Judgment :- Heard both sides. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate necessary and appropriate proceedings against the fourth respondent Society, i.e. Arcot Lutheran Church Society, by conducting an inspection and enquiry into the affairs of the Society and also to appoint a Special Officer to administer the affairs of the society until it is revived. 2. When the matter came up on 29.10.2009, the petitioner was directed to give private notice to respondents 4 to 10. On behalf of fourth respondent, a counter affidavit, dated 30.11.2009 was filed together with a typed set of papers. 3. The petitioner claims to be the member of R-4 Society. According to him, the Society was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The by-laws of the society provides for conducting elections and procedures for conduct of elections. It is stated that the society did not submit proper annual report to the Registrar of Societies. Therefore, the District Registrar, Cuddalore initiated action under Section 44 (3) of the Societies Act and forwarded his report to the State Government. It was also stated that the Society was declared to be defunct by a notification issued in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 5.9.2001 in terms of Section 44 of the Societies Act. Therefore, this led to filing of some writ petitions before this court. There was maladministration and an attempt to alienate the properties of the society was also done. Various acts and omissions of the office bearers were also registered. It is under these circumstances, power under Section 36 of the Societies Act was sought to be pressed into service. 4. Though when the matter came up on 08.12.2009, all the connected writ petitions were directed to be posted, it was subsequently informed that all these matters have already been disposed of by this court. 5. On behalf of the official respondents, a communication sent by the second respondent Inspector General of Registration, dated 19.10.2005 to the members of the society was produced. In that communication, the second respondent had listed out various writ petitions, which were filed before this court and finally, stated that since the society has been functioning as per the order of this court, various grievances made by the members can be taken up only after disposal of those writ petitions. In that communication, the second respondent had listed out various writ petitions, which were filed before this court and finally, stated that since the society has been functioning as per the order of this court, various grievances made by the members can be taken up only after disposal of those writ petitions. Therefore, it was submitted that the petitioner has come with one more writ petition, which need not be entertained. 6. On behalf of fourth respondent Society, in their counter affidavit, dated 30.11.2009, it was stated that election for the society was conducted pursuant to the order passed by this court, dated 29.8.2002 and under the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner, elections for the remaining period from 2001 to 2004 was conducted after following the procedures. After election was over, one Edison filed W.P.No.15297 of 2003 before this court restraining the office bearers from taking charge. Subsequently, on steps being taken, the order of this court granting injunction was modified and the elected office bearers were permitted to carry on the functions of the society. Finally, W.P.No.15297 of 2003 came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 8.6.2007. It was stated that the society is functioning in terms of its by-laws. The properties and finance are controlled by the recommending body. It is the Church Board ultimately will have to decide the sale of the properties. The allegation of malpractice was sought to be denied. 7. In support of the stand of the respondents, a judgment of this court in A.Samiappan Vs. District Registrar, Office of the Registrar of Societies, Chennai and others reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 421 was referred to for the proposition that for initiating action under Section 36 of the Societies Act, a requisition will have to be given by the majority of members of the Committee or 1/3rd of the members of the Society should move an application for conduction an enquiry. It was stated that there was no such requisition given. 8. Similarly, another judgment of this court in Vallivalam Desikar Polytechnic Educational Society Vs. The District Registrar (Society Registration) and Inspector General of Registration reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 584 was also referred to for the purpose of contending that for issuing notification under Section 44(4), proper procedure will have to be followed. Unless such procedures are taken, one cannot hold that the society is automatically defunct. 9. The District Registrar (Society Registration) and Inspector General of Registration reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 584 was also referred to for the purpose of contending that for issuing notification under Section 44(4), proper procedure will have to be followed. Unless such procedures are taken, one cannot hold that the society is automatically defunct. 9. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of this court in respect of the very same society in W.P.Nos.22431 and 23281 of 2004, dated 24.09.2004. In that case, a writ of declaration declaring elections conducted to Church Board of the society on 24.7.2004 was null and void, was filed by two members of the society. This Court in its final order held that the election officer was entitled to conduct election and the election held was valid and the writ petitions are not maintainable since such writ petitions will not lie against private society. 10. A reference was also made to a division bench judgment of this court presided by P.K.Misra, J. (as he then was) in The Music Academy, Chennai Vs. Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai and others reported in 2005 (4) MLJ 608. In that case, this court went into the question of Section 34-A and the appointment of the Special Officer. It was held that the question of the society becoming defunct will not arise automatically under Section 44, unless proper steps are taken by the department. 11. A further reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in I.Nelson v. Kallayam Pastorate reported in (2006) 11 SCC 624 . In paragraphs 16,18 and 19, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "16. We have noticed hereinbefore some of the provisions of the 1975 Act. It, undoubtedly, is a complete code. It not only provides for the mode and manner in which registration of a society is to be cancelled but also for winding up of a society and removal of a defunct registered society from the registers maintained by the Inspector General of Registration. A society need not necessarily be held to have become defunct only because certain statutory provisions have not been complied with by it. 18. There is, therefore, no reason as to why the elected members should not be allowed to carry on the activities of the society where for they were duly elected. A society need not necessarily be held to have become defunct only because certain statutory provisions have not been complied with by it. 18. There is, therefore, no reason as to why the elected members should not be allowed to carry on the activities of the society where for they were duly elected. We may, however, hasten to add that when we say so, we do not intend to pronounce on the validity or otherwise of the elections held. If any application has been filed by a person aggrieved for setting aside an election, the same undoubtedly will have to be disposed of in accordance with law. 19. But, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, in our opinion, the High Court in the pending suit could not have done so. It should have relegated the parties to take recourse to such remedies as are available in law for questioning the validity of the election before the appropriate forum(s)." 12. In the light of the above, the petitioner has not made out any case to issue any order especially in view of the fact that the subject matter of the writ petition is already covered by several orders passed by this court. The petitioner has no locus standi to raise once again the issues which were raised already. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.