ORDER All these writ petitions relate to the affairs of one Nadar Mahajana Sangam and also the Nadar Mahajana Sangam Kamraj Polytechnic Managing Board. Even before the batch of these cases, there has been several litigations regarding the activities of the Association including the manner in which the election were held to the Association. 2. W.P. No. 357 of 2006 was filed by one V.P. Mani claiming to be a Special Life Member of the said Association seeking to challenge the proceedings of the General Council Meeting held on 24.12.2005 and to quash the appointment of an Election Committee Members and for a consequential appointment of an Independent Election Officer for conducting the elections for a period from 10.2.2006 to 9.2.2007. The said writ petition was not admitted. 3. W.P. 376 of 2006 was filed by a Member of the same Association by name A. Madivanan seeking for a direction to the District Registrar Societies Madurai (South) to take charge and conduct the election for the office bearers for the year 2006-2007. Even in this writ petition, only notice was ordered to the respondents. While ordering notice, this Court passed an order dated 20.1.2006, which is as follows: "Having regard to the gravity of the violations alleged, which stand refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, I am of the view that it is most desirable that the entire controversy at this stage may be referred to the first respondent, which would give a report to this Court on which an order on merits can be passed. Accordingly, for the present, the following interim order is passed: "Respondents 2 to 4, jointly or severally shall file the entire papers relating to the election to be held pursuant to the election notification dated 26.12.2005 before the first respondent before 5.00 p.m. today (20.1.2006); the first respondent is directed to permit inspection of those materials to Mr. V.P. Mani, Mr. V.P. Mani, Mr. Balaji and to this writ petitioner, who are admittedly members of the second respondent society by 11.00 am on 21.1.2006 (the first respondent shall comply with this direction though 21.1.2006 is a holiday to him); the nominees, not exceeding three of the second respondent are permitted to be present at that time; the members who are permitted by this Court to inspect all those records.......shall file their objections, if any, after giving a copy of the same in advance to the second respondent, by 10.30 a.m. On 23.1.2006. If the second respondent has any objections to the objections filed by those members, it shall file its reply also before 11.00 a.m. on 23.1.2006 itself. The first respondent shall thereafter submit his report in English considering the entire materials, in the context of the objections and reply, if any, to this Court before 12.00 noon on 24.1.2006. It is made clear that the first respondent shall strictly comply with the directions." 4. W.P. No. 657 of 2006 was filed by one P.S. Kaniraj seeking for a direction to consider his representation dated 17.1.2006 and to take appropriate action for holding the election in accordance with the bye-laws. This writ petition was merely directed to be posted along with other W.Ps. 5. W.P. 1150 of 2006 was filed by one S. Sathiyappan who is an ordinary life member of the Association seeking for a direction to the first respondent to take charge of the election and conduct the election for the period 2006 to 2009 and also re-schedule the election notification dated 26.12.200This writ petition was admitted on 17.2.2006. 6. When these matters came up for hearing on 25.1.2006, this Court passed the following order in respect of first three writ petitions: "Learned counsel for the respondents questions the maintainability of the writ petitions themselves and in view of this, passing any interim order restraining the process of election may not be possible. When this difficulty was expressed by Mr.Subbiah, learned counsel for the respondents, agrees, to postpone the election by two weeks, for which, other side also has no objection. Hence, election scheduled on 29.1.2006 is ordered to be postponed by 12.12.2006. In the mean time, the respondents are directed to file their counter on or before 1.2.2006, and reply, if any, by the writ petitioners, before 3.2.2006." 7. Hence, election scheduled on 29.1.2006 is ordered to be postponed by 12.12.2006. In the mean time, the respondents are directed to file their counter on or before 1.2.2006, and reply, if any, by the writ petitioners, before 3.2.2006." 7. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 7.2.2006, this Court passed the following order: "It is represented by the counsel for either parties that it is mutually agreed by the parties, that there would be a Five Members Committee to re-draft or frame the By-laws or to make any amendmens or to correct the defects if any, as the case may be, headed by Justice J. KANKARAJ, (Ret.) consisting the following members, namely (1) J.R. Jeyapalam, advocate, Madurai (2) P. Sermakani, Advocate, Madurai (3) M.C. Ramachandran, Advocate, Triunelveli and P. Dharmaraj, Advocate, Madurai. 2. The above statement is recorded. The Committee will go through the dispute between the parties regarding the By-laws and frame By-laws or correct or amend, as the case may be, which are necessary to run the Sangam effectively and smoothly. Await the outcome of the Committee. The Election shall be deferred until further orders." 8. Thereafter, on 19.4.2006, W.P. No. 1150 of 2006 was dismissed for want of compliance of the defects pointed out by the Registry. Subsequently, by an order dated, 19.1.2007 in M.P. No. 1 of 2006, the said writ petition was restored on file and posted along with other cases. 9. The Association claiming to be represented by one G. Karikoalraj, as its General Secretary filed W.P. No. 9745 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the Registrar of Societies to take proceedings under Section 36 of the Societies Registration Act,1975 by considering his letter dated 5.11.2007. In the said writ petition, only notice was ordered initially. Subsequently, on 9.7.2008, it was directed to be posted along with other batch of cases. 10. Thereafter, one Udayakumar claiming to be a Member of the Society filed a writ petition for a direction to consider his representation dated 3.12.2007 seeking for an action under Section 34(A) to suspend the Board of Directors. The very same person had earlier filed a W.P. No. 9814 of 2007 to restrain the Association proceeding to convene an Executive committee Meeting on 28.10.2007 and for conducting fresh elections to the Association. The very same person had earlier filed a W.P. No. 9814 of 2007 to restrain the Association proceeding to convene an Executive committee Meeting on 28.10.2007 and for conducting fresh elections to the Association. For reasons best known to him, he withdrew the said writ petition on 27.11.2000 with liberty to approach the appropriate authorities. However, he had strangely filed the present writ petition once again with some other relief. 11. He also filed W.P. No. 4312 of 2008 challenging the order dated 25.4.2008. In that it was stated that the Registrar had accepted the Form-VII filed by one Sadasivam who gave a list of officer bearers pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting held on 5.11.2005. The said Sadasivam was also informed that his request for condoning the delay in filing the annual reports for the period 1985-1986 to 2002 to 2003 was recommended to the Government and only after the Government grants exemption, the annual reports for the years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 will be accepted and recorded by him. 12. W.P. No. 1335 of 2008 is filed by one Somasundaram seeking for a direction to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 44 of the Societies Registration Act on the basis of his representation dated 13.1.2008. He also claimed to be a member of the very same Association. Both the writ petitions were not admitted. 13. These three writ petitions namely W.P. Nos. 382, 1335, 4312 of 2008 related to the affairs of Nadar Mahajana Sangam Kamaraj Polytechnic Managing Board. It is a separate society registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration Societies Act with a Registration No. 56 of 1983. These writ petitions have no connection with other writ petitions relating to the Nadar Mahajana Sangam. 14. Since the Registrar had passed an appropriate order, accepting Form-VII filed by the Office Bearers of the Society, W.P. Nos. 382 of 2008 and 1335 of 2008 have become infractuous and accordingly, will stand dismissed. Even the prayer in W.P. No. 4312 of 2003 objecting to the receipt of Form-VII listing out the Officer Bearers of the Society, cannot be dealt with in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in (2008) 1 MLJ 1308 and answered the relevant paras 39 & 40 found in the said Judgment are usefully extracted below: "39. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in (2008) 1 MLJ 1308 and answered the relevant paras 39 & 40 found in the said Judgment are usefully extracted below: "39. Therefore, we hold that a writ would not lie against any ministerial act performed by the Registrar or Societies under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, including the acceptance or rejection of Form No. VII. Whenever Form No. VII is filed, the District Registrar can only call for further information/explanation and file the same along with the Form under Section 34 and he is not entitled to adjudicate any dispute. Therefore, the direction issued by the District Registrar in his order dated 30.5.2007 holding the elections held on 28.1.2007 to be invalid and directing the parities to go in for fresh election, cannot be sustained, on account of the fact that he exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law while accepting Form VII. 40. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Judge dated 12.9.2007 passed in W.P. No. 24017 of 2007 is set aside and the writ petition filed by the second respondent is dismissed. However, it is open to the appellants as well as the second respondent to approach the Civil Court with regard to the validity of the election." In the light of the above, this writ petition will also stand dismissed. 16. Thereafter, another two writ petitions were filed by M/s. G. Madivannan and G. Chandrasekaran in W.P. Nos. 4461 and 4465 of 2008 for holding elections for the period of 2008-2011 for the Nadar Mahajana Sangam. This Court, disposed of those two writ petitions by a common order dated 15.5.2008. In that order, it was recorded in Paragraphs: 1, 6 and 7 which are as follows: "i) The District Registrar will nominate an officer to be present at the General meeting Schedule to be held on 25.5.2008. vi) The Official nominee shall file a report regarding the election to the District Registrar with a copy to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench. vii) The Court appointed observer shall file a report regarding the election before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench." 17. vi) The Official nominee shall file a report regarding the election to the District Registrar with a copy to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench. vii) The Court appointed observer shall file a report regarding the election before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench." 17. After elections were held on basis of the directions of this Court, W.P. No. 7078 of 2008 by one Ragavaiah who claims to be a member of the Society seeking for a direction to the first respondent Registrar to enquire into affairs of the second respondent Sangam and to conduct elections in a democratic manner. 18. The power of the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act vis-a-vis looking into the election dispute came to be considered by a Full Bench of this Court in (2005) 2 MLJ 335 : 2005 (2) CTC 161 . In paragraph 20 of the said judgment, it was held as follows at p. 342 of MLJ: "20. .....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." 19. Subsequent to the Full Bench, another Division Bench in R. Muralidaran and Others v. District Registrar (supra) declared that the power of the Registrar while receiving Form VII is administrative in nature and that he was not entitled adjudicate any dispute between the parties. Subsequent to the Full Bench, another Division Bench in R. Muralidaran and Others v. District Registrar (supra) declared that the power of the Registrar while receiving Form VII is administrative in nature and that he was not entitled adjudicate any dispute between the parties. If was further held that the aggrieved persons, in such circumstances will have to move the appropriate Civil Court. 20. In the light of the above, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. All the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Writ petitions dismissed.