General Body Meeting allegedly held on 7.4.2007. By a separate order dated 13.7.2007, Form No.VII filed by the group led by I.C. Murugesan has been refused to be taken on file. The present Writ Petitions arise out of the said orders dated 2.7.2007 and 13.7.2007. 11. Sans unnecessary details, the dispute raided in both the Writ Petitions could be summarized on the following lines namely as to whether the acceptance of Form VII filed by the group led by the contesting respondent-K. Thirupathi and the rejection of Form No.VII filed by the group led by I.C. Murugesan, who represents the petitioner herein is right ? 12. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Registrar of the Societies performs a statutory function while accepting Form No.VII (or any other form) filed by any society and that therefore he has a duty to apply his mind and see if Form No.VII filed by the Society is in accordance with law. Though the Registrar cannot go into question as to whether an election was properly conducted or not, the Registrar has a duty to satisfy himself that the Form No.VII filed by the Society, satisfies the requirements under the Act. 13. It is the contention of Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar of Societies ought not to have accepted the Form No.VII filed by the rival group represented by the contesting respondent herein, on account of the fact that the District Court, Theni had granted an interim order of injunction in I.A. No.21 of 2007 in O.S. No.19 of 2007 on 5.4.2007 restraining the General, Secretary from holding the General Body Meeting convened on 7.4.2007. The General Body Meeting on 7.4.2007 had been convened under a notice dated 14.3.2007 issued by the co-opted General Secretary and the Court found the same to be illegal. The General Body Meeting on 7.4.2007 had been convened under a notice dated 14.3.2007 issued by the co-opted General Secretary and the Court found the same to be illegal. The liberty given by the District Court to hold a General Body Meeting in accordance with law for electing a set of new office bearers, cannot be misused, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by the other group to go ahead with the meeting on the very same day namely, 7.4.2007, after the co-opted General Secretary recused himself from the post and the meeting. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since the General Body Meeting held on 7.4.2007 was actually in violation of the injunction order granted by the Civil Court, (though in exercise of liberty granted by the District Court) the meeting held on 7.4.2007 and the election purportedly held on 7.4.2007 are wholly illegal. Such an obviously illegal election cannot be affixed with the seal of approval by the Registrar by accepting Form No.VII. 14 . In support of his contention regarding the duty cast upon the’ Registrar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Full Bench of this Court in C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee, Karisal, through its Secretary, Sri S. David Stephen and others v. The District Registrar Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District and others , 2005 (2) CTC 161 . In paragraph 20 of the said judgment the Full Bench held that the Registrar has no power to direct the Registered Society to hold fresh election. However, the Full Bench of this Court held that the Registrar should satisfy himself about the particulars furnished in Form No.VII before accepting the same. The relevant portion of the said judgment in paragraph 20 reads as follows: “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. 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 w ell 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 No.VII, he has to issue a direction relating the parties to approach the Civil Court for appropriate orders and thereafter shall act as per the orders of the Civil Court. Accordingly, the issue is answered. Post the Writ Appeals for disposal accordingly.” 15 . In view of the fact that a question has arisen regarding the role of the Registrar while accepting the returns to be filed or the forms to be filed under the Act, it is necessary to look into the statutory provisions, for the purpose of arriving at a decision. The Appendix to The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 contains as many as 10 forms, which are to be used for various purposes. While Form No.I contains the form of the application to be made for Registration of a Society, Form No.II contains the format of the Certificate of Registration. Form No.III contains the format in which the Registrar is required to maintain a Register of Societies which have been registered under the Act. Form No.IV is the format of an alphabetical index to be maintained in respect of societies registered in each, calendar year. Form No.V contains the format in which the notice of the situation of the Registered Office of the Society and any change thereto, is to be filed. Form No.VI prescribes the format in which a society is obliged to maintain a Register of Members. Form No.VII prescribes the format in which a notice of any change among the members of the society or of the committee is to be filed with the Registrar. Form No.VI prescribes the format in which a society is obliged to maintain a Register of Members. Form No.VII prescribes the format in which a notice of any change among the members of the society or of the committee is to be filed with the Registrar. Form No.VIII and Form No.IX prescribe the particulars of any charge created on the property of the society and the mortgage or charge subject to which a property was acquired by a society. Form No.X contains the form of certificate to be issued by the Registrar, whenever the committee of a registered society is superseded and a Special Officer appointed. 16 . Thus, it is seen that some of the forms prescribed in the Appendix are in the nature of certificates and some of them are in the nature of the type of registers to be maintained and a few of them are in nature of notices to be filed by the societies with Registrar. 17. Out of the 10 forms prescribed in the Appendix, Form No.V and VII alone are in the nature of notices. While Form No.V is a notice of location of the Registered Office of the Society and it is required to be filed within three months, by virtue Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978, Form No.VII is a notice of the change among the members of the society or of the committee and it is required to be filed within three months from the date of such change, by virtue of Rule 17(2) of the aforesaid Rules. 18. It is seenthat the requirement under Rule 17(2) for filing Form No. VII stems out of the requirement under Section 15 of the Act. Section 15 reads as follows: “ 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 it under sub-section (1) of Section 14 and from time to time, file with the Registrar notice of any change among the members of the committee. Every registered society shall file with the Registrar a copy of the register maintained by it under sub-section (1) of Section 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 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 reappointment.” Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, reads as follows: “ 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.” 19. It is seen from the language in which Section 15 of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules is couched that there is a statutory obligation cast upon the society to file From No.VII within the time limit prescribed thereto. The Act or Rules do not envisage any statutory duty or responsibility on the part of Registrar of Societies while accepting Form V or Form VII filled under the Act. The Act or Rules do not envisage any statutory duty or responsibility on the part of Registrar of Societies while accepting Form V or Form VII filled under the Act. Therefore, it appears that what the Registrar does while accepting the Forms, is only a ministerial act of receiving the form, scrutinizing the same to the extent necessary to verify the correctness of the particulars contained therein and registering the same. In other words, the Registrar does no more job than that of the Registrar of Companies accepting Form No.32 or Form No.34 under the Companies Act, 1956. 20. It is in view of such a position emerging out of the statutory provisions that the Full Bench of this Court laid in no uncertain terms in paragraph 20 that what is required of the Registrar is only to satisfy himself about the correctness of the particulars furnished in Form No.VII. The duty of the Registrar to satisfy himself about the particulars furnished in Form No. VII, is not larger than that of a ministerial act. The Registrar is not a competent to see if an election is validly conducted, if the office bears were properly elected or if there were any illegalities in the manner in which the office bearers were elected. The verification of the particulars contained in Form No. VII to be done by the Registrar cannot be enlarged so as to enable him to test the validity of election itself. 21. It is seen from the averments contained in the affidavit in support of both the Writ Petitions that what is challenged by the petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, is actually the manner in which the General Body Election was held on 7.4.2007 and the rival group claimed to have been elected. But the petitioner has camouflaged his prayer to make it appear as though the acceptance of Form No.VII by the Registrar is what is challenged. This is very explicit by the very fact that the petitioner has come to the Court in the name of the society describing himself as the General Secretary, on account of the election conducted on 14.5.2007. In other words the petitioner seeks to derive a seal of approval for the election held on 14.5.2007, by questioning the rejection of the Form No.VII filed by him and the acceptance of Form No.VII filed by the rival group. In other words the petitioner seeks to derive a seal of approval for the election held on 14.5.2007, by questioning the rejection of the Form No.VII filed by him and the acceptance of Form No.VII filed by the rival group. As per the decision of the Full Bench, the only remedy open to the petitioner to get the election held on 14.5.2007 upheld and to set aside the election held on 7.4.2007 is to go to the Civil Court. Admittedly the petitioner has not so far challenged the validity of the election allegedly held on 7.4.2007. The petitioner has not even chosen to go the Civil Court for seeking a declaration that the election held on 14.5.2007 was validly held. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the impugned action of the Registrar of Societies in accepting Form No.VII filed by the contesting respondent and in rejecting Form No.VII filed by the petitioner. 22. To put it differently even if the petitioner succeeds in both the Writ Petitions and a direction is issued to the Registrar to accept Form No.VII filed by the petitioner and to reject Form No.VII filed by the contesting respondent, it will not amount to a decision on the validity of the election held either on 7.4.2007 or on 14.5.2007. Therefore, it is futile on the part of the petitioner to assail the acceptance of Form No.VII filed by the rival group without raising a dispute before the Civil Court either about the illegality of the election held on 7.4.2007 or about the legality of the election held on 14.5.2007. 23. In S. Thamil Arasan President of Chennai Vyasarpadi Nadar Nagar Progressive Association Chennai v. R. Narayanan , 2005 (1) CTC 399 : 2005 (2) MLJ 102 , of a Division Bench of this Court held that the Registrar is not competent to enquire into the validity of an election held, even under Section 36(1) of the Act. Section 36(1) of the Act empowers the Registrar either of his own motion or on the Application of a majority of the members of the committee of management or on the Application, of not less than one third of the members of the Society to hold an enquiry into the Constitution, working and financial condition of a registered Society. Section 36(1) of the Act empowers the Registrar either of his own motion or on the Application of a majority of the members of the committee of management or on the Application, of not less than one third of the members of the Society to hold an enquiry into the Constitution, working and financial condition of a registered Society. The Division Bench held in the aforesaid judgment that even an enquiry under Section 36 does not encompass within itself an enquiry into the validity of an election. If the Registrar is not competent even in an enquiry under Section 36 to test the validity of an election, he will not be competent to do so while receiving Form No.VII filed by a Society. It is needless to point out that under Section 36(1) of the Act, the Registrar performs a Quasi Judicial function. While accepting a form such as Form No.VII filed under Rule 17 (2), the Registrar merely performs a ministerial function. If the Registrar, as per the Division Bench judgment, is not competent to look into the validity of an election, even while performing a Quasi Judicial function under Section 36(1), it is trite that he cannot certainly test the validity of a election while performing a mere ministerial function. Hence, I am of the considered view that the proper course of action open to the petitioner is to challenge the election held on 7.4.2007 or to get a declaration that the election held on 14.05.2007 was proper, before a Civil Court. Without approaching the Civil Court for such a relief, the petitioner cannot challenge the acceptance or rejection of Form No.VII filed by either of the rival groups. 24. In view of the above, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed leaving it open to the rival groups to work out their remedies before the appropriate Civil Court. It is made clear that the acceptance or rejection of Form No.VII filed by either of the rival groups, by the Registrar will not tilt the balance, when the parties choose to go before the Civil Court. 25. With the above observations, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.