JUDGMENT 1. In both the writ petitions, the order of the second respondent made in Mu.Mu.No.47037/F2/2012, dated 11.01.2013 is under challenge. In W.P.No.1629 of 2013, the petitioner is a Minority College known as "St.Jude’s College", Thoothoor represented by one Rev.Fr.S.Joseph Baskaran, claiming himself to the Secretary of the said College. W.P.No.19637 of 2013, has been filed by Rev.Fr.S.Joseph Baskaran, in his individual capacity, claiming himself to be the Secretary of the said College. 2. Before going into the actual dispute in respect of the impugned order, for the sake of better understanding, it would be appropriate to narrate certain relevant facts which have led to the passing of the impugned order by the second respondent. 3. "Latin Catholic Fishermen’s Educational Society" (hereinafter referred as ‘the Society’) was founded on 11.08.1978 and the same was registered as per the "Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975". The said Society has got Rules and Regulations governing the affairs of the same. The said Society established "St.Jude’s College, Thoothoor". It is the first institution established by the said Society to take forward the objectives of the said Society. 4. The object and purpose for which the Society was established is for social, educational, literary and cultural development of the people who live along the coast of "Thoothoor" and "Colachel Foranates" indiscriminately of caste or creed. As per the memorandum of the said Society, the "Foranate" is an Ecclesiastical division of "Parishes". A Foranate will have two or more Parishes called at times ecclesiastical districts. At present, there are two foranates viz., the "Foranate of Thoothoor" belonging to the "Diocese of Trivandrum" and "Foranate of Colachel" belonging to "Diocese of Kottar". 5. The membership of the Society is dealt with in Rule 11, which states as follows: "11. Membership: The number of the members of the society including the Board of Directors shall not be less than 9 and shall not exceed the number 100. The Division of ordinary members is fixed to be as follows:- (a) Ex officio members:- 25 Parish Priests of all parishes of Thoothoor and Colachal Fornates. (b) Members representing major associations recognised by the Board of Directors as such or from the local bodies number 5. (c) Nominated members - from the two diocese Kottar and Trivandrum number 2. They should be nominated by the Respective Bishop. (b) Members representing major associations recognised by the Board of Directors as such or from the local bodies number 5. (c) Nominated members - from the two diocese Kottar and Trivandrum number 2. They should be nominated by the Respective Bishop. (d) A probed, adequate and suitable person representing each Parish from these Fornates Thoothoor and Colachal number 21. (e) All membership except the nominees of the Bishops shall be awarded to each member after the concurrent consent of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors will be at liberty from time to time to remove at their discretion any member of the Society without assigning any reason for such action and such an action will not be questioned. (f) Members may voluntarily withdraw from the society by signifying to the Board of Directors and writing their intention to withdraw. (g) Fees: No fees, subscriptions or contribution whatsoever shall be assessable, on the members of the Society as such. The structure of the Management is also dealt with in Rule 11 which is as follows: "Management: The Supreme Control and Management of the affairs and interests of the Society is vested in the Board of Directors consisting of 10 (Ten) members viz a President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and five other members. The President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, and Treasurer shall be elected from among the Board of Directors, by the Board Members to exercise and control the management and administration of the Society. Anyone of the directors of the board will lose membership only by resignation, death or permanent disability. In such case, he or his legal nominees can claim for his investment in the society. His legal nominee will not have anything to do with the society, by way of right unless the existing directors decide otherwise. The legal heir or heirs can have the claim of his investment in the Society which will be reimbursed within a limited time reasonably so decided by the Board of Directors. (h) in the vacancy or in new selection of a Director the existing Directors can do so by election which shall be decided by majority of votes." [Emphasis supplied] 6. So far as St.Jude’s College is concerned, it is, admittedly, a Christian Minority Educational Institution of which, the Latin Catholic Fishermen’s Educational Society is the Educational Agency. (h) in the vacancy or in new selection of a Director the existing Directors can do so by election which shall be decided by majority of votes." [Emphasis supplied] 6. So far as St.Jude’s College is concerned, it is, admittedly, a Christian Minority Educational Institution of which, the Latin Catholic Fishermen’s Educational Society is the Educational Agency. But in view of Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 there is no College Committee and thus there is no "Secretary of the College Committee" in terms of Section 12 of the said Act. But in practice, in the place of the "Secretary of the College Committee", the Educational Agency elects a person (?) as the "Secretary of the College". However, as per Rule 11, in the structure of the management or the society also, there is no separate post as ‘Secretary of the College’. However, all these years, the said Secretary of the College so appointed by the Society discharges the functions on par with the functions to be discharged by the College Committee and its Secretary in terms of Section 14 of the said Act. 7. In the present writ petitions, the dispute is in respect of the post of Secretary of the St.Jude’s College. Admittedly, the 4th respondent Rev.Fr.Francis M.Vincent was earlier elected in the General Body held on 30.07.2009 and nominated as the Secretary of the College for a period of three years. [vide the Form VII submitted to the Registrar of Societies]. The same was approved by the second respondent by an order dated 11.12.2009. [vide Mu.Mu.No.32088/F2/2009 dated 11.12.2009]. 8. While so, according to the petitioner, the 4th respondent allegedly committed misappropriation of funds of the College and various other irregularities. In view of the said allegations, the Board of Directors of the Educational Agency in the meeting held on 17.03.2010, removed the 4th respondent from the post of the Secretary of the College and subsequently, he was removed from the primary membership of the Society by the General Body of the Society w.e.f. 31.03.2010. The 4th respondent did not challenge the same. 9. On the same day, i.e., on 17.03.2010, immediately on removing the 4th respondent from the post of Secretary of the College, the Board of Directors of the Society elected and nominated one Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander as the Secretary of the College. The 4th respondent did not challenge the same. 9. On the same day, i.e., on 17.03.2010, immediately on removing the 4th respondent from the post of Secretary of the College, the Board of Directors of the Society elected and nominated one Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander as the Secretary of the College. A proposal was accordingly sent to the second respondent under Form VI for approving Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander as the Secretary of the College. Before such approval was given by the second respondent, the 4th respondent -Rev.Fr.Francis M.Vincent filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.4191 of 2010 seeking a direction to the second respondent not to accept the Form VI without affording opportunity to him. In the said Writ Petition his contention was that he was not removed from the post of College Secretary and that Mr.Xavier Alexander was not elected as the Secretary of the College. In the said writ petition, the Madurai Bench of this Court granted an interim order on 06.04.2010, directing status quo to be maintained. Therefore, the proposal under Form VI submitted for approval of the nomination of Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander was kept in abeyance. By an order-dated 30.04.2010, the Madurai Bench of this Court, vacated the interim order of status quo. In view of the above, on 11.05.2010, the second respondent by his proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.10778 dated 11.05.2010 approved the nomination of Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander as the Secretary of the College. 10. In the meanwhile, on 10.05.2010, the 4th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.84 of 2010 before the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Nagercoil, against Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander. In the said suit, it was alleged by the 4th respondent herein that on 24.04.2010 Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander had fabricated documents as though he was duly elected as the Secretary of the College and accordingly, submitted the same for approval by the second respondent herein. It was also alleged in the plaint that on 16.04.2010, Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander attempted to disturb the functioning of the 4th respondent herein as the Secretary of the College. With these allegations, the 4th respondent herein, in the said suit prayed for a declaration that the resolution recorded and sent by way of a Form VII dated 24.02.2010 to the Registrar of Societies was null and void and also for a decree for permanent injunction to restrain Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander from disturbing the functions of the 4th respondent herein as the Secretary of the College. 11. 11. In the said suit, in I.A.No.301 of 2010 the learned Vacation Civil Judge, by an order-dated 26.05.2010, had directed status quo to be maintained. Based on the above order of the learned Vacation Civil Judge, the second respondent by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.18828/F2/2010, dated 11.06.2010, kept the order dated 11.05.2010 in Mu.Mu.No.10778/F2/2010 (order approving Mr.Xavier Alexander as the Secretary of the College) in abeyance subject to the out come of O.S.No.84 of 2010. The said suit in O.S.No.84 if 2010 was subsequently transferred to the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai and renumbered as O.S.No.289 of 2010 12. As against the above order dated 11.06.2010, passed by the second respondent herein, Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD).No.7684 of 2010. The writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.4191 of 2010 referred to above and W.P.(MD).No.7684 of 2010 were heard together by the Madurai Bench of this Court and by a common order dated 30.11.2010, this Court dismissed W.P.No.7684 of 2010. So far as W.P.(MD).No.4191 of 2010, is concerned, the Madurai Bench of this Court held that the said writ petition had become infructuous, in view of the fact that the Director of Collegiate Education, by his order dated 11.06.2010 recognized the right of the Educational Agency in disbursing the salaries to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College. In paragraph No.8 of the said order, this Court made the following observations: "8. In the present case, though Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7684 of 2010 was earlier appointed as the Secretary, the Educational Agency, by its Resolution No.6, dated 26.04.2010, had removed him from the Office of the Secretary and the College and that order of removal is not under challenge. But, however, he was allowed to keep his membership in the general body without any portfolio by the very same resolution.” In paragraph 11 of the order, this Court made the following observations: “11. But, in the present case, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.7684 of 2010, had not challenged his removal of his Secretaryship, but only challenged the order of the Director of Collegiate Education in restoring the right to disburse the salary to the teachers to the Educational Agency and cancellation of direct payment. Further, the very right of the petitioner claimed in W.P.(MD)No.7684 of 2010 itself has become the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.84 of 2010. Further, the very right of the petitioner claimed in W.P.(MD)No.7684 of 2010 itself has become the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.84 of 2010. In his affidavit, he had also accepted that he had signed the peace committee minutes for the implementation of the order dated 11.06.2010. Though it is stated that it was by the threat held out by Revenue Divisional Officer and he was forced to sign the minutes, the Revenue Divisional Officer has not been made as a party to the Writ Petition. Hence, this Court is not willing to accept the statement of the petitioner in the second Writ Petition.” 13. The said common order has become final. Thus, as per the said common order passed, Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander was removed from the post of Secretaryship of the College on 26.04.2010. But, according to the petitioner, in the General Body Meeting held on 17.09.2011, new officer bearers were elected, as per which, the petitioner was elected as the Secretary of the College and, accordingly, he assumed office on the same day. [vide paragraph 6 of the affidavit in W.P.1629 of 2013]. There was also a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Society held on 17.09.2011 and as many as eight members participated in the meeting. In the said meeting in Resolution No.2, Rev.Fr.Joseph Baskaran (petitioner herein) was approved as the Secretary of the College in the place of the 4th respondent herein w.e.f. 17.09.2011 and the minutes was signed by one Rev.Fr.Servatius as the Secretary of the Society. Accordingly, as per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Rules, 1976 Form-VI was submitted on 27.09.2011 by the petitioner herein claiming himself to be the Secretary of the College. It was countersigned by the Secretary of the Society Rev.Fr.Servatius. 14. Thus, according to the petitioner, from 17.09.2011, he has been functioning as the Secretary of the College and the 4th respondent is no more the Secretary of the College on and after 17.09.2011. While so, the suit in O.S.No.289 of 2010, after full trial, was disposed of by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai by a decree and judgment dated 22.11.2011. Though initially the said suit was filed only against Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander, 14 other persons were subsequently added as defendants in the suit. The 9th defendant was Rev.Fr.Servatius. The learned Principal District Munsif ultimately dismissed the suit. Though initially the said suit was filed only against Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander, 14 other persons were subsequently added as defendants in the suit. The 9th defendant was Rev.Fr.Servatius. The learned Principal District Munsif ultimately dismissed the suit. Though number of persons were impleaded as parties, the Society was not impleaded as a defendant in the suit. In paragraph No.14 of the judgment, the learned Principal District Munsif held that the suit was not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party viz., the Society. In paragraph No.15 of the said judgment the Trial Court held that the removal of the 4th respondent herein from the post of Secretary of the College and appointment of Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander as the Secretary of the College w.e.f. 17.03.2010 was not challenged. Similarly, the removal of the 4th respondent herein from the primary membership of the Society w.e.f. 31.03.2010, was also not challenged. The Trial Court further observed that because of the order of status quo granted by the High Court in W.P.[MD] No.4191 of 2010, during the pendency of the suit, the 4th respondent herein was allowed to function as the Secretary of the College. But on that basis, according to the Trial Court, the 4th respondent could not claim that he was the Secretary of the College in view of the fact that he was removed from the Secretaryship of the college on 17.03.2010 and that his removal from primary membership of the Society on 31.03.2010 itself had become final as there was no challenge to the same. 15. The learned Principal District Munisf, further took note of the appointment of the petitioner herein as the Secretary of the College w.e.f 17.09.2011. To come to this conclusion, the Trial Court relied on Exs.B.81 to 87, which are as follows: “Ex.B.81 : 18.07.2011 - Report of the combined meeting of vicariatiate priests of Thoothoor and Colachel.. Ex.B.82 : 17.09.2011 - Letter of present Secretary of St.Jude’s college. Ex.B.83 : 18.08.2011 - Report of the Principal of St.Jude’s college. Ex.B.84 : 30.07.2009 - Form No.6 sent by Secretary of St.Jude’s college. Ex.B.85 : 06.10.2011 - Letter issued to the plaintiff by L.C.F.E. society. Ex.B.86 : 04.10.2011 - Letter issued to the Director of Collegiate Education by L.C.F.E. Society. Ex.B.87 : 17.09.2011 - Copy of Form No.VII” 16. Ex.B.83 : 18.08.2011 - Report of the Principal of St.Jude’s college. Ex.B.84 : 30.07.2009 - Form No.6 sent by Secretary of St.Jude’s college. Ex.B.85 : 06.10.2011 - Letter issued to the plaintiff by L.C.F.E. society. Ex.B.86 : 04.10.2011 - Letter issued to the Director of Collegiate Education by L.C.F.E. Society. Ex.B.87 : 17.09.2011 - Copy of Form No.VII” 16. The Trial Court ultimately held that the plaintiff (4th respondent herein) was neither the Secretary of the College on the date of filing of the suit nor at present and so, he had no locus standi to maintain the suit in the capacity of the Secretary of the College. Thus, the Trial Court held that the 4th respondent herein was not entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for by him. 17. Subsequently, the second respondent, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.45779/F2/2011, dated 24.01.2012, ordered for direct payment of salary to the staff by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli. In that order, it was observed that the 4th respondent herein was allowed to function as the Secretary of the College by means of the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.36140/F2/2010, dated 10.06.2011 in view of the interim order of status quo granted in O.S.No.289 of 2010. It is also observed in the said order that the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.129373/E2/2011, dated 03.11.2011 had forwarded Form VI submitted by the Secretary of the Society appointing the petitioner herein as the Secretary of the College w.e.f. 17.09.2011. As against the said resolution dated 17.09.2011, a suit in O.S.No.183 of 2011 was filed by two other members of the Society. That suit is still pending. In view of the above two suits in O.S.NO.183 of 2011 and O.S.No.84 of 2010 (now renumbered as O.S.No.289 of 2010) by means of the said order dated 24.01.2012, the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, ordered for direct payment of the salaries to the staff of the college. 18. The said order of the second respondent dated 24.01.2012, was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.2140 of 2012. A learned Single Judge of this Court in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2012 in W.P.(MD) No.2140 of 2012 granted interim injunction dated 01.02.2012 and the same was extended by another order dated 15.03.2012. Thus, the direct payment order passed by the second respondent could not be enforced. 19. A learned Single Judge of this Court in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2012 in W.P.(MD) No.2140 of 2012 granted interim injunction dated 01.02.2012 and the same was extended by another order dated 15.03.2012. Thus, the direct payment order passed by the second respondent could not be enforced. 19. Again, as against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.289 of 2010, the 4th respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2012, before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai. In the said appeal, the 4th respondent herein filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.10 of 2012 seeking interim injunction against Rev.Fr.Mr.Xavier Alexander and others. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, by order dated 20.06.2012 dismissed the said interlocutory application. As against the same, the 4th respondent herein filed an appeal in C.M.A.(MD) No.1052 of 2012 before the Madurai Bench of this Court. By order dated 22.01.2013, the Madurai Bench of this Court while dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD) No.1052 of 2012, directed the first appellate court to dispose of the appeal within a period of two months. Thereafter, by decree and judgment dated 26.06.2013, the said appeal was dismissed, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment, the first Appellate Court has observed that a perusal of the documents would go to show that the plaintiff (4th respondent herein) was removed from the post of Secretary of the College w.e.f 17.03.2010. It is also observed that the 4th respondent herein had not challenged the same. In the very same paragraph, the learned Subordinate Judge has also held that from the documents, it had come to light that the 4th respondent had already been removed from the primary membership of the Society and the same was also not challenged by him. The learned Subordinate Judge has further observed that since he had been removed from the primary membership of the Society, as well as from the post of Secretary of the College, the suit filed against Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander was not maintainable. 20. Again, in paragraph 17, the lower Appellate Court has further held that during the course of the arguments, the prayer for decree for declaration was given up. The lower Appellate Court further held that the relief of injunction sought for had become infructuous since the 4th respondent herein was not at all the Secretary of the College. With these observations, the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. The lower Appellate Court further held that the relief of injunction sought for had become infructuous since the 4th respondent herein was not at all the Secretary of the College. With these observations, the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. 21. Again, the second respondent passed yet another order by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.45779/F2/2011, dated 19.07.2012, thereby withdrawing the order dated 24.01.2012, made in Na.Ka.No.45779/F2/2011 (as referred to above, by the said order dated 24.01.2012, direct payment had been ordered). By this order, the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.18828/F2/2010 dated 11.06.2010 was confirmed (By order dated 11.06.2010 direct payment was ordered to be paid through the Principal of the College). In the said order, the Director had expressed that in view of the interim order dated 06.04.2010 made in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010 in W.P. (MD).No.4191 of 2010, the appointment of Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander as the Secretary of the College was not approved and instead the 4th respondent herein was continuing to function as the Secretary of the college. Challenging the said order dated 19.07.2012, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.10066 of 2012, wherein, this Court has granted interim stay by an order dated 23.07.2012. The interim stay order so granted in still in force. 22. While so, claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society one Mr.Stephen filed yet another writ petition in W.P.No.28989 of 2012. In that writ petition, Mr.Stephen, the Secretary of the Society had prayed for a Mandamus directing the second respondent herein to dispose of his representation dated 10.10.2012. In that writ petition, the respondents were the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai and the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region. When the said writ petition came up for admission on 19.10.2012, the learned Special Government Pleader took notice for the respondents and by consent, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition itself. According to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the 4th respondent herein was elected as the Secretary of the College on 30.07.2009, but the second respondent allowed him to function as the Secretary only from 11.12.2009 and thus his period of office should come to an end only on 10.12.2012. According to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the 4th respondent herein was elected as the Secretary of the College on 30.07.2009, but the second respondent allowed him to function as the Secretary only from 11.12.2009 and thus his period of office should come to an end only on 10.12.2012. But by an order dated 07.09.2012, the second respondent had held that the term of office of the 4th respondent was over by the end of July, 2012 itself. With these allegations, seeking permission to the 4th respondent to function as the Secretary of the College for a period of three years from 11.12.2009, the said representation dated 10.10.2012 was made. This Court by an order dated 22.10.2012, directed the second respondent to consider the said representation dated 10.10.2012. 23. Considering the said representation in pursuance of the order of this Court in W.P.No.28989 of 2012, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.13291/E2/2012 dated 04.01.2013, forwarded the paper to the second respondent, wherein, he had recommended that the extension as sought for could not be granted. 24. Having considered the above, the second respondent by his proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.47037/F2/2012 dated 11.01.2013 approved the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College for a period of three years between 11.12.2012 to 10.12.2015. The order further states that this order is based on the order of this Court in W.P.No.28989 of 2012 dated 19.10.2012. It is this order which is under challenge in these two writ petitions. 25. Originally, the writ petition in W.P.No.1629 of 2013 was filed by the College represented by Rev.Fr.Joseph Baskaran describing himself as the Secretary of the College. This writ petition was filed on 21.01.2013. In the said writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay on 01.02.2013. In view of the said interim order, the petitioner has been functioning as the Secretary of the College. While so, by the order of the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice, dated 01.07.2013, this writ petition has been listed before me as a specially ordered case. When this writ petition was taken up for final hearing on 08.07.2013, Mr.N.Jothi, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent contended before this Court that the said writ petition, as framed, is not maintainable. When this writ petition was taken up for final hearing on 08.07.2013, Mr.N.Jothi, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent contended before this Court that the said writ petition, as framed, is not maintainable. According to him, the College is not a juristic person and therefore the writ petition filed by the College is not maintainable. 26. Further, he contended that assuming that the College is a juristic person, even then, there is no dispute between the College and the 4th respondent, because the 4th respondent himself claims to be the Secretary of the College. He would further contend that the dispute is in respect of the office of the Secretary of the College between Rev.Fr.Joseph Baskaran and Rev.Fr.Francis M.Vincent and therefore the college has got no grievance regarding the said dispute. Thus, according to him, the writ petition, as framed, is not maintainable. 27. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.Viduthalai appearing for the petitioner in the said writ petition contended that there is no defect in the frame of the said writ petition. According to him, as per the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 a College by itself is a juristic person. He further submitted that since the petitioner herein is the Secretary of the College, the writ petition was filed by him, representing the College, in which, there is no legal infirmity in respect of its maintainability. Then the writ petition was adjourned for further arguments. 28. While so, the second writ petition in W.P.No.19637 of 2013 came to be filed on 17.07.2013, by Rev.Fr.Joseph Baskaran challenging the very same order and seeking the very same relief. When the said writ petition came up for hearing before Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan, in M.P.No.2 of 2013, while admitting the writ petition, the learned Judge has granted interim stay of the operation of the impugned order and has further directed that the said writ petition be listed along with W.P.No.1629of 2013. 29. Thereafter, the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice by order dated 31.07.2013 ordered that the writ petition in W.P.No.19637 of 2013 be listed before me along with W.P.No.1629 of 2013 and that is how both the writ petitions are before me for disposal as specially ordered cases. 30. The learned senior counsel Mr. 29. Thereafter, the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice by order dated 31.07.2013 ordered that the writ petition in W.P.No.19637 of 2013 be listed before me along with W.P.No.1629 of 2013 and that is how both the writ petitions are before me for disposal as specially ordered cases. 30. The learned senior counsel Mr. R.Viduthalai would submit that since technical objections were raised in respect of the maintainability of the writ petition in W.P.No.1629 2013 by the learned counsel Mr.N.Jothi, the present writ petition in W.P.No.19637 of 2013 has been filed out of abundant caution, though, according to him, the writ petition in W.P.No.1629 of 2013 as framed is also maintainable. 31. Since in both the writ petitions one and the same order is under challenge, I have heard them together and dispose of the same by means of this common order. 32. In both the writ petitions, the following main grounds have been raised viz., (i) The petitioner Rev.Fr.Joseph Baskaran was duly elected as the Secretary of the College in the General Body Meeting held on 17.09.2011; the same was approved by the Board of Directors on the same day; a proposal was forwarded to the second respondent through the third respondent as early as on 27.09.2011 and the same is still pending consideration. While so, the impugned order dated 11.01.2013 has been passed approving the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College, which is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary. (ii) The impugned order has been passed in violation of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.289 of 2010, wherein, the Civil Court has upheld the removal of the 4th respondent from the post of Secretary of the College as well as from the primary membership of the Society. The said decree of the learned Principal District Munsif was confirmed by the first Appellate Court in A.S.No.3 of 2012 and the same has become final. Thus, the 4th respondent is not even a member of the Society. Further he has been removed from the post of Secretary of the College. Since the same has been upheld by the Civil Court, according to the petitioner the impugned order approving the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College is illegal. Thus, the 4th respondent is not even a member of the Society. Further he has been removed from the post of Secretary of the College. Since the same has been upheld by the Civil Court, according to the petitioner the impugned order approving the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College is illegal. (iii) The impugned order is violative of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.2140 of 2012, wherein, according to the petitioner, this Court has held that the 4th respondent had already been removed from the post of Secretary of the College and the same had been confirmed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.289 of 2010 and therefore the question of renewal of secretaryship of the college does not arise. (iv) In W.P.(MD).No.10066 of 2012 filed by the petitioner interim stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner. This would again go to show that the 4th respondent is not the Secretary of the College. (v) In W.P.No.28989 of 2012, by order dated 19.10.2012, this Court directed the second respondent only to consider the representation made by the 4th respondent on 10.10.2012. This Court did not issue any direction to approve the alleged appointment of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College. But, by wrongly quoting the said order of this Court dated 19.10.2012 and by misconstruing the said order, the impugned order has been passed approving the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College for three years. (vi) The impugned order reflects total non-application of mind on the part of the second respondent since the Form VI was not supported by any document showing the election of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College. Thus, absolutely, there is no documentary proof before the second respondent to show that the 4th respondent was duly elected as the Secretary of the College and thus the impugned order is based on no evidence and so the same is arbitrary. (vii) The 4th respondent is an accused in Crime No.40 of 2012 on the file of the Nithiravilai Police Station on the allegation that he had misappropriated the funds of the Society to the tune of Rs.43 lakhs. In view of the said misconduct of the 4th respondent, he cannot be allowed to function as the Secretary of the College. (vii) The 4th respondent is an accused in Crime No.40 of 2012 on the file of the Nithiravilai Police Station on the allegation that he had misappropriated the funds of the Society to the tune of Rs.43 lakhs. In view of the said misconduct of the 4th respondent, he cannot be allowed to function as the Secretary of the College. (viii) The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli region, as a matter of fact, submitted a report disapproving the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College as the proposal was full of contradictions and the same was not supported by any documents but, without considering the same, the second respondent has passed the impugned order. 33. The 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein, he mainly contended as follows: (i) The 4th respondent is a member of the Society not in his individual capacity but as an ex-officio member. As per the Rules and Regulations of the Society, he became an Ex-officio member of the Society as he was the Parish Priest of Ramanthurai Parish which falls within Colachal Vicariate. He was neither removed nor transferred from the post of Parish Priest of Ramanthurai. So long as he continues to be the Parish Priest of Ramanthurai or in any other Parish falling within Colachal Vicariate or Thoothoor Vicariate, he will be an Ex-officio member of the Society and such Ex-officio member cannot be removed at all, as removal of an individual member alone is possible. Therefore, the observations made by the Civil Court in O.S.No.289 of 2010 and in the Appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2012 that he has been removed from the primary membership is of no consequence. (ii) The 4th respondent continues to be the Ex-officio member of the Society and he also continues to be the Secretary of the College and the so called removal of the 4th respondent from the post of Secretary of the College on 17.03.2010 is not true. (iii) Again in the General Body Meeting held on 16.08.2012, the fourth respondent was re-elected as the Secretary of the College and the same was approved by the second respondent by the impugned order in which no infirmity could be alleged. (vi) The petitioner is an alien as he does not belong to the fishermen community for whose welfare the Society was formed. (vi) The petitioner is an alien as he does not belong to the fishermen community for whose welfare the Society was formed. He is also not a member of the Society and therefore he is not qualified to hold the post of Secretary of the College. (v) The petitioner has given his address in the affidavit as though he is residing in the College, which fact cannot be true since there is no residential quarters within the College premises. (vi) The Board of Directors of the College have no power either to appoint or to remove a Secretary of the College as such power is exclusively vested with the General Body of the Society. (vii) The petitioner was not at all elected as the Secretary of the College in any duly convened General Body Meeting and therefore the so called proposal submitted was not considered by the second respondent. (viii) The decree and judgment in O.S.No.289 of 2010 cannot have any bearing in view of the enormous documents showing that the 4th respondent has been the Secretary of the College. Thus, according to the 4th respondent, the impugned order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court and so the same is liable to be dismissed. 34. The second respondent has filed a separate counter, wherein, he has narrated the various orders passed by this Court and that of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai and various other orders passed by him in respect of the College. In respect of the election of the petitioner on 17.09.2011, as the Secretary of the College, it is admitted in paragraph No.8 of the counter that a proposal in Form VI was in fact received by him, but the same was not approved in view of the pendency of O.S.No.84 of 2010 (now re-numbered as O.S.No.289 of 2010). 35. It is further stated by the second respondent, that the Society re-elected the 4th respondent for a period of three years as the Secretary of the College and due proposal in Form VI was also forwarded to him. In view of the order passed by this Court dated 22.10.2012in W.P.No.28989 of 2012, the second respondent recorded the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College as per Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. In view of the order passed by this Court dated 22.10.2012in W.P.No.28989 of 2012, the second respondent recorded the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College as per Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Thus, according to the second respondent, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, according to the second respondent also, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 36. I have heard Mr. R.Viduthalai, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and Mr. R.Rajeswaran, the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents. I have also perused the records carefully. 37. Admittedly, the 4th respondent was appointed as the ‘Parish Priest’ of "Ramanthurai Parish" within the "Colachal Vicariate" by the Bishop of Kottar. It is not in controversy that till today, the 4th respondent continues to be the Parish Priest of Ramanthurai Parish. As per Rule 11 of the Rules and Regulations of the Society, a Parish Priest falling within Colachal Vicariate or Thoothoor Vicariate shall be an Ex-officio member of the Society. As rightly contended by Mr.N.Jothi, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, when the Society was formed on 11.08.1978, there were a total number of 10 members who were all individual members and not Ex-officio members. But, out of the 10 members, only two are alive today, viz., Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander and Rev.Fr.Sylvester Morais, and the other founder members are no more. Thus, two members - Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander and Rev.Fr.Sylvester Morais -being individual members, can be removed by the General Body. But, the Ex-officio members cannot be removed from the membership of the Society because such membership is not either by means of any election or on account of any appointment or by nomination. It is by virtue of holding of the post of Parish Priest within the above said two Vicariates. Being a Parish Priest of a particular Parish he will automatically become an Ex-officio member of the Society and he will continue to be a member so long as he continues to be a Parish Priest. 38. It is by virtue of holding of the post of Parish Priest within the above said two Vicariates. Being a Parish Priest of a particular Parish he will automatically become an Ex-officio member of the Society and he will continue to be a member so long as he continues to be a Parish Priest. 38. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent was removed by the General Body in its meeting held on 31.03.2010 from the primary membership of the Society. In this regard, I may say, if an Ex-officio member viz., parish Priest has to be removed from the Society, he should be removed from the post of Parish Priest. Such power of removal of a Parish Priest is vested only with the Bishop of the concerned Diocese. It may even be by means of transfer. Thus, the question of removal of Parish Priest from the membership of the Society is no where contemplated. But, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on Rule 11(e) of the Rules would contend that the Board of Directors will be at liberty from time to time to remove at their discretion any member of the society without assigning any reason and such an action will not be questioned. In my considered opinion, the members dealt with in this sub-rule are members other than ex-officio members. Under this rule only an individual member can be removed. This aspect was not considered by the learned Principal District Munsif in O.S.No.289 of 2010 as well as the first Appellate Court in A.S.No.3 of 2010. Apart from that, it was not at all in issue before the learned Principal District Munsif as to whether the 4th respondent was removed from the membership and as to whether an ex-officio member can be removed by the General Body. Therefore, at the most, it can be taken only as an observation of the Court that the 4th respondent was removed from the primary membership of the Society and not as a finding as a result of any adjudication. 39. The learned senior counsel Mr. Therefore, at the most, it can be taken only as an observation of the Court that the 4th respondent was removed from the primary membership of the Society and not as a finding as a result of any adjudication. 39. The learned senior counsel Mr. R.Viduthalai will contend that the decree and judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, in O.S.No.289 of 2010, had become final as the same was confirmed in appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2010 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, which has not been challenged by the 4th respondent. According to the learned senior counsel, the decree of the Civil Court binds the 4th respondent and therefore he cannot claim that he continues to be a member of the Society. In my considered opinion, this argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it was not an issue before the Civil Court in the said civil suit as to whether the 4th respondent was a member of the Society or not. For a moment, I do not say that the principle of res judicata as envisaged in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable to writ proceedings. It is too well settled by a catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the said principle is applicable to writ proceedings. [vide judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Dutt v. The Collector, (2005) 7 SCC 190 ]. The principle of res judicata, though technical, is based on public policy, in order to put an end to the litigation. It, is, however, different, if an issue, which has been decided in earlier litigation again arises for determination between the same parties in a subsequent proceeding based on a fresh cause of action where there is continuous cause of action, then, the party may not be bound by the determination made earlier. Further, as I have pointed out herein above, it is only an observation which cannot be taken as a finding in culmination of an adjudication. Therefore, I hold that the said observation is not binding on the 4th respondent as it does not operate as res judicata. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the 4th respondent continues to be a member of the society. 40. Therefore, I hold that the said observation is not binding on the 4th respondent as it does not operate as res judicata. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the 4th respondent continues to be a member of the society. 40. Nextly, it is contended that the 4th respondent was removed from the post of Secretary of the College by the Board of Directors of the Educational Agency in its meeting held on 17.03.2010. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the Civil Suit, in O.S.No.289 of 2010, the 4th respondent herein, claimed that he was the Secretary of the College as he had been duly elected by the Board of Directors in the year 2009, for a period of three years. 41. In the said suit, he had further contended that Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander, the first defendant in the suit had fabricated documents as though the 4th respondent was removed from the post of College Secretary w.e.f. 17.03.2010. He had further contended in the suit that the so called Resolution dated 17.03.2010, removing him from the post of Secretary of the College is null and void. Thus, the relief sought for by the 4th respondent herein in the said civil suit was based on his contention that his alleged removal from the post of College Secretary w.e.f. 17.03.2010, is null and void. 42. The learned Principal District Munsif went into this question and gave a specific finding, based on evidence, that he was so removed from the post of Secretary of the College w.e.f. 17.03.2010 by the General Body of the Society. The learned Principal District Munsif, however, held that the relief sought for by him in the suit could not be granted as it was not open for the 4th respondent herein to seek the relief of injunction since he was removed from the post of Secretary of the college on 17.03.2010. 43. In the said suit, the 4th respondent herein had prayed for a declaratory decree to declare any resolution recorded by the defendants and forwarded to the educational authorities dated 24.02.2010, reporting that Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander was duly elected as the Secretary of the College as null and void. The learned Principal District Munsif found that since the removal of the 4th respondent herein from the post of Secretary of the College was not challenged, the declaratory decree sought for could not be granted. The learned Principal District Munsif found that since the removal of the 4th respondent herein from the post of Secretary of the College was not challenged, the declaratory decree sought for could not be granted. As a consequence, the decree for permanent injunction to restrain Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander from the discharging his functions as the Secretary of the College was also denied. 44. Eventually, the appeal filed by the 4th respondent herein was also dismissed. Thus, according to the judgment of the Civil Court, as on the date of the suit, the 4th respondent was not the Secretary of the College and he was not discharging the functions of the Secretary of the College. The question whether the 4th respondent was the secretary of the college or whether Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander was the secretary of the college was substantially in issue in the said suit. The Court went into the said issue in extenso and finally, held that the petitioner was not the secretary of the college on or after 17.03.2010 as he had been removed from the post on 17.03.2010. Thus, finality has been reached on the said issue in the above said proceeding. Therefore, the principle of res judicata is applicable and thus, the same issue cannot be reopened in the present writ petition. Till today, there is no challenge made by the 4th respondent before any Civil Court thereby challenging his removal from the post of Secretary of the College w.e.f. 17.03.2010. Thus, the 4th respondent cannot now contend before this Court that he was not at all removed from the post of Secretary of the College w.e.f. 17.03.2010. Similarly, he cannot contend that he was continuing as the Secretary of the College even beyond 17.03.2010. Therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that on and after 17.03.2010, the 4th respondent was not the Secretary of the College. 45. According to the findings of the Civil Court, Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander, the first defendant in the said suit, was the Secretary of the College from 17.03.2010. According to the petitioner, in the meeting held on 17.09.2011, Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander was replaced by the petitioner as per the decision taken by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on the same day. According to the findings of the Civil Court, Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander, the first defendant in the said suit, was the Secretary of the College from 17.03.2010. According to the petitioner, in the meeting held on 17.09.2011, Rev.Fr.Xavier Alexander was replaced by the petitioner as per the decision taken by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on the same day. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 17.09.2011 was forwarded to the second respondent to record the petitioner as the Secretary of the College and the same is still pending consideration. Thus, according to him, he has been functioning as the secretary of the college from 17.09.2011 onwards. 46. It is the contention of the 4th respondent that of course, it is true that there was a General Body convened on 17.09.2011 by the Secretary of the Society by issuing notice for the said meeting. But, on 17.09.2011, since there was no quorum, the meeting could not be conducted. Thus, according to the 4th respondent, on 17.09.2011, the petitioner was not at all elected as the Secretary of the College. Further, according to him, in the General Body meeting held on 16.08.2012, the 4th respondent was again elected as the Secretary of the College for a period of three years and the same was duly recorded by the second respondent by means of the impugned order. Thus, according to the 4th respondent, the petitioner is not the Secretary of the College and he alone is the Secretary of the College. 47. But, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the 4th respondent was not at all elected in the duly convened meeting of the General Body on 16.08.2012, as it is alleged by the 4th respondent. Further, according to the petitioner, the General Body has no power to elect the secretary of the college. Further, according to the petitioner, the General Body has no power to elect the secretary of the College. 48. It is the further contention of the 4th respondent that the Resolution dated 17.09.2011, which has been filed by way of typed set of papers shows that the said Resolution was passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 17.09.2011. Thus, according to the 4th respondent, there was no meeting of the General Body. 48. It is the further contention of the 4th respondent that the Resolution dated 17.09.2011, which has been filed by way of typed set of papers shows that the said Resolution was passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 17.09.2011. Thus, according to the 4th respondent, there was no meeting of the General Body. It is his further contention that the Board of Directors has got no power to elect the Secretary of the College. 49. From the narration of the above contentions of both the parties, I find that there are lot of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in these writ petitions. Such questions are as follows:- (1) whether there was any meeting of the General Body on 17.09.2011? (2) Whether there was sufficient quorum? (3) Whether there was any resolution passed validly on that date? (4) whether the petitioner was appointed as the Secretary of the College by the Board of Directors? (5) whether there was any General Body Meeting held on 16.02.2012? (6) Whether the same was validly convened? (7) Whether there was sufficient quorum? (8) whether any Resolution was passed appointing the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College? These questions remain unresolved by any competent civil court. 50. In my considered opinion, the second respondent has got no power of adjudication to give a finding in respect of the above questions. These disputes are very complex in nature which involves both factual as well as legal issues. These issues can be resolved only by a competent Civil Court. The second respondent, in my considered opinion cannot venture to go into these disputed facts and to make an attempt to resolve the same. Under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 he has got no power of adjudication but instead he has got power only to record Form VI. When that is the position, it is strange as to how the second respondent recorded the Resolution dated 16.08.2012, appointing the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College. The impugned order reads as though it was done in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 19.10.2012 in W.P.No.28989 of 2012. 51. As we have already noticed, the said Writ Petition was filed by the Secretary of the Society. The impugned order reads as though it was done in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 19.10.2012 in W.P.No.28989 of 2012. 51. As we have already noticed, the said Writ Petition was filed by the Secretary of the Society. In the said writ petition, neither the petitioner nor the 4th respondent was a party. The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, The Director of Collegiate Education and the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education alone were made parties. The prayer in the said writ petition was very simple. It was for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Director of Collegiate Education to dispose of the representation submitted by the Secretary of the College on 10.10.2012. It needs to be noted that the said representation has nothing to do with the alleged re-election of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College on 16.08.2012. For better understanding of the stand taken by the Secretary of the Society, it will be useful to extract paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order: “4. It is the case of the petitioner society that it is running a minority college which caters to the educational needs of the fisherman folk of Kanyakumari District. Though, one Rev.Father Francis M.Vincent was duly elected as Secretary by the petitioner society on 30.07.2009, he was allowed to act only from December 11, 2009 and therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that the three year period will end only on December 10, 2012. While this being so, the second respondent passed an order on September 7, 2012 stating that the three year period was over by the end of July 2012 and that Rev. Father Francis M.Vincent cannot continue to act as the Secretary of the Petitioner society. Thereafter, the petitioner society submitted a representation on 10.10.2012 to the second respondent and prayed for extending the time period of the college secretary as re-elected by the society. However, since no order came to be passed till date, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner society submitted a representation on 10.10.2012 to the second respondent and prayed for extending the time period of the college secretary as re-elected by the society. However, since no order came to be passed till date, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier. 5. Since, as stated already, the petitioner has given a representation to the second respondent on 10.10.2012, it would be suffice to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 52. From a reading of paragraph No.4 of the above order, it is clear that though the 4th respondent was re-elected as the Secretary of the College on 30.07.2009, he was allowed to act as the Secretary of the College only from 11.12.2009. Therefore, according to the representation, his term should have expired only on 10.12.2012. But the second respondent had passed the order recording that his term expired on 07.09.2012 itself. The request in the representation was to allow the 4th respondent to function as the Secretary of the College till 10.10.2012. Since, the said representation was not considered, the Secretary of the Society filed the said writ petition and it was this representation, which was ordered to be considered by the second respondent. 53. After the said order of this Court in W.P.No.28989 of 2012, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education submitted a proposal to the second respondent along with the order of this Court, wherein, he had stated that the claim of the 4th respondent as though he was re-elected as the Secretary of the College was contradictory and thus he recommended for not approving him as the Secretary of the College. But the second respondent, obviously mistook the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.28989 of 2012 as though it was a direction to consider the proposal submitted in Form VI for approving the alleged re-appointment of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College as per the Resolution of the General Body dated 16.08.2012. 54. But the second respondent, obviously mistook the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.28989 of 2012 as though it was a direction to consider the proposal submitted in Form VI for approving the alleged re-appointment of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College as per the Resolution of the General Body dated 16.08.2012. 54. It is not explained to the Court as to why the second respondent did not consider the earlier Form VI submitted by the Secretary of the College seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner as the Secretary of the College. Neither the second respondent has recorded his satisfaction that the 4th respondent was duly elected as the Secretary of the College as per the Resolution dated 16.08.2012. In my considered opinion, when there are two Resolutions said to have been passed in two different rival General Body meetings appointing two different persons as Secretaries and both the proposals were pending before the second respondent, to be fair to both parties and also to be fair to his conscience, the second respondent ought to have directed the parties to go to the Civil Court to settle the issue and he ought not to have ventured to resolve the said dispute and to approve the claim made by one group. Apart from that, the second respondent had not considered any of the documents filed in support of the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. The impugned order of the second respondent is also a non-speaking order. At any rate, for all the reasons I have enumerated thus far, in my considered opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 55. The learned senior counsel Mr. R.Viduthalai, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since the 4th respondent was not even a member of the Society, he is not eligible to be appointed as the Secretary of the College. There can be no controversy that it is only a member of the Society who could be nominated by the Society as the Secretary of the College. But, in the case on hand, the claim of the petitioner that the 4th respondent is not a member of the Society has been rejected in the earlier paragraphs of this order. There can be no controversy that it is only a member of the Society who could be nominated by the Society as the Secretary of the College. But, in the case on hand, the claim of the petitioner that the 4th respondent is not a member of the Society has been rejected in the earlier paragraphs of this order. I have already concluded that the 4th respondent, being a Parish Priest, is an ex-officio member of the Society and therefore he cannot be removed from the membership of the Society either by the General Body or by the Board of Directors and therefore the 4th respondent, as of now, is eligible for being appointed as the Secretary of the College. But, at the same time, I cannot hold that he was duly elected by the General Body as the Secretary of the College on 16.08.2012, as the same is a disputed question of fact. 56. The learned counsel, Mr.N.Jothi, appearing for the 4th respondent, would submit that the petitioner is not eligible for being appointed as the Secretary of the College. According to him, he is not even a member of the Society. But, in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is stated that he was appointed as Parish Priest of Our Lady of Dolour's Church, Marthandanthurai falling within Thoothoor Vicariate as per the Appointment Order dated 30.05.2010, issued by the Arch Bishop of Trivandrum. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Parish Priest as well as Vicar Forane of Thoothoor Vicariate by an order dated 29.05.2011. It is further stated that subsequently as a measure of promotion, he was posted as Associate Coordinator of Thoothoor Vicariate as per the appointment order dated 13.07.2012, issued by the Arch Bishop of Trivandrum. Thus, according to him he is an ex-officio member of the Society and he is eligible for appointment as the Secretary of the College. It is also further stated by the petitioner in the reply affidavit in paragraph 18 that he has been appointed as a Nominee of Bishop as per the by-law w.e.f. 15.07.2012, as per Appointment Order dated 13.07.2012, issued by Arch Bishop of Trivandrum. Thus, according to him, he continues to be a member of the Society. But, these averments of the petitioner were very seriously disputed by Mr.N.Jothi, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 57. Thus, according to him, he continues to be a member of the Society. But, these averments of the petitioner were very seriously disputed by Mr.N.Jothi, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 57. In my considered opinion, whether the petitioner was validly appointed and whether he continues to be an ex-officio member of the Society, are all again disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in these writ petitions. If the 4th respondent has got any grievance regarding these documents relating to the appointment of the petitioner and his being an ex-officio member, it is very well open for him to work out his remedy before the Civil Court. Prima facie, as per the records, for the purpose of this writ petition, I hold that the petitioner is also an ex-officio member and therefore he is eligible for being appointed as the Secretary of the College. 58. The learned counsel Mr.N.Jothi, appearing for the 4th respondent would further submit that the petitioner does not belong to the fisherman community. According to him, the foremost objective of the Society is to uplift the downtrodden fishermen community people residing in the coastal area of Kanyakumari district. The learned counsel would take me through the objectives of the Society as found in the memorandum attached to the by-law which reads that the object or purpose for which the Society is established is for social, educational, literary and cultural development of the people who live along the coast of Thoothoor and Colachel Foranates indiscriminately of caste or creed. According to the learned counsel Mr.N.Jothi, the petitioner, who is admittedly not a fisherman, cannot be appointed as the Secretary of the College. 59. I have duly considered this submission, but, I find it very difficult to accept the said contention. It is the positive case of the 4th respondent himself that an ex-officio member is the one who has been appointed as Parish Priest by the Bishop concerned. There is no prescription that a Parish Priest should belong to fisherman community. It is the wisdom of the Bishop to appoint anybody as a Parish Priest. Once a person is appointed so, as a Parish Priest, he will automatically become an ex-officio member irrespective of whether he is a fisherman or not. There is no prescription that a Parish Priest should belong to fisherman community. It is the wisdom of the Bishop to appoint anybody as a Parish Priest. Once a person is appointed so, as a Parish Priest, he will automatically become an ex-officio member irrespective of whether he is a fisherman or not. The By-law nowhere states that persons belonging to the fisherman community residing in the coastal region alone could be appointed as the Parish Priest and so, as an ex-officio member of the Society. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel Mr.N.Jothi is rejected. 60. It is the yet another contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Secretary of the College is to be elected only by the Board of Directors and not by the General Body of the Society. To substantiate this contention, the learned senior counsel would make reliance on sub-rule (h) of Rule 11. But, a reading of the said provision does not give any such clear indication that the Secretary of the College shall be elected only by the Board of Directors. As I have already pointed out, all along, the Secretary of the College was elected only by the General Body. Rule 11 speaks of supreme control and management of the affairs and interests of the Society vested in the Board of Directors. It does not speak of the management of the college. Admittedly, the college is managed by the society. There is no specific provision in the by-laws in respect of the election of the Secretary of the College. The petitioner himself has admitted in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in W.P.No.1629 of 2013 that the petitioner was elected as the Secretary of the College only by the General Body on 17.09.2011. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner across the bar that the secretary of the college shall be elected only by the Board of Directors deserves only to be rejected. I hold that the Secretary of the College is to be elected only by the General Body of the Society. 61. The learned senior counsel Mr. R.Viduthalai, reiterating the grounds raised in the writ petition, would submit that the petitioner is disqualified from being the Secretary of the College. I hold that the Secretary of the College is to be elected only by the General Body of the Society. 61. The learned senior counsel Mr. R.Viduthalai, reiterating the grounds raised in the writ petition, would submit that the petitioner is disqualified from being the Secretary of the College. According to him, a criminal case was registered against the 4th respondent on allegations of misappropriation of the funds of the college and there were also various allegations of other irregularities. It was because of these reasons, he was removed from the post of Secretary of the College as well as from the primary membership of the Society, it is contended. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the 4th respondent is disqualified to be the Secretary of the College. 62. In this regard, I have to state that a mere registration of F.I.R. against a person will not carry any stigma attached to his character, dignity and status. Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, F.I.R. is registered only on information of commission of cognizable offence. The truthfulness of the allegations in the information are all matters to be thoroughly investigated into by the police. Even filing of the final report against the person will not carry any stigma. It is only a conviction in a criminal case, that too for an offence involving moral turpitude that will attach stigma on the said person. 63. In the case on hand, only an F.I.R. has been registered against the 4th respondent and the same is under investigation. Therefore, in my considered opinion, as per the Rules and Regulations of the Society, the 4th respondent is not disqualified to be either a member of the Society or the Secretary of the College. If the majority of the electors feel that because of the registration of the said case, the 4th respondent should not be the Secretary of the College, it is for them to use their franchise against him in the election. Despite the registration of the said case, if the electors elect him as the Secretary of the College, he can very well discharge his functions as the Secretary of the College. Therefore, the argument of the learned senior counsel Mr. R.Viduthalai that the 4th respondent is disqualified for election as the Secretary of the College is only to be rejected. 64. Therefore, the argument of the learned senior counsel Mr. R.Viduthalai that the 4th respondent is disqualified for election as the Secretary of the College is only to be rejected. 64. In view of the foregoing discussions, I hold that it is for the Civil Court to decide as to who among the two has been duly elected as the Secretary of the College. Neither party has so far approached the civil court. So, the 2nd respondent was not legally right in approving the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, but at the same time, I find it difficult to direct the 2nd respondent to approve the petitioner as the Secretary of the College. Simply because the impugned order is set aside, it is not automatic that the Form VI seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioner should be accepted by the 2nd respondent. Neither this court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor the 2nd respondent can convert itself/himself into a Civil Court to resolve the above civil dispute between the parties. Therefore, it is for the parties to work out their remedies in the Civil Court and based on any interim order or the final verdict of the Civil Court, it is for the second respondent to pass appropriate orders. Until then, the 2nd respondent cannot approve either the petitioner or the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College. 65. While I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the second respondent, I cannot ignore the possible impact. After the order of the second respondent is set aside leaving the parties to work out their remedies before the Civil Court, if no further direction is issued by this court, it may be practically impossible for the College to run peacefully. The petitioner will start corresponding with the University, the Education Department and other Government Departments claiming himself to be the Secretary of the College. Similarly, the 4th respondent will also start doing so. It is not unlikely that both the petitioner and the 4th respondent may enter into the College making rival claims resulting in confusion in the administration of the College. Similarly, the 4th respondent will also start doing so. It is not unlikely that both the petitioner and the 4th respondent may enter into the College making rival claims resulting in confusion in the administration of the College. It will be difficult for the Principal of the College to either act as per the instructions of the petitioner or as per the instruction of the 4th respondent. As a result, it is most likely that the College premises will turn into a war field thereby taking peace and tranquillity to back seat. 66. Such a situation will not be in the interest of the student community. This Court, being the protector of the rights of the people, is very much concerned with the welfare of the students who are studying in the College. This Court wants to ensure that the peaceful atmosphere in the College premises is not jeopardised. The students should be allowed to pursue their education without any disturbance. Similarly, the administration of the College also should not face any jolt. Therefore, until appropriate order/decree is obtained by the parties from the Civil Court, as an interim measure, I have to make some arrangements regarding the administration. This being a minority college, I am conscious of the constitutional guarantee that interference into the administration is not permissible. Unfortunately, the Administration of the College should be only with the religious minority viz., the Educational Agency. Here, in this case, the Educational Agency is the Society and the dispute is basically as to who has been elected as the Secretary of the College by the Society. 67. Having regard to the above factual situation and the ground realities, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Bishop of Diocese of Trivandrum and Bishop of Diocese of Colachel to nominate one person each from the Board of Directors and such nominated directors together will discharge the functions of the Secretary of the College, until any interim order or final decree is passed by the Civil Court in any civil litigation to be initiated by the parties. It is for the parties to approach the Civil Court as early as possible and get appropriate orders either interim order or final decree in respect of the dispute between the petitioner Rev.Fr.S.Joseph Baskaran and the 4th respondent Rev.Fr.Francis M.Vincent for the post of Secretary of the St.Jude’s College. I am also of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Civil Court to dispose of the suit, if any filed, giving top priority, as early as possible by avoiding unnecessary and long adjournments. 68. So far as W.P.No.1629 of 2013 is concerned, the learned counsel Mr.N.Jothi would contend that the writ petition itself is not maintainable because the College is neither a ‘juristic person’ nor the College has got any dispute in respect of the post of Secretaryship with the 4th respondent herein. 69. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would however contend that as per the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, it is crystal clear that St.Jude’s College is a ‘juristic person’. He would further submit that the writ petition, as framed, is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner who is the Secretary of the said College. I do not venture to go into this question as any debate on the said question will only be academic as I am inclined to grant the relief in W.P.No.19637 of 2013. I leave this question raised by the learned counsel Mr.N.Jothi regarding the maintainability of the writ petition (W.P.No.1629 of 2013) open. 70. Before ending this order, I wish to state the following:- It is brought to my notice that Latin Catholic Fishermen's Educational Society Rules was amended w.e.f. 14.09.2002 by which the total number of membership was reduced to 16. The Rule 13 of the Amended Rule speaks of Enrollment of Membership:- "13. Enrollment of Membership: (1) Any person from the fishermen community either from Trivandrum Diocese or from Kottar Diocese is eligible to become a member of the Society. (2) He shall apply for his membership in the prescribed form duly signed and submit tot he secretary of the society. (3) The total membership of the society shall not be less than 10 and shall not exceed 16. (4) The enrollment of membership shall be subject to the approval and acceptance of the Board of Directors of the society." 71. (3) The total membership of the society shall not be less than 10 and shall not exceed 16. (4) The enrollment of membership shall be subject to the approval and acceptance of the Board of Directors of the society." 71. But, the learned counsel on either side would submit that the said amended by-laws are not in force in view of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.105 of 2003. The learned counsel, on either side, would submit that challenging the amended by-laws, a suit was filed by one Fr.Geno Mathew in O.S.No.105 of 2003 before the District Munsif, Eraniel. The said suit was decreed by decree and judgment dated 26.03.2007 wherein the court declared that the General Body Meeting held on 14.09.2002 adopting the amended by-law is null and void and the court further declared that the said amended by laws shall stand removed. As against the said decree and judgment in O.S.No.105 of 2003, the defendant in the said suit filed an appeal in A.S.No.35 of 2007 before the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram. The same was also dismissed thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. As against the same, the defendant, who lost the case throughout, filed a second appeal in S.A.(MD) No.708 of 2009 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and the same is still pending. But, the appellant in the second appeal died long before and so far no legal representatives have been brought on record. The learned counsel on either side would, however, submit that there has been no stay granted by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court staying the operation of the decree of the trial court. Thus, the decree and judgment of the trial court as confirmed by the first appellate court is in force. I have also perused the decree and judgment of the trial court as well as the first appellate court. From the same, I am also convinced that , as of now, by-laws of the society which remained unamended prior to 14.09.2002 is in force as of now. 72. With a view to clarify the doubt, this court had directed the learned Special Government Pleader to ascertain from the District Registrar, Marthandam at Kuzhithurai, about the present position. Accordingly, the Registrar was present before this court. 72. With a view to clarify the doubt, this court had directed the learned Special Government Pleader to ascertain from the District Registrar, Marthandam at Kuzhithurai, about the present position. Accordingly, the Registrar was present before this court. According to him, the decree of the civil court declaring the amendment as null and void was not brought to the knowledge of the Registrar at all. Therefore, according to the Registrar, there can be only 16 members who are to be elected as provided in the amended by-law No.13. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that, as a matter of fact, the last Form VII was approved on 31.03.2005 approving only a total membership of 16. After that though a number of Form-VII were submitted, since the number of members as per the Forms was not in terms of the amended by-law they have not been approved at all so far. The District Registrar has also produced the original files for perusal of this court. From the statement of the District Registrar, it is seen that the affairs of the society, more particularly, Form-VII submitted by the society have not been properly considered and approved by the Registrar. Thus, as of now, it is not clear as to who are all the members of the General Body. With this position, I have every reason to believe that the number of litigations will only multiply in future. I do hope that to avoid such a situation, the District Registrar will bestow his attention and update the records pertaining to this society in accordance with the provisions of The Societies Registration Act. 73. At this moment, I deem it appropriate to remind a message from "Lord Jesus". "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Children of God." Peace is the precious asset left to the mankind by Lord Jesus. Every man on earth is an instrument of peace, whereas, endless litigations by men are instruments of disaster. If the arithmetic goes right, this is the fifteenth litigation in a span of less than three years, all relating to the post of Secretaryship of the college. Eventually, these disputes have caused great amount of damage to the peaceful atmosphere in the college. Those greatmen, who founded the college for a noble cause would have honestly believed that their successors in office will run the college peacefully. But .........? Eventually, these disputes have caused great amount of damage to the peaceful atmosphere in the college. Those greatmen, who founded the college for a noble cause would have honestly believed that their successors in office will run the college peacefully. But .........? Even now, it is not too late for every one involved in these litigations to take to their heart, the above message of Lord Jesus and to shun the differences among themselves so that the college may serve the purpose for which it was founded. Let this message reach out. 74. In the result, both the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms: (i) The impugned order of the second respondent dated 11.01.2013, is set aside and the second respondent is directed to keep the proposal appointing the petitioner as the Secretary of the College and the other proposal appointing the 4th respondent as the Secretary of the College in abeyance. (ii) The parties are at liberty to approach the Civil Court as early as possible to resolve the civil dispute and to establish the rival claims for the post of Secretaryship. (iii) If any such civil suit is filed, the Civil Court concerned shall take up the suit on a speed track by avoiding unnecessary and long adjournments and dispose of the same at the earliest. If any I.A. is filed seeking any interim order, the Civil Court shall dispose of the same at the earliest by affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties. (iv) Until any interim order or final judgment is passed by the Civil Court in respect of the rival claims for the post of Secretaryship of the College between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, as an interim arrangement, the Bishop of Diocese of Kottar and Bishop of Diocese of Trivandrum shall nominate one member each from the Board of Directors within a period of two weeks from today, and such nominated members shall together discharge the functions of the Secretary of the College. It will also be open for the Bishop concerned to change the member nominated by him. In the course of implementation of this order, if any difficulty is experienced, anybody including the petitioner and the 4th respondent will be at liberty to approach this Court seeking clarification or further orders. It will also be open for the Bishop concerned to change the member nominated by him. In the course of implementation of this order, if any difficulty is experienced, anybody including the petitioner and the 4th respondent will be at liberty to approach this Court seeking clarification or further orders. (v) It is further directed that the above interim arrangement will be in force until an interim order or a final judgment is passed in respect of the post of Secretary of the St.Jude’s College by the Civil Court. (vi) The second respondent shall pass order on the pending proposals under Form VI for the approval of the Secretary of the College in accordance with the interim order or final judgment to be passed by the Civil Court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No Costs.