JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11734 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3317 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10377 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022. Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10965 of 2022, dated 20.06.2022.) Common Judgment: S.S. Sundar, J. 1. Heard Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Counsel for the appellants in W.A(MD)Nos.633 to 635 of 2022, Mr.A.S.Vaigunth, learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.632 of 2022, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent in W.A.(MD)No.632 of 2022, first respondent in W.P.(MD)No.633 of 2022 and fourth respondent in W.A(MD)No.634 of 2022, Mr.T.Antony Arulraj, learned Counsel for the first respondent in W.A.(MD)No.635 of 2022 and Mr.K.Jeyaseelan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents. 2. Since the issues arose for consideration in all these Writ Appeals are identical and are inter-linked, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appeals relate to the internal affairs of a society known as “Thoothukudi Vadadhisai Hindu Nadar Mahamai Dharma Karapettai Paripalana Sangam”. Though it was registered under the Societies Registration Act (Central), it is deemed to be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975, by virtue of the provisions of the latter Act. It is admitted by either side that the society is the educational agency of several educational institutions. There are five educational institutions, which were established by the society. 4. It is admitted that the elected representatives of the General Body of the society for every educational institutions has to administer the educational institutions. It is admitted that three different Executive Committees are constituted by electing members of three Committees for administering the five educational institutions run by the society. The election to the office bearers of the society is conducted once in three years. For the period from 2019-21, the election was held on 10.08.2019. It appears that disputes arose and the General Body was divided into two factions. The election to the office bearers of the society is conducted once in three years. For the period from 2019-21, the election was held on 10.08.2019. It appears that disputes arose and the General Body was divided into two factions. Though it appears that one of the factions have decided to conduct election, it is at that time, a controversy arose, as to the convening of a General Body meeting on 30.10.2021. 5. The dispute relates to two out of three lists of eligible voters. The core issue understood by this Court revolves around the validity of the General Body meeting stated to have been convened on 30.10.2021, in which, new members were inducted and enrolled. Since some of the members had objected for the induction of new members mainly on the ground that the meeting itself was not convened, as it was canvassed by other group, the dispute is narrowed down to the eligible members who are entitled to vote in the ensuing election to elect the members and office bearers of the three Executive Committees. 6. On the basis of meeting convened on 30.10.2021, the office bearers of the society submitted Form-VII before the District Registrar. The District Registrar considered the dispute. Though the District Registrar is unable to accept the case of appellants that there was no meeting for General Body on 30.10.2021, the District Registrar refused to accept Form-VII only on the ground that the previous returns and proceedings of Society had not been filed/updated. Therefore, Writ Petitions were filed by both factions. 7. W.P.(MD)No.3317 of 2022 was filed by the society represented by its elected Secretary for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the District Registrar, dated 02.02.2022 rejecting Form-VII and sought for a direction to the second respondent therein to register forthwith the Form-VII submitted by the Writ Petitioner dated 01.11.2021. 8. 11 out of 23 members of the Executive Committee of the society filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.11734 of 2022 for issuance of a Writ of Certioarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent, dated 02.02.2022 insofar his finding relating to the validity of the General Body meeting, dated 30.10.2021. 9. Some of the members of the society filed two other Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.10377 and 10965 of 2022. 9. Some of the members of the society filed two other Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.10377 and 10965 of 2022. W.P(MD)No.10377 of 2022 was filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the official respondents to hold election to the society in the presence of an observer appointed by this Court by permitting all eligible members to vote, namely, 933 members as per annexure Form-VI. The prayer in W.P(MD)No.10965 of 2022 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Inspector General of Registration to hold election as per the notification issued by the Secretary of the society, dated 05.06.2022 in accordance with the bye-laws of the society. 10. All the Writ Petitions were taken up together and disposed of by a common order by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Writ Petition filed by the appellant in W.P(MD)No.11734 of 2022 was dismissed and W.P.(MD)No.3317 of 2022 filed by the society/contesting respondent was allowed. Since some of the members have also prayed for holding election by convening General Body meeting, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petitions with the following directions:- “12. The next question that falls for consideration is whether all the newly added members also should be allowed to vote in the general body meeting. It is true that the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.(MD)Nos.1603, 1711 and 1712 of 2018 set aside the order passed by a learned Single Judge and the matter is presently pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 18328 of 2019 etc. filed by the society. But the pendency of the SLP will not in any way affect the power of the executive committee from admitting new members. The by-law regarding admission of new members is as follows:- “IMAGE” In this case after giving notice to the executive committee was convened. By majority, the executive committee was very much empowered to admit new members and no exception can be taken to it. On 16.11.2021, another executive committee meeting was held and notice for holding the said meeting was issued on 06.11.2021. One of the agenda was to place on record the filing of the resolutions passed on 30.10.2021 before the District Registrar in Form VII. In the said executive committee meeting, the minority group had also taken part. On 16.11.2021, another executive committee meeting was held and notice for holding the said meeting was issued on 06.11.2021. One of the agenda was to place on record the filing of the resolutions passed on 30.10.2021 before the District Registrar in Form VII. In the said executive committee meeting, the minority group had also taken part. The minutes of the meeting held on 16.11.2021 had been enclosed in the additional typed set of papers dated 16.06.2022 in WP(MD)No.3317 of 2022. The signatures of as many as 22 members of the executive committee is found therein. 13. It is beyond dispute that the executive committee is empowered to admit new members. It is not the case of anybody that the persons who have been admitted as members are not qualified to be admitted. I have already set aside the order of the District Registrar insofar as it declined to receive Form-VI and Form-VII filed on 01.11.2021. Therefore, all the persons who are shown as members in Form-VI presented on 01.11.2021 are entitled to take part in the proposed general body meeting. 14.Of course, the prayer in W.P.(MD)No.10377 of 2022 has been erroneously couched. The petitioners want this Court to direct the Registrar to direct the society to hold the elections. It has been held that as per Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the Registrar does not have the power to direct the society to hold the elections [vide C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee, Karisal, through its Secretary, Sri S. David Stephen S/o Samuel, Karisal, Ambasamudram Taluk Tirunelveli District and others Vs. The District Registrar Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli Dist. and others, (2005) 2 CTC 161 ]. As per Section 15(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the period of tenure of the executive committee is only three years. It is a statutory mandate that the elections will have to be held once in three years. While the Registrar of Societies cannot direct the society to hold the elections, the writ Court can always issue such a direction even against the society provided it discharges any public function. The society in question runs as many as five educational institutions which are also receiving State aid. While the Registrar of Societies cannot direct the society to hold the elections, the writ Court can always issue such a direction even against the society provided it discharges any public function. The society in question runs as many as five educational institutions which are also receiving State aid. Applying the ratio laid down in Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University (2015) 16 SCC 530 , BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015) 3 SCC 251 and Maharastra Chess Association v. UOI (2020) 13 SCC 285 , I direct that election must be held and the members of the executive committee chosen in the general body meeting to be held on 03.07.2022. The District Registrar (Societies), Thoothukudi is directed to depute an observer to oversee the election process. The jurisdictional police is directed to provide police protection to ensure that the meeting is held peacefully. I make it clear that under any circumstance the general body meeting is held and that any person attempting to interrupt the peaceful holding of the meeting should be strictly dealt with as per law. WP(MD)Nos.10377 & 10965 of 2022 are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 11. The appellants have preferred the above appeals challenging the order in every Writ Petitions, as indicated above. 12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants pressed for an interim order staying the election. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants was about the admission of new members in the meeting stated to have been convened on 30.10.2021. The learned Counsel describing the meeting dated 30.10.2021 as one in-defiance of statutory provisions as well as bye-laws of the society. He also produced before this Court a CD recording the said meeting. 13. Though this Court did not see the videograph, can understand that the issue projected before this Court is about the induction of 191 members in addition to the existing 771 members. The grievance of the appellants appears to be on the induction of 153 members by convening General Body meeting on 30.10.2021 and the admission of another 38 members, whose memberships were not approved earlier. It is contended that the induction of new members was with an oblique motive to tilt the balance and that therefore, the election should be stayed. 14. It is contended that the induction of new members was with an oblique motive to tilt the balance and that therefore, the election should be stayed. 14. It is in these circumstances, this Court, after hearing all the parties, was of the view that the election can be permitted with the direction to collect the votes of disputed members in separate boxes, so that no prejudice will be caused to anyone by proceeding with the election pending appeal. 15. It is to be noted that the centre of controversy between two factions, as projected by the appellants in the above appeals, is only in relation to the factum and validity of the meeting of Executive Committee on 30.10.2021 and 16.11.2021 in relation to the admission of 191 new members, ie. 153 members, who are newly enrolled on 30.10.2021 and another list of 38 members, who were originally admitted in 2012-13 and subsequently, were not permitted to participate in the election for the reason that their candidatures were accepted by a Secretary, who was not holding position as on the date of admitting those members. 16. Since factual issue has to be decided by admitting evidence both in oral and documentary, this Court was not inclined to proceed to dispose of the appeals on the basis of mere statements and disputed documents. In order to give an opportunity to the aggrieved persons to go before the civil Court, this Court was inclined to protect the rights of parties, in contemplation of final adjudication as to the eligibility of disputed members to vote. 17. It was in the said context, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, Mr.I.Suthakaran, learned Counsel, to collect the votes of disputed members in separate boxes for all the three categories of the three bodies of the society, ie., election to the members of the Executive Committee of Thoothukudi Kalvikuzhu (Kamaraj College); election to the members of the Executive Committee to administer the educational institutions under the control of Mahamai and the election to the members of the Executive Committee to administer Girls Higher Secondary School. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court on 28.06.2022 reads as follows: “13. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court on 28.06.2022 reads as follows: “13. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court is directed to be present in the premises of the third respondent Society on 03.07.2022 and oversee the entire process of election and collect the votes cast by 34 and 153 members in two different boxes in relation to each election. After collecting the said votes in different boxes, the Advocate Commissioner, is directed to seal the boxes and keep the same in a room that may be provided in the school premises of the Society. For that, the Advocate Commissioner shall be given appropriate accommodation in the School Premises. The Advocate Commissioner is also directed to lock and seal the room in the presence of both the Election Officer, the Observer and the representatives of the appellant and the respondents. 14. It is made clear that all other directions issued by the learned Single Judge, with regard to conduct of election giving police protection and other directions shall be in tact and they are not interfered with.” 18. This Court with due appreciation found that the election, as proposed, went well, as scheduled, on 03.07.2022. The election, as proposed, was conducted by the Election Committee consisting of Election Officer and two Assistant Election Officers, who were nominated earlier by the General Body of the society. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court was present to oversee and collect the disputed votes separately. 19. As per the report of the Advocate Commissioner, he was allowed to oversee the whole process of election. The list of 771 undisputed members and the other lists of disputed members, namely, the list of 34 members and 153 members were prepared independently. The Election Officer found that out of 771 members, 637 voters were found to be available after removing the dead and the members, who were removed from their membership. Out of 637, only 557 voters came for casting their vote. Similarly, out of the list containing 34 members, only 26 members have participated and cast their votes and out of 153 disputed members, 138 voters have cast their votes. 20. Out of 637, only 557 voters came for casting their vote. Similarly, out of the list containing 34 members, only 26 members have participated and cast their votes and out of 153 disputed members, 138 voters have cast their votes. 20. Since the Advocate Commissioner has collected the ballot papers from the disputed members separately for all the three bodies of the society, it was stated before this Court that the ballot papers collected for each of the body of the society were kept in a sealed room. This Court by order, dated 26.07.2022, directed the Advocate Commissioner to count the 557 votes from the first list separately and then independently count the 26 votes and 138 votes collected in separate boxes with reference to each body and submit a report before this Court by 01.08.2022. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner filed a report on 03.08.2022 reporting that counting was completed in a peaceful manner, as directed this Court, strictly in accordance with law. This Court directed the Election Commissioner appointed by the society to declare the result. 21. After the declaration of the election, the result of the election has troubled the appellants. It is admitted that out of 87 members to be nominated for three different Committees, 81 were elected from the respondent's group. It is further clarified that for 25 members to be elected as Executive Committee of Mahamai, all the 25 members were elected from the respondent group. Similarly, out of 25 members to be elected as Executive Committee to administer the Girls Higher Secondary School. 22 members were elected from the respondent group and only 3 members were elected from the appellant group for the Thoothukudi Kalvikuzhu (Kamaraj College). Similarly, out of 37 to be elected as members of executive committee to administer the Karapettai, only 3 from the appellants group were elected and majority of the members, namely 34 out of 37 members were elected from the respondent group. After combining all the three lists, the counting results reveals that the respondent group have won with 100% of their members being elected. In other words, out 87 members to be elected for the administration of 5 different institutions, all the 87 members from the respondent group are declared elected. 22. It is in these circumstances, this Court find that the controversy has now been reduced to almost nil. In other words, out 87 members to be elected for the administration of 5 different institutions, all the 87 members from the respondent group are declared elected. 22. It is in these circumstances, this Court find that the controversy has now been reduced to almost nil. From the nature of verdict, this Court finds that the respondent group has succeeded with a thumping majority of 100% and that the tally will not alter the majority even by excluding the disputed votes. However, the right of appellants to challenge the enrolment of disputed members cannot be ignored. As indicated above, there are factual issues. Sufficient documents may also be required to resolve the issues. Hence, the factum and validity of the meeting, dated 30.10.2021 and the subsequent meeting, dated 16.11.2021 and consequently, the validity of induction of new members (153) either in the meeting dated 30.10.2021 or by accepting new members (38) by other means, may be challenged by the appellants before the appropriate forum, namely, Civil Court. 23. Having regard to the nature of verdict as reported by the Advocate Commissioner and the Election Officer appointed by the Society, this Court is inclined to pass the following order: (1) The above Writ Appeals are dismissed. However, liberty is given to the appellants to challenge the induction of disputed members from the two list, namely, the list of 153 and the list of 38 members before the Civil Court. (2) Since the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the society, which is for issuance of a direction to register Form- VII submitted by the society, the election conducted pursuant to the direction of this Court by appointing an Advocate Commissioner is held to be valid for all the purpose. The elected members, as a result of counting the votes of members in all the three lists, are entitled to hold office for the next triennium subject to the outcome of the suit. (3) Since the scope of the suit is limited to the validity of list of 153 and 38 members and the respondent group can retain 81 out of 87 elected members even by excluding the disputed votes, the appellants shall not interfere with the functioning of the society with a newly elected members on the ground that the election is invalid. Till the suit is decided on merits, the administration of the society and all the educational institutions with the newly elected members of Executive Committees shall continue without any interference from any quarters. (4) The District Registrar is directed to accept Form-VII and acknowledge the result as declared by the Election Officer appointed by the society by compiling all the three lists of eligible voters, as per the report of the Advocate Commissioner. (5) The educational authorities shall acknowledge and approve all the acts and decisions of the educational agency with the newly elected office bearers in all matters relating to the administration of the educational institution. The result, as declared by the Election Officer of the Society as reported by the Advocate Commissioner, shall be accepted by the educational authorities for all purpose. 24. This Court appreciate the work done by the Advocate Commissioner. 25. With the above directions, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.