Judgment : 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the proceedings dated 15 July, 2014 on the file of Inspector General of Registration and the consequential notice dated 17 July, 2014, on the file of the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Madurai, whereby and whereunder, proceedings under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, was initiated to enquire into the constitution, working and financial condition of Karandhai Tamil Sangam, Thanjavur. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The Society, by name Karandhai Tamil Sangam was registered as a Society on 01 May, 1914 to advance and to improve the cause and conditions of Tamil and Tamilians and related objects. The Society established as many as seven Educational Institutions in and around Thanjavur. The institutions are affiliated to Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli and it was duly approved by the National Council for Teacher Education. 3. While so, Thiru.Arivudainambi stated to be a resident of Thanjavur submitted a representation dated 15 July, 2014 to the Inspector General of Registration. The Inspector General of Registration took the said representation on file and immediately, initiated proceedings, directing enquiry into the affairs of the Society. The second respondent, on the basis of the said proceedings, issued notice to the petitioner to appear on 18 July, 2014. 4. The proceedings initiated under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is challenged primarily on the following grounds: (a) The complainant is not a member of the Society and as such, he is not entitled to initiate action under Section 36(1) of the Act. (b) Even if the action is construed to be a suo motu one, still there are no materials before the first respondent to hold an enquiry into the affairs of the Society. (c) The first respondent, before initiating proceedings, failed to arrive at a subjective satisfaction as to whether the available materials are sufficient to hold an enquiry under Section 36(1) of the Act. 5. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the second respondent, the petitioner has already subjected to the jurisdiction and took time to produce the records. The Secretary of the Society wanted documents to be supplied. Accordingly, the relevant documents were all furnished to him. According to the second respondent, the petitioner has already subjected to the jurisdiction and took time to produce the records. The Secretary of the Society wanted documents to be supplied. Accordingly, the relevant documents were all furnished to him. It is the contention of the second respondent that there are several allegations made against the Society, besides various acts of mismanagement which would go to the root of the matter. There was a public interest litigation in W.P.No.36210 of 2012 against certain private parties and Government officials. The Secretary of the petitioner Society was arrayed as sixth respondent. The Secretary is also involved in criminal cases. The statutory authorities have already initiated action against the Society for encroaching upon Government land. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Thanjavur, registered a case under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act against the Secretary, his wife and children for having acquired pecuniary resources which are disproportionate to the known sources of income and the first information report is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam. The police have already laid three charge sheets against the Secretary and his family. There are other similar charges pending against the Society including financial misuse, tampering of records, falsification of accounts, forgery, embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. The second respondent submitted that the enquiry would be conducted without bias and as such, the statutory authority should be permitted to exercise the function in accordance with law. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS: 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: (a) The proceedings initiated by the first respondent was not a suo motu proceedings. The reference column contain the complaint preferred by Thiru.Arivudainambi. The complaint was not accompanied by any document to show that the Society involved in various acts of financial mismanagement or other irregularities warranting enquiry under Section 36(1) of the Act. (b) The complaint was given on 15 July, 2014. The first respondent initiated enquiry immediately on the very same day. The second respondent issued notice on 17 July, 2014. The urgency shown by the respondents would show that the entire action was at the instance of the complainant, who is a member of a different political party. (c) The first respondent failed to consider the issue objectively. The first respondent initiated enquiry immediately on the very same day. The second respondent issued notice on 17 July, 2014. The urgency shown by the respondents would show that the entire action was at the instance of the complainant, who is a member of a different political party. (c) The first respondent failed to consider the issue objectively. The first respondent was expected to consider the materials to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction as to whether the matter requires enquiry under Section 36(1) of the Act. The impugned proceedings do not contain any material to show application of mind. (d) The respondents have now come up with certain materials collected after initiating enquiry. There is no question of initiating action at the first instance and then collecting materials to justify the initiation of such proceedings. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General justified the impugned proceedings. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, several complaints were preferred against the petitioner Society. The Secretary of the Society virtually misappropriated the entire funds and the Society is now managed as his private Concern. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the immediate family of the Secretary alone are now members of the Society and they are managing the affairs to suit their convenience and benefit. The learned Additional Advocate General, by producing materials collected by the second respondent, contended that there are enough materials to hold enquiry against the petitioner and as such, the Society should face the proceedings. INTERVENING APPLICATION: 8. During the currency of the Writ Petition, an application in M.P.(MD)No.5 of 2014 was filed by a resident of Thanjavur to implead him as a party to the Writ Petition. The petitioner, in the said interlocutory application, has given several instances to show that authorities were perfectly correct in initiating enquiry. According to the intervenor, the Society is now converted as a private concern of the Secretary. Majority of the members belongs to the family of the Secretary. Even those who are residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Society are now made members. In order to give an instance, the intervenor has stated that the member, by name R.Perumalsamy is residing outside Thanjavur. He is none other than the son- in-law of the elder son of the Secretary. Even those who are residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Society are now made members. In order to give an instance, the intervenor has stated that the member, by name R.Perumalsamy is residing outside Thanjavur. He is none other than the son- in-law of the elder son of the Secretary. In order to admit him as a member, his Pattukkottai address was suppressed and a care of address of the Secretary was given. The intervenor further contended that it is not possible for others to become members of the Society, in view of the amendment of By- Laws made by the Secretary and his men to the effect that application for membership could be rejected without specifying any reason. DISCUSSION: 9. The petitioner is a Tamil Sangam established in the year 1914. The Sangam was established as a Society to advance the cause of 'Tamil'. The counsel for the parties across the bar submitted that several luminaries and Tamil Scholars have associated with the functioning of the Society. The Society established as many as seven Educational Institutions, which includes institutions offering Diploma Graduation, Post-Graduation, and Research and Certificate Courses. The petitioner is also running a full-fledged hostel accommodating about 700 students. The membership of the Society is now reduced to 111. 10. The impugned proceedings dated 15 July, 2014 shows that Thriu. Arivudainambi, stated to be a resident of Thanjavur submitted a representation to the Inspector General of Registration on 15 July, 2014 alleging fraudulent acts against the office bearers of the Society and with a request to hold a statutory enquiry under Section 36(1) of the Act. The Inspector General of Registration took cognizance of the representation, which is in the nature of a complaint and directed the second respondent to hold a statutory enquiry under Section 36(1) of the Act. 11. The petitioner challenges the statutory proceedings on the ground that there were no materials before the Inspector General of Registration to hold an enquiry into the affairs of Society. 12. Section 36(1) of the Act permits the Registrar to inquire into the affairs of registered Society either of his own motion or on the application of a majority of the members of the Committee, or on the application of not less than one-third of the members of that registered society. The Registrar is, therefore, given suo motu powers to inquire into the affairs of registered society. The Registrar is, therefore, given suo motu powers to inquire into the affairs of registered society. Such a suo motu power was given with a definite purpose. The Registrar should be in a position to inquire into the affairs of the Society, in case he is of the view that such a step is highly necessary in the larger interest of Society. The Registrar need not wait till the majority of the members of the Committee or one-third of the members of the Society submits an application for enquiry into the affairs of Society. In case the majority of the members of the Society are the Yes-men of the Managing Committee, there would not be any occasion to prefer a complaint to the Registrar with a request to inquire into the affairs of the Society. 13. The respondents and the intervenor have come up with an allegation that the membership of the Society is now reduced to 111 and the Society has become the private property of the Secretary. The majority of the members of the Society is stated to be the close relatives of the Secretary. There is no question of making a complaint against the Society either by the members of the Managing Committee or one-third of the members of the Society, in view of their close relationship. 14. he Registrar in the subject case received a representation from a local resident. The fact that the receipt of the said complaint was referred to in the proceedings under Section 36(1) would not go to show that it was not a suo motu proceedings. The complainant, through his representation, made the statutory machinery to start the proceedings. He was only an informer, and his attempt was to point out the irregularities of the Management of the Society warranting action under Section 36(1). 15. While taking action under Section 36(1), the Registrar was not required to conduct a roving enquiry. Section 36(1) itself provides for enquiry into the affairs of Society. The proceedings issued under Section 36(1) is in the nature of initiation of enquiry. It is only when a complaint is given, under Section 36(1) by the majority of the members of the Committee, or not less than one-third of the members of the Society, the Registrar would call upon them to produce prima facie evidence for making such an application for enquiry. It is only when a complaint is given, under Section 36(1) by the majority of the members of the Committee, or not less than one-third of the members of the Society, the Registrar would call upon them to produce prima facie evidence for making such an application for enquiry. However, that is not the case here. The representation submitted by the complainant itself contains various acts of misconduct. The Registrar, while initiating proceedings under Section 36(1), has not decided the matter. It is only an initiation of proceedings. The petitioner, on receipt of the notice, rushed to this Court with a view to stall the enquiry. In case the hands of the Management are clean, they need not worry about the enquiry initiated by the Registrar. 16. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has taken up a contention that on an earlier occasion, the intervenor has filed a petition before the Registrar to initiate enquiry. The Registrar conducted preliminary enquiry and passed an order declining to enquire in to the matter. The fact that on an earlier occasion, the Registrar considered the issue on the basis of a representation or rather with half baked facts, would not operate as res judicata at a subsequent point of time to initiate a full-fledged enquiry on the basis of fresh prima facie materials. 17. While issuing notice, the Registrar is concerned only with prima facie materials. In case there are materials before the Registrar, there is no need to conduct a roving enquiry into the matter. The very fact that Section 36(1) provides for inquiry into the affairs of the registered Society clearly shows that the statutory authority is given the power to look into the affairs of Society and to decide as to whether the affairs of Society was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. 18. The learned Additional Advocate General, by placing reliance on various documents, contended that there are materials now available to justify the initiation of enquiry by the Registrar. I am not inclined to consider those documents at this point of time, as the same would prejudice the case of the petitioner before the enquiry officer. 19. 18. The learned Additional Advocate General, by placing reliance on various documents, contended that there are materials now available to justify the initiation of enquiry by the Registrar. I am not inclined to consider those documents at this point of time, as the same would prejudice the case of the petitioner before the enquiry officer. 19. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mohan Sharma v. District Registrar [ 2009(7) MLJ 1179 ], in support of his contention that the Registrar ought not to have acted on the representation made by a party, who is not a member of the Society. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the case. The proceedings dated 15 July, 2014 clearly shows that it was a suo motu proceedings and the complainant acted only as a catalyst. 20. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in C.K.T.D.F. Distributors Association v. District Registrar [ 2008(6) MLJ 568 ] in support of his contention that the Registrar could take action on his own motion only on the basis of some cogent materials. In the very same decision, the learned Judge considered the scope of suo motu power of the Registrar and observed thus: "28. Any person, having dependable knowledge of the working affairs of a registered society, can bring to the notice of the Registrar the fact of the infirmities caused in the constitution, working and financial condition of such a society. Thereafter, if the Registrar, on examining the nature of the allegations and dependability of the information so furnished and/or relying on other materials having in his possession, can initiate an enquiry on his own motion. It has to be further held that such initiation of an enquiry cannot be held to be without jurisdiction just because it has been founded on certain information furnished by the persons, who have otherwise not been given a right to file an application, before the Registrar, for holding such an enquiry. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar cannot enquire into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society unless the requirements under Section 36(1) are complied with and that the complainants are not present members of the association falls to the ground." 21. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar cannot enquire into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society unless the requirements under Section 36(1) are complied with and that the complainants are not present members of the association falls to the ground." 21. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi Registered Society vs. The State of Tamil Nadu [ 2013(2) CTC 241 ]. In the said case, the notice of enquiry issued by the Registrar contains reference to the individual complaints lodged by three persons. The petitioners therein contended that none of the four contingencies prescribed in Section 36(1) satisfied, so as to initiate proceedings under Section 36(1) of the Act. While rejecting the said contention, this Court observed thus: "12. If upon complaints made against a Society, the Registrar is satisfied, after looking into the track record of the Society, that an enquiry is to be initiated, he can always invoke his suo motu jurisdiction under Section 36. If viewed in this manner, it could be seen that the Complaints given by Kannan, Mei Yadav and Nandagopal Yadav merely acted like spark plugs, providing sparks for the ignition of an enquiry under Section 36. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the enquiry under Section 36 was solely on the Complaint of these 3 individuals. 13. I have already indicated the entire history of litigation, for over a decade from the year 2000. In every litigation, the acceptance or non-acceptance of Form VII by the Registrar, became a contentious issue. When there were Civil Cases as well as Writ Petitions, in which the target of attack by all rival groups was primarily the Registrar of Societies, he had no alternative except to initiate an enquiry under Section 36 at the appropriate time. Due to the perennial litigation between rival groups, the heat was already increasing and the surcharged atmosphere required only a small spark in the form of some Complaints, to catch fire. This is what has actually happened in this case and hence, the enquiry now held, has to be treated only as a suo motu enquiry and not as an enquiry in violation of the provisions of Section 36. 14. The report of the Inspector General dated 28.03.2012 also fortifies the above conclusion. This is what has actually happened in this case and hence, the enquiry now held, has to be treated only as a suo motu enquiry and not as an enquiry in violation of the provisions of Section 36. 14. The report of the Inspector General dated 28.03.2012 also fortifies the above conclusion. Under Section 36, the Registrar is obliged to conduct an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered Society. In the report, the Registrar has gone into the entire constitution of the Society, taken note of the amendments made from time to time but omitted to be filed with the Registrar, analysed the membership history as well as the history of filing of returns by the Society, the litigations involving the rival groups and the financial conditions. Thus, the Inspector General of Registration has gone into every aspect that he is required to go into, under Section 36. Therefore, the enquiry conducted was actually a suo motu enquiry, which is permitted by Section 36. The Complaints lodged by 3 individuals merely acted as catalysts. Therefore, the first ground of attack is rejected." 22. The order passed by the Registrar under Section 36(1) of the Act cannot be interfered in judicial review, unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself was perverse or illegal. It is trite that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review. The power of judicial review is limited to the decision making process. It is not open to the Court to analyse the factors, which actually weighed with the statutory authority to take a decision in one way orthe other and substitute its opinion. In short, power of judicial review is not intended to review governance under the rule of law. 23. The Registrar just initiated proceedings under Section 36(1) of the Act. It is in the nature of an enquiry. In case the Registrar is of the view that result of the enquiry does not warrant action under Section 37, he would close the proceedings. In case there are materials to proceed further, all those materials would be furnished to the petitioner. Section 36 is a self-contained code. The Registrar would proceed further under Section 37 of the Act, only after complying with all the conditions enumerated under Section 36 of the Act. In case there are materials to proceed further, all those materials would be furnished to the petitioner. Section 36 is a self-contained code. The Registrar would proceed further under Section 37 of the Act, only after complying with all the conditions enumerated under Section 36 of the Act. The initiation of enquiry would not involve any civil consequence to the petitioner. The Management is not restrained from administering the affairs of the Society. The present attempt appears to be to stall the enquiry into the affairs of the Society. The Registrar was fully justified in initiating enquiry on the basis of available materials. There is absolutely no merit in the contentions taken by the petitioner. 24. The presence of the impleading petitioner in M.P(MD)No.5 of 2014 is not necessary for an adjudication of the matter. Hence, M.P.(MD)No.5 of 2014 is dismissed. However, I make it clear that dismissal of this application would not stand in the way of the impleading petitioner from initiating any action in accordance with law, if he is so advised. 25. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.