Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. The petitioner/appellant herein, a life member of the first respondent Dakshina Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha and claiming to be the President of 'All India Annai Sonia Tamil Valarchi Peravai' and a Trade Union Leader, has filed W.P.No.18914 of 2004 before this Court praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to reconstitute the Dhakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha as per the Dhakshina Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha Act, 1964 (Act 14 of 1964). 2. Since the learned single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition, the petitioner therein has come forward to file the present writ appeal. However, since there was a delay of 154 days in filing the appeal, he has also filed M.P.No.1 of 2010, praying to condone the said delay. 3. Since on receipt of notices, the contesting respondents 1 and 3 have appeared before us and advanced their arguments, without waiting to complete the usual formalities of numbering the writ appeal, we have proceeded to take up the contentions urged in the main writ appeal itself (which is in the stage of S.R.). Thus, this judgment will see the disposal of both the delay condone petition and the un-numbered writ appeal, which is in the stage of S.R. 4. The first respondent/Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha is an Institution founded in the year 1918 and registered as a 'Society' under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act) under the guidance and President-ship of the Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi, for spreading the Hindi language among the non-Hindi speaking people of South India. In order to declare the said Institution as an 'Institution of National Importance' and to provide for certain matters connected therewith, an Act called 'The Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act, 1964 (Act No.14 of 1964) was promulgated and the said Act came into force w.e.f. 1.6.1964. 5. In order to declare the said Institution as an 'Institution of National Importance' and to provide for certain matters connected therewith, an Act called 'The Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act, 1964 (Act No.14 of 1964) was promulgated and the said Act came into force w.e.f. 1.6.1964. 5. The petitioner/appellant, as already stated above, is a lifetime member of the first respondent and his contentions are that the first respondent Sabha has indulged in all sorts of illegalities, from collecting huge fees and issuing illegal certificates to not maintaining proper accounts and on an earlier occasion, because of large malpractices in the Sabha, the registration was cancelled by the District Registrar of South Chennai, which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part-4, Section-1 on 6.2.1984; that he submitted a requisition letter to the authorities concerned on 28.12.2002 to permit him to register the organisation afresh and to grant him new Registration Number as per the provisions of Act 14 of 1964. According to the petitioner/appellant, since even after lapse of one month time, no reply emanated, the Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Reforms Resource Action Committee, headed by the petitioner/appellant, has filed a Memorandum of Association in South Chennai District Registrar Officer, on 28.1.2003, for which the Inspector General of Registration sent him a letter on 7.5.2003 stating that the 'Society has been functioning properly'. In the meantime, the petitioner/appellant has also lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation alleging illegalities in the first respondent Sabha and requiring to conduct investigation on 26.10.2002, for which the CBI sent a reply to him on 23.12.2003 stating that 'the complaint has been verified by CBI and found that the matter does not warrant any CBI investigation'. It is also the contention of the petitioner/appellant that his organisation 'All India Annai Sonia Tamil Valarchi Peravai' has received lot of complaints from public about the mismanagement in the first respondent Sabha and therefore an Expert Committee was constituted by them, which has unearthed many illegalities in the Sabha. Since, according to the petitioner/appellant, no proper action has been initiated against the first respondent Sabha by any of the authorities, he has come forward to file the present writ petition, praying to direct the respondents for reconstitution of Dhakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha as per Act 14 of 1964. 6. Since, according to the petitioner/appellant, no proper action has been initiated against the first respondent Sabha by any of the authorities, he has come forward to file the present writ petition, praying to direct the respondents for reconstitution of Dhakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha as per Act 14 of 1964. 6. Before the learned single Judge, the respondents 1 and 3 have filed separate detailed counters, denying all the allegations made by the petitioner/appellant. The first respondent has submitted that the petitioner himself has been informed by the second respondent that the Society has been functioning properly and therefore, the present writ petition itself is devoid of merits as the Sabha has been functioning and carrying out its objects and has been furnishing accounts as per Sections 5(1) and 5(2) of Act 14 of 1964 after the balance sheet being approved by its Governing Body and in the said circumstances, it is too much for the petitioner to contend that the Institution is not functioning and all the grants given by the Central Government are not properly utilized and the certificates issued are not valid and the fourth respondent had failed to exercise its jurisdiction under the Tamil nadu Act. 7. It has also been their case that under Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Act, every Society registered under the Central Act shall be deemed to be registered under the Tamil Nadu Act and shall, insofar as it is not inconsistent with any provision of the Tamil Nadu Act, continue to be in force; that the Sabha has not been registered under the Tamil Nadu Act and it is functioning under Act 14 of 1964 and according to the Rules and Regulations and bye laws and it has not violated any of the Rules and Bye-laws of the Sabha as it stood on the date of promulgation of Act 14/1964; that the Sabha conducts several certificate degree examinations and they are all approved by the Central Government; that the Sabha is also a member of the Common Wealth University and it conducts Teachers Training courses like B.Ed. and they are approved by the National Council for Teachers' Education; that the third respondent also conducts inspection of the Sabha and its activities every year and thus there are adequate checks and balances to monitor the 1st respondent Sabha and its day to day activities. 8. and they are approved by the National Council for Teachers' Education; that the third respondent also conducts inspection of the Sabha and its activities every year and thus there are adequate checks and balances to monitor the 1st respondent Sabha and its day to day activities. 8. In the counter filed by the third respondent, it has been stated that since the first respondent has been declared as an Institution of National Importance by Act 14/1964, the third respondent is recommending grants to the Sabha every year and after they received a complaint from the petitioner, the third respondent office contacted the Central Hindi Directorate, New Delhi regarding continuance of sanction of grants to Sabha, for which the Central Hindi Directorate, New Delhi, vide their letter No.11-4/2002-KAA, dated 19.5.2003 has recommended to continue the Sabha's case for sanction of grants. 9. As the learned single Judge has dismissed his writ petition, the petitioner therein has come forward to file this writ appeal with this condone delay petition. 10. During the course of arguments, the petitioner/appellant, appearing in person, has submitted that the first respondent Sabha has no legal sanctity to continue, since its Registration was cancelled by the District Registrar, Chennai as early as in the year 1984. He has further submitted that though he has given a complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding the illegalities prevailing in the first respondent Sabha, including issuance of unrecognised degrees, it has not taken any action required in the matter. According to the petitioner/appellant, the learned single Judge has not properly analysed the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, he would pray to set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allow this writ appeal, by condoning the delay. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would argue that the very writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant is misconceived and the first respondent is under constant check by the authorities concerned, as per the provisions of Act 14 of 1964. He would further submit that the learned single Judge has properly analysed all the facts and circumstances of the case and has correctly arrived at the conclusion to oust the prayer of the petitioner/appellant and would pray to dismiss this writ appeal along with the delay condone petition. 12. He would further submit that the learned single Judge has properly analysed all the facts and circumstances of the case and has correctly arrived at the conclusion to oust the prayer of the petitioner/appellant and would pray to dismiss this writ appeal along with the delay condone petition. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would reiterate the contents in the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge. 13. We have gone through the entire materials placed on record meticulously. 14. The first respondent Sabha is an 'Institution of National Importance' as per Section 3 of the Act 14 of 1964. Section 4, confers power on the Sabha to grant such degrees, diplomas and certificates for proficiency in Hindi or in the teaching of Hindi as may be determined by the Sabha from time to time. Under Section 5, the Sabha shall maintain proper accounts, which shall be audited by a Chartered Accountant once in a year and the auditors shall submit their report to the Sabha and shall also forward a copy thereof to the Central Government for its information. Section 6 states that: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or in the memorandum or rules and regulations, the Sabha shall not, except with the previous approval of the Central Government - (a) alter, extend or abridge any of the purposes for which it has been established or for which it is being used immediately before the commencement of this Act, or amalgamate itself, either wholly or partially, with any other institution or Society; or (b) alter or amend in any manner the memorandum or rules and regulations; or (c) be dissolved." Section 7 of the Act permits the Central Government to constitute one or more Committees. 15. The allegation of the petitioner/appellant is that the first respondent/Sabha is conferring degrees on the students, though it has no authority to do so. 15. The allegation of the petitioner/appellant is that the first respondent/Sabha is conferring degrees on the students, though it has no authority to do so. But, Section 4 of Act 14 of 1964, reads that the 'Sabha may hold such examinations and grant such degrees, diplomas and certificates for proficiency in Hindi or in the teaching of Hindi as may be determined by the Sabha from time to time.' It is also seen from the materials placed on record that the first respondent Sabha conducts several certificate degree examinations and they are all approved by the Central Government and that the Sabha is also a member of the Common Wealth University and it conducts Teachers Training courses like B.Ed. and they are approved by the National Council for Teachers' Education. In view of the above legal and factual situation, the above contention of the petitioner/appellant has no legs to stand before us. 16. The main attack of the petitioner/appellant on the first respondent/Sabha is that the organisation run by him namely 'All India Annai Sonia Tamil Valarchi Peravai' has received large number of complaints about the malpractices of the first respondent Sabha and hence, he has sought for permission of the authorities to run a fresh organisation with the same name. He states that owing to large malpractices, the registration of the first respondent Sabha was cancelled in the year 1984 by the District Registrar and it was also published in the Government Gazette. 17. No doubt, the District Registrar has cancelled the registration of the first respondent as the annual reports were not submitted regularly and the said order was published in the Government Gazette on 6.2.1984. Since the said order is not in challenge before us, we are not going to the legality or otherwise of the said order. But, one thing has to be mentioned. Under the scheme of things propounded under Act 14/1964, the Sabha is answerable to the Central Government, not only in maintaining its accounts (under Section 5), but even to get itself dissolved (as mentioned in Section 6). Even though after the coming into being of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the first respondent Sabha is deemed to have been registered under the State Act, the scheme of things under Act 14 of 1964 cannot be ignored. Even though after the coming into being of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the first respondent Sabha is deemed to have been registered under the State Act, the scheme of things under Act 14 of 1964 cannot be ignored. Further under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, any Society can be declared defunct, only after following due process of law, which seems to have been not followed by the State Registration authorities while cancelling the registration. 18. Probably, because of this, the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28 in a communication sent by him to the District Registrar, Chennai-South, in Letter No.44180/11/2002, dated 7.5.2003 (available at Page No.35 of the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner/appellant) has stated that: "... the Sabha has been declared as an Institution of national importance by promulgating a special Central Act in 1964 known as "Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Act 1964. Since then it has been functioning properly towards the objectives specified therefor. The Society has also asked for exemption from submission of certain returns. As the Society has been functioning properly, the request in the reference 2nd cited (for renewal of the Society by the first respondent) may be considered favourably." (emphasis supplied) Even the Central Hindi Director, New Delhi, vide his letter No.11-4/2002-KAA, dated 19.5.2003 has recommended sanction of grants, in pursuance of which the third respondent is also sanctioning grants to the first respondent/Sabha. 19. We have no hesitation to place on record the fact that there are complete checks and balances for the smooth running of the first respondent Sabha under Act 14 of 1964 and nothing seems to have gone wrong so far as not only the Central Government, but also the State Government is keeping a watch on the affairs of the first respondent Sabha, an institution of national importance established by the Father of the Nation in the year 1918. 20. While that is the factual and legal scenario, the petitioner/appellant, a self-proclaimed 'follower of Gandhism and Kamarajar type of politics' is continuously spitting venom against the first respondent/Sabha. He stated that the organisation run by him viz. 'All India Annai Sonia Tamil Valarchi Peravai' has received large number of complaints and hence they have appointed an Experts Committee against the first respondent. He stated that the organisation run by him viz. 'All India Annai Sonia Tamil Valarchi Peravai' has received large number of complaints and hence they have appointed an Experts Committee against the first respondent. He filed before us the said 'report submitted by Experts Committee' at page No.3 of his typed set of papers. But, to the dismay of this Court, though large number of complaints are said to have been received by the petitioner/appellant and his organisation, not even a single such complaint by the general public has been placed before us. Even though the said 'Experts Committee' is said to have contained five members, nowhere in the report it has been mentioned as to who they are and under what authority the so-called experts committee has been formed, except saying that the said 'experts committee' is headed by the petitioner/appellant himself. In fact, he alone has signed the said report, without mentioning the names of other members. Thus, the petitioner/appellant sat as a Judge of his own case and under the garb of 'report of the experts committee', by using highly derogatory language against the administration of the first respondent, the petitioner/appellant seems to have satisfied his ego. 21. All this, coupled with the fact that the petitioner/appellant has made a vain attempt to start a new organisation under the same name and style as that of the first respondent Sabha, would show that the petitioner/appellant is spitting venom against the first respondent Sabha with ulterior motives and he, completely with such ill-intention has destined to spoil the reputation and put spokes into the smooth running of the first respondent Sabha, whose administration, as already stated supra, is under complete checks and balances by Act 14 of 1964. Further, with this invented litigation, the petitioner/appellant seems to have aimed to get himself posed as 'Messiah of Masses' by approaching not only the highest investigating agency in the country CBI and also the National Human Rights Commission, without even knowing the purposes for which CBI and National Human Rights Commission are commissioned in the country. All this would also force us to comment that the petitioner/appellant is a publicity monger and by misusing his political position, he is trying to enter into the shoes of the State and Central Government organisations to wreak vengeance against the first respondent Sabha, thus satisfying his personal ego, which can never be permitted. All this would also force us to comment that the petitioner/appellant is a publicity monger and by misusing his political position, he is trying to enter into the shoes of the State and Central Government organisations to wreak vengeance against the first respondent Sabha, thus satisfying his personal ego, which can never be permitted. Therefore, there is no merit in any of the contentions invented and urged by the petitioner/appellant. Accordingly, the condone delay petition and the un-numbered writ appeal are dismissed as being bereft of truth. No costs.