Judgment The petitioner is a Society known as “Madurai Therkuvasal Nadar Vidhyabiviruthi (Uravinmurai) Sangam. It is also an Educational Agency. It is stated that for the year 2010-2011, there was a change in the constitution of the Committee. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Form-VII under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 to the first respondent for filing the same. But the first respondent has not passed any order so far. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition. 2. The fourth respondent is one of the members of the petitioner-Sangam. He has been impleaded as per the order of this Court made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 dated 18.03.2014. He has filed a counter dated 16.06.2014 wherein he has stated that a Civil Suit has been filed by the petitioner for a declaration that the election is not valid. The said suit in O.S.No.984 of 2011 is pending on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Town. It is further stated in the counter that since the election itself is invalid, the first respondent cannot accept the Form-VII submitted by the petitioner. It is also stated that for 10 years prior to the present Form-VII, the petitioner did not file Form-VII as well as the Annual Report, to the first respondent. For these reasons, according to the fourth respondent, the first respondent should reject the Form-VII. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that he has got no instructions from the first respondent. 4. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully. 5. Whether the election stated to have been held as reported in Form-VII in question, is valid or not, is a matter to be decided by the Civil Court, about which this Court cannot express any opinion. The fourth respondent has got lot of objections for accepting Form-VII and the correctness of these objections also cannot be gone into in this writ petition, because they are all related to disputed questions of fact. When Form-VII has been submitted by the petitioner, it is for the first respondent to consider the same, by holding enquiry, and then to pass appropriate orders, since it is within the domain of the first respondent to decide whether to accept the Form-VII or to reject it. When Form-VII has been submitted by the petitioner, it is for the first respondent to consider the same, by holding enquiry, and then to pass appropriate orders, since it is within the domain of the first respondent to decide whether to accept the Form-VII or to reject it. This Court cannot express any opinion in this regard. In the present writ petition, the simple prayer made is to direct the first respondent to register the Form-VII for the year 2010-2011. In my considered opinion, when there are lot of other disputed questions as I have already mentioned, more particularly from the fourth respondent, it is not possible for this Court to issue a positive direction to the first respondent to register the said Form-VII for the year 2010-2011. This Court can only issue a direction to the first respondent to consider the said Form-VII about its genuineness. 6. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that he may be afforded opportunity by the first respondent to make his representation in respect of the said Form-VII and raise his objections. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in V. Sobana Kumar v. The District Registrar, Registrar of Societies, Marthandam at Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, reported in 2008-4-L.W. 760, wherein the question before the Division Bench was as to whether the Registrar has got any power to hold enquiry and to reject the same. After having extensively considered the said question, in paragraphs 19 to 21, the Division Bench has held as follows: “19. A careful reading of the provision does not show that it neither clothes the Registrar with any power of enquiry nor determine the rights of parties. It does not provide as suggested by the appellant that a decision taken by the Registrar will visit with civil consequences on the parties. As rightly observed by the Division Bench in Muralidharan's case that it only involves an ministerial act and nothing more. If the appellant can be described as the “Form Filler”, then the Registrar under Section 34 will be “Form Filer”. We are not persuaded to take any different view on Muralidharan's case. We do not find any inconsistency between the Full Bench decision and the subsequent decisions of the Division Benches. 20. If the appellant can be described as the “Form Filler”, then the Registrar under Section 34 will be “Form Filer”. We are not persuaded to take any different view on Muralidharan's case. We do not find any inconsistency between the Full Bench decision and the subsequent decisions of the Division Benches. 20. Though the appellant contends that he need not be relegated to the suit which is already pending, we are unable to accept the said plea. It is for the appellant to work out his legal remedies in a manner known to law. Suffice to say that the order of the Deputy Registrar impugned in the original writ petition and not interfered with by the learned single Judge calls for any interference by this Court. 21. At the close of the submission, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the Registrar is a mere form filer then his Form also should be directed to be taken on file and not kept under suspended animation. There is no impediment for granting such a direction. Hence the first respondent is directed to take the Form VII filed by the appellant and kept on record in relation to the appellant Society.” 7. As has been held by the Division Bench, the function of the Registrar only involves a ministerial act and nothing more. If the petitioner can be described as “Form Filler”, the Registrar under Section 34 is only a “Form Filer”. Therefore, receiving Form-VII and keeping the same will amount to only to filing and not registering. The Division Bench has further held that the parties concerned can work out their remedies before the Civil Court. 8. In the case on hand, as I have already pointed out, the fourth respondent has filed the civil suit challenging the election. It is for him to get appropriate orders from the Civil Court and later on, it will be for the Registrar to act accordingly as per the decree of the Civil Court. In paragraph-21 of the judgment, the Division Bench has issued a direction to take the Form-VII and keep the same on record in relation to the Society. Similar relief can be granted to the petitioner herein also. It is not possible for this Court, as I have already stated, to issue a direction to the Registrar. In paragraph-21 of the judgment, the Division Bench has issued a direction to take the Form-VII and keep the same on record in relation to the Society. Similar relief can be granted to the petitioner herein also. It is not possible for this Court, as I have already stated, to issue a direction to the Registrar. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1) The first respondent shall receive and keep the Form-VII on record; 2) The fourth respondent is at liberty to work out his remedy before the Civil Court in respect of the election and the Registrar shall, thereafter, act according to the verdict in the civil case; 3) After filing the Form-VII already submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent shall furnish certified copy of the same to the petitioner for all the other practical purposes. 9. However, there shall be no order as to costs.