Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition, at the instance of a person stated to be the President of Lakshmipuram College Society, seeks a Writ of Mandamus, directing the District Registrar, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, to issue a copy of Form-VII, dated 27 August, 2012, submitted by the Society in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. THE FACTS: 2. According to the deponent, he was elected as the President of the Society, for a three year period, more particularly, from 20 September, 2012 to 19 September, 2015. The Society submitted the particulars in statutory Form-VII on 27 August, 2012 before the District Registrar. The Society wanted a certified copy of Form-VII and as such, application was submitted before the District Registrar on 24 September, 2012. Since there was no follow-up action, at the instance of District Registrar, the Society was constrained to file the Writ Petition. 3. While the Writ Petition was pending, the District Registrar, as per communication dated 12 December, 2012, informed the petitioner that the second respondent also filed a Form-VII and as such, the matter was kept pending. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an application in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012, to implead him as a party to the Writ Petition. The said Miscellaneous Application was allowed. Accordingly, the second respondent was impleaded as a party-respondent in the Writ Petition. 4. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner as well as the second respondent filed separate statements in Form-VII and he is in the process of deciding the genuineness of Form-VII for the purpose of filing. The second respondent disputed the claim made by the petitioner. According to the second respondent, there are proceedings pending between the parties including a civil suit in O.S.No.111 of 2009 before the learned District Munsif, Eraniel. There are also two other Writ Petitions pending with respect to the very same subject matter in W.P.Nos.9633 of 2009 and 26385 of 2009, on the file of this Court. 5. The second respondent in his response contended that the petitioner was not elected as the President of Society. The Society elected one Subramanian as the President of the Society and accordingly, Form-VII was submitted before the District Registrar. SUBMISSIONS: 6. 5. The second respondent in his response contended that the petitioner was not elected as the President of Society. The Society elected one Subramanian as the President of the Society and accordingly, Form-VII was submitted before the District Registrar. SUBMISSIONS: 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case a direction is issued to the District Registrar to conclude the proceedings initiated by him, as indicated in the communication dated 12 December, 2012. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that the first respondent is in the process of considering the Form-VII submitted by the petitioner and the rival faction and a decision would be taken shortly with regard to the filing of Form-VII. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that a comprehensive suit is now pending before the civil Court and as such, it is not open to the Registrar to decide the contentious issue in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. DISCUSSION: 9. The petitioner initially wanted a direction to the District Registrar to provide a copy of Form-VII stated to have been filed on 27 August, 2012. The District Registrar, in his communication dated 12 December, 2012, made it clear that there were two sets of statements in Form-VII and a decision would be taken with regard to filing of Form-VII. The petitioner now wanted a direction to conclude the proceedings already initiated by the District Registrar. 10. The jurisdiction of the Registrar with respect to the filing of a statement in Form-VII is very limited. The Courts have, time and again, indicated that the Registrar exercises only a limited jurisdiction and he cannot extend the scope of his powers by deciding contentious issues. It is true that Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, gives jurisdiction to the Registrar to call for information or explanation, with respect to a document before him or which is required to file by a registered society under the provisions of the Act. 11. The petitioner has filed a Form-VII on 27 August, 2012, before the District Registrar. The other group led by the second respondent appears to have filed another Form-VII in the statutory format. 11. The petitioner has filed a Form-VII on 27 August, 2012, before the District Registrar. The other group led by the second respondent appears to have filed another Form-VII in the statutory format. The Registrar, in his report as well as in the counter-affidavit, very clearly stated that he is in the process of considering both the Forms and a decision with regard to the filing would be taken very soon. 12. The power of the District Registrar in a matter of this nature is no longer res integra. The Full Bench of this Court in C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi Davi Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal v. The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi [ 2005 (2) MLJ 335 ], indicated that the statutory enquiry is limited only for the purpose of making entries in the Register. The Full Bench further held that the power of the Registrar to hold enquiry is only to arrive at a prima facie conclusion as to the correctness of the particulars given in Form-VII. 13. Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi Davi Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal v. The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi [ 2009(2) MLJ 370 ], reiterated the legal position with respect to the jurisdiction of Registrar. The Division Bench held that for the purpose of maintaining records both in the office of the registered Society as well as in the office of the Registrar, the validity and the genuineness of Form-VII has to be considered by the Registrar not necessarily through the process of a long drawn trial, but by application of mind to the materials available. 14. The counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar and the communication dated 12 December, 2012 clearly indicate that the Registrar is now seized of the matter. Since the Registrar has stated that he will pass appropriate orders with regard to the filing of Form-VII, the parties have to await the decision. The petitioner now wanted only a direction to the Registrar to conclude the process. In view of the stand taken by the Registrar that he is now in the process of considering the Form-VII submitted by the petitioner and the group led by the second respondent, necessarily a decision should be taken, at the earliest. DISPOSITION: 15. The petitioner now wanted only a direction to the Registrar to conclude the process. In view of the stand taken by the Registrar that he is now in the process of considering the Form-VII submitted by the petitioner and the group led by the second respondent, necessarily a decision should be taken, at the earliest. DISPOSITION: 15. In the result, a Writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus is issued to the first respondent, the District Registrar, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, directing him to conclude the enquiry initiated by him, as indicated in the communication dated 12 December, 2012, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, on or before 30 April, 2013. It is made clear that by issuing this direction, it shall not be construed that this Court has formed an opinion with regard to the claim made by the petitioner or the second respondent. It is for the District Registrar to exercise his powers within the four corners of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and in the light of the law declared by the Full Bench in C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi Davi Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal v. The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi [ 2005(2) MLJ 335 ], and the Division Bench in C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi Davi Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal v. The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi [ 2009 (2) MLJ 370 ]. 16. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.