JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned government order issued by the first respondent herein in G.O.(MS).No.140 (Commercial Taxes and Registration Department), dated 14.10.2021 served on 19.10.2021 and quash the same as illegal and for other reliefs. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned government order issued by the first respondent herein in G.O.(MS).No.140 (Commercial Taxes and Registration Department) dated 14.10.2021 served on 19.10.2021 and quash the same as illegal and for other reliefs.) Common Order: 1. The Principle Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration, Chennai has passed G.O.Ms.No.140 (Commercial Taxes and Registration Department), dated 14.10.2021, under which the executive committee of Victoria Edward Hall registered as Registration No.16/1907-08 was superseded by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The said Government Order is challenged by the Society in W.P(MD)No.18857 of 2021 and by the President of the Society in W.P(MD)No.18858 of 2021. 2. Factual Background: (i) The Society, whose committee has been superseded under the impugned Government Order was registered under Act 21 of 1860 and continues to be governed by the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 by virtue of Section 53 of Act 27 of 1975. The society is said to have been established in the year 1908 with an old library section having an amazing collections of old books, Government gazettes and rare old novels. According to the petitioner/Society, it is having a glorious history and it stands as one of the iconic symbols of Madurai city, which is located adjacent to the Madurai Railway Junction. (ii) The petitioner has further submitted that under G.O.Ms.No.531 Revenue, dated 17.02.1910, the then Government of Madras has sanctioned the alienation of 72 cents of land in Madura Town, free of charges for occupancy right and free of ground-rent in favour of the petitioner/Society and exemption from ground-rent of 1.11 acres of land acquired by the Society from the District Board, Madurai was granted in the year 1912. It is further submitted that as per the Government Order, dated 26.03.1912, a registered sale deed was executed by the District Board, Madurai in favour of the petitioner/Society for a sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) for the entire extent of 1.11 acres. (iii) According to the writ petitioner, certain complaints were raised as against the petitioner/Society in the year 2013. An order was passed by the first respondent herein on 09.12.2013 holding that there is no need to initiate any action either under Section 34A or under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act as against the petitioner/Society. The petitioner has further contended that by proceedings, dated 12.12.2018, the third respondent has sent his report to the complainants holding that the entire accounts, over which allegations of misappropriation are made by the complainants, was already placed before the general council by the office bearers and the same has also been accepted by the general council. In such view of the matter, the complaint raised by certain persons was not sustainable. The report further found that the District Registrar will not have any jurisdiction, whatsoever to interfere in the resolution passed by the general council, when the general council has accepted the accounts presented by the executive committee. The District Registrar has further found that he has no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the Society. Based upon the said facts, the complaint raised by some of the members/third parties were closed by the District Registrar on 12.12.2018. In the said report, the District Registrar had completely analysed the accounts submitted up to the financial order 2016-17. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the accounts have been verified by a competent authority under the Co-operative Societies Act and was found to be correct, for the second time, a proceedings cannot be initiated for the same period. He further contended that the allegations or complaints referred to in the impugned order relate to the same period, for which the District Registrar had submitted his report, giving clearance to the financial activities of the petitioner/Society. He further contended that the allegations or complaints referred to in the impugned order relate to the same period, for which the District Registrar had submitted his report, giving clearance to the financial activities of the petitioner/Society. (iv) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the Deputy Inspector General of Registration has sent a communication on 09.12.2019 that the complaints received by some of the members could not be considered by the Registration Department in view of pendency of W.P(MD)No.5996 of 2014 and O.S.No.33 of 2015 on the file of District Court, Madurai. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, both the Societies Department as well as the Registration Department have given clean chit to the activities of the petitioner/Society. (v) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that when the previous complaint was closed by the other two departments, suddenly a new complaint was lodged before the District Collector, Madurai by one Subramanian on 11.09.2020 alleging that the petitioner/Society has violated the conditions imposed by the Government and it is involved in serious financial irregularities. The District Collector, Madurai had again directed the District Registrar of Registration Department, Madurai to conduct an enquiry and pass orders on 14.10.2020. A writ petition was filed in W.P.No.8259 of 2020 by one V.S.Navamani seeking a direction to the District Registrar (Administration) to conduct an enquiry and to initiate legal action based upon his representation under Section 36 of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The said writ petition was dismissed on 03.11.2020 on the ground that the said petitioner has no locus standi as contemplated under Section 36 (1) of the Act and dismissed the said writ petition. (vi) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the District Registrar (Administration) has sent a communication to the District Collector on 29.01.2021 alleging various financial irregularities as against the petitioner/Society and recommended for initiating proceedings under Section 34(1) and also under Section 36(1) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The District Registrar, Madurai South had issued a show cause notice for initiating enquiry under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act as against the petitioner/Society. A reply was submitted by the petitioner/Society on 08.06.2020 disputing the allegations in the complaint. A second reply was also submitted by the petitioner/Society on 01.03.2021. The District Registrar, Madurai South had issued a show cause notice for initiating enquiry under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act as against the petitioner/Society. A reply was submitted by the petitioner/Society on 08.06.2020 disputing the allegations in the complaint. A second reply was also submitted by the petitioner/Society on 01.03.2021. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Society had filed O.S.No.117 of 2021 before Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town as against the District Registrar (Administration) to declare the notice, dated 08.02.2021 and another notice, dated 19.02.2021 are null and void. (vii) The District Registrar (Administration) has forwarded a communication to the Inspector General of Registration on 23.04.2021 making serious allegations as against the petitioner/Society and in the said communication, he has recommended for initiation of proceedings under Section 34(A) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. (viii) Based upon the complaint received from one I.Jayaraman and M.Subramaniam and also based upon the report of the District Registrar, Madurai South and the Registrar General of Registration Department, the Government has passed the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 14.10.2021, under which the executive committee of the petitioner/Society was superseded and a Special Officer was appointed. This order is under challenge in both the writ petitions. 3. Contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner: (i) The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 contemplates a mandatory notice to the committee for making its representation before passing an order, superseding the committee. In the present case, though the impugned order refers to a notice, dated 28.09.2021, the same was not served upon the society or on any one of the committee members. Hence, the order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as contemplated under Section 34-A of the Act. (ii) The learned Additional Advocate General had produced the show cause notice, dated 28.09.2021 said to have been issued to the petitioner/Society. Hence, the order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice as contemplated under Section 34-A of the Act. (ii) The learned Additional Advocate General had produced the show cause notice, dated 28.09.2021 said to have been issued to the petitioner/Society. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the address in the said show cause notice referred as 32-B, West Mada Street, Madurai I, whereas the correct address of the registered office of the petitioner/Society is 32-B, West Veli Street, Madurai I. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that there is another street in the name of West Mada Street in Madurai, which is located just behind Koodal Azhagar Perumal Kovil. Hence, the show cause notice has been addressed to a wrong address and the same was not at all received by them. (iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that as per Rule 47 of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules 1978, all the notices shall be served either by giving or tendering it to such person; or if such person is not found, by leaving it at his last known place of abode or business or by giving or tendering it to some adult member of his family. Admittedly, the said procedure was not followed. However, the third method that is contemplated under the said Rule is to send it by certificate of posting. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, none of these three modes were resorted to by the first respondent for serving the show cause notice. (iv) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that previously various proceedings have been initiated as against the petitioner/Society based on complaints lodged by ex-members of the society. Apart from that, various communications have been sent by the concerned Registrar in the usual course of their business to the society. All these communications have been sent only through registered post. For the first time, while sending the show cause notice for initiating action under Section 34-A, the first respondent has claimed to send it by ordinary post (since certificate of posting has been abolished). (v) The learned counsel for the petitioner after going through the records filed on the side of the Government, further contended that the ordinary post has been sent to an address, which is different from the address of the registered Society. (v) The learned counsel for the petitioner after going through the records filed on the side of the Government, further contended that the ordinary post has been sent to an address, which is different from the address of the registered Society. The stamp records produced for sending the document also does not disclose that on 28.09.2021, stamps were utilized for communication arising from M1 department. Hence, he contended that at no point of time, a show cause notice was received either by the members or by the society. (vi) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that in the year 2018, the District Registrar (Administration) has refused to initiate action as against the petitioner. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, in the year 2019, has refused to initiate any action as against the petitioner/Society and the proceedings initiated as against the Society in the year 2013 has also been dropped. In such an event, suddenly proceedings cannot be initiated as against the petitioner/Society for the same allegations for the second time. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Government, superseding the executive committee is not legally sustainable. (vii) The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975, an opinion has to be formed by the Government that the committee of the Society is not functioning properly or the affairs of the Society are being mismanaged or the Society's activities are not in furtherance of the objects of the Society or the committee of the Society has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The Government has also to consider whether the committee has wilfully disobeyed or fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued under the Act or Rules. Hence, it is clear that the Government has to form an opinion as to the availability of the facts stated supra. In the present case, the Government has received two complaints from two individuals, namely, I.Jeyaraman and M.Subramaniam. It is not the case of the first respondent that after going through these complaints, they were convinced about the alleged mismanagement of the society. A careful reading of the impugned order divulges that the Government has mainly relied upon the report of the District Registrar and Inspector General (Registration). It is not the case of the first respondent that after going through these complaints, they were convinced about the alleged mismanagement of the society. A careful reading of the impugned order divulges that the Government has mainly relied upon the report of the District Registrar and Inspector General (Registration). There are no records to reveal that the Government had called for any report from the above said authorities. The recommendations have started from District Collector and they have reached the first respondent herein. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law in view of the fact that an opinion of the Government is not of their own, but the opinion of other sub-ordinate authorities, who were not directed to submit any report by the Government. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. (viii) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the show cause notice, dated 28.09.2021 and it is alleged to have been sent on the same day to the Deputy Registrar and the petitioner/Society through ordinary post. Hence, there is possibility that the notice, would have reached Madurai only on 30th of September 2021. The order impugned in the writ petition has been passed on 14.10.2021. Even assuming that show cause notice was sent, there was no clear 15 days notice before passing the impugned order. (ix) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that a notice contemplated under Section 34-A is for each one of the members of this executive committee, because allegations are being made as against the functioning/alleged mismanagement of the executive committee members. In the present case, the notice though it is said to have been addressed to all the office bearers of the executive committee, none of them have received it. This will clearly disclose that no notice at all was sent by the first respondent before passing the impugned order and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. (x) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that only under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the District Collector has got powers to move the Registrar of Societies for an action against the Society. As far as Section 34-A is concerned, only the Government is the authority to initiate action. (x) The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that only under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the District Collector has got powers to move the Registrar of Societies for an action against the Society. As far as Section 34-A is concerned, only the Government is the authority to initiate action. In the present case, on the basis of certain complaints received from ex-members, the District Collector has chosen to initiate proceedings, by his letter, dated 14.10.2020. Only based upon the District Collector’s letter, a report was sent by District Registrar (Administration) to the District Collector for recommending initiation under Section 34(1) and 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Thereafter, action was initiated under Section 36(1) by the District Registrar, Madurai South by his proceedings, dated 08.02.2021, for which a reply has been submitted by the petitioner/Society on 01.03.2021. Thereafter, District Registrar has proceeded to send a recommendation to Inspector General of Registration on 23.04.2021 for initiation of proceedings under Section 34(A) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Thereafter, Inspector General of Registration has sent his report on 11.08.2021 to the Government, based upon which, the impugned order has been passed. The sequence of the dates and events will clearly indicate that the proceedings have emanated from District Collector for initiating proceedings under Section 34-A, for which he has no jurisdiction at all. Though the ultimate order has been passed by the Government, namely, the competent authority, the proceedings having been initiated by the District Collector is null and void. When the initiation of proceedings is by an incompetent authority, the ultimate order also suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition. 4. Contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents: (i) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents had contended that before initiating action under Section 34-A, notice has to be issued to the executive committee. In the present case, the period of the executive committee had expired in July 2020 and when the proceedings were initiated, the Society was not in existence at all and hence, serving or non-serving of the show cause notice would not render the impugned order as null and void. In the present case, the period of the executive committee had expired in July 2020 and when the proceedings were initiated, the Society was not in existence at all and hence, serving or non-serving of the show cause notice would not render the impugned order as null and void. (ii) The learned Additional Advocate General has produced the show cause notice, dated 28.09.2021 said to have been issued by the first respondent herein, calling for an explanation from the petitioner/Society within a period of 15 days. The learned Additional Advocate General also produced an extract of despatch register to indicate that the notices were sent by post on 28.09.2021 to the petitioner/Society. The learned Additional Advocate General has also produced the postal charges register to fortify the case of service of notice. (iii) The learned Additional Advocate General has contended that it is mandatory on the part of the Government to form an opinion on its own before issuing a show cause notice for initiating action under Section 34-A of the Act. But, this opinion of the Government cannot be formed in the air and it is always based upon reports submitted by the District level authorities. In the present case, the District Registrar (Administration) and Inspector General of Registration have recommended for initiating action as against the petitioner/Society under Section 34-A. Apart from that, two individuals, namely, I.Jayaraman and M.Subramaniam have addressed a letter to the Government, elaborating the financial irregularities and mismanagement of the Society. Only based upon these records, the Government had formed an opinion and thereafter, sent a show cause notice to the petitioner/Society. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that unless called for from the Government, the District level authorities should not offer their opinion, is not legally sustainable. Any mismanagement or financial irregularity happening in a Society in a small town would first reach the concerned officers, who bring it to the notice of the Government by their report, based upon which the Government exercises its powers under the statute. Hence, it is irrelevant whether the reports emanated from the District level officers or it was called for from the Government before forming an opinion under Section 34-A. (iv) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the allegations as against the executive committee and especially, the Secretary of the petitioner/Society are very serious in nature. Hence, it is irrelevant whether the reports emanated from the District level officers or it was called for from the Government before forming an opinion under Section 34-A. (iv) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the allegations as against the executive committee and especially, the Secretary of the petitioner/Society are very serious in nature. All the allegations made by the District level authorities and the ex-members of the Society clearly indicate that the Secretary of the Society is dealing with the properties of the Society as if it is his absolute property, without subjecting himself to any one of the rules or regulations of the relevant statutes. He further contended that mere closure of the proceedings initiated under Section 36 of the Act is not a bar for initiating proceedings under Section 34-A of the same Act. It is also not a bar to the Government to consider the allegations as against the Society, which were discovered on a later point of time. Only after, some of the members, who were thrown out of the Society brought to the notice of the Government about the activities of the Secretary of the Society, it came to the knowledge of the District level authorities as well as the State Government that the Secretary is using the properties of the Society as his absolute property. Hence, the Government was constrained to proceed under Section 34-A of the Act. (v) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the report of the District Registrar (Administration), dated 12.12.2018 is not a result of any statutory enquiry as contemplated under Section 36 of the Act, but it was only a verification of certain allegations on the expenditure items. (vi) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that most of the allegations of the Society relate to the rental income and the advances received by the Secretary of the petitioner/Society. The third respondent had conducted an independent enquiry with the tenants of the shop and he has recorded the statements of some of them and thereafter, he has arrived at a prima facie conclusion that the petitioner/Society is being mismanaged. He further pointed out that the balance sheet for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 show cash balance of Rs.9,61,049/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty One Thousand and Forty Nine only) and Rs.7,76,721/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty One only). He further pointed out that the balance sheet for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 show cash balance of Rs.9,61,049/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty One Thousand and Forty Nine only) and Rs.7,76,721/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty One only). (vii) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that the third respondent has sent a report to the Inspector General of Registration only after giving due opportunity to the petitioner/Society. Only based upon the report of District Registrar and the report of Inspector General of Registration, the Government has passed the order, after giving second opportunity to the petitioner/Society by issuing a show cause notice, dated 28.09.2021. Hence, allegation of the writ petitioner that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice is not legally sustainable. (viii) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that a show cause notice was issued on 28.09.2021 giving the petitioner/Society a 15 days time to offer their explanations. However, no reply/representation was received from the members of the committee. Hence, the Government had passed the impugned order on 14.10.2021. The difference between the date of issue of notice and the date of impugned order is 17 days and hence, there was clear 15 days time gap between the show cause notice and the impugned order. Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioner that the Government has not waited for the expiry of the 15 days period before issuing the impugned order is not legally sustainable. (ix) The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the allegations made against the petitioner/Society, especially the Secretary of the said Society are very serious in nature. In most of the cases, rental income reflected in the agreement is completely different from the real rent received from the tenants. The rental income is not credited to the bank account and it is being dealt with by way of cash. There are various discrepancies between the actual rental amount collected from the tenant and the amount shown in the annual accounts. Unless a special officer is appointed and he takes over the administration of the Society, all the financial irregularities and mismanagements cannot be unearthed or discovered. If the Society continues to be managed by the present executive committee and its Secretary, none of the financial irregularities could be unearthed. Unless a special officer is appointed and he takes over the administration of the Society, all the financial irregularities and mismanagements cannot be unearthed or discovered. If the Society continues to be managed by the present executive committee and its Secretary, none of the financial irregularities could be unearthed. (x) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that invocation of Section 34-A is akin to suspending an employee in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. Keeping the employee in the same position would seriously affect the proper conduct of the enquiry and none of the co-employees would come forward to divulge the truth. In the present case, if the executive committee continues, the tenants may not be emboldened to reveal the truth relating to the financial mismanagement of the Society. He further contended that just because the general body has approved the accounts placed by the executive committee, the Government cannot close its eyes without initiating any action for serious financial irregularities. The intervention of the Government has to be looked into in the light of the fact that several members, who have questioned the activities of the Secretary have been expelled. When the Government forms an opinion that there is a financial irregularity based upon the reports of the District level authorities, general public and from the ex-members that there are serious financial irregularities taking place in the Society, the executive committee members cannot hide themselves behind the general body endorsement and claim that there is no mismanagement at all. Merely because annual financial accounts are being endorsed by the general body, the Government is not without any powers to intervene under Section 34-A to find out about the mismanagement, especially when there are ample records to establish the same. (xi) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that it cannot be construed to be an internal dispute between the existing office bearers and the expelled members. The District Registrar has conducted an independent enquiry based upon the complaint made by certain expelled members. In the said report, he has recorded the statement of various tenants of the Society and he has arrived at a prima facie finding that the rental agreement and the advance amount do not tally with the amount credited to the account of the Society. In the said report, he has recorded the statement of various tenants of the Society and he has arrived at a prima facie finding that the rental agreement and the advance amount do not tally with the amount credited to the account of the Society. That apart, the land, which is located in the prime part of the city just adjacent to the railway junction has been donated to the Society for rendering public service and for running a library. In the said circumstances, the mismanagement and irregularities happening in the said Society cannot be brushed aside by the Government on the ground that they are mere internal disputes among the members. (xii) The learned Additional Advocate General has further contended that in the light of the serious allegations as against the affairs of the Society and the mismanagement of its properties and finances, unless the special officer is permitted to take charge and look into the affairs of the Society, the actual level of irregularity cannot be unearthed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Contentions on the side of impleaded respondents: (i) Two private parties got themselves impleaded in the writ petition on the allegation that they were expelled from the Society by the present Secretary of the Society on the ground that they raised their voices as against the various irregularities happening in the said Society. They had contended that a notice, dated 08.02.2021 issued by the District Registrar had been challenged in a civil suit. The pendency of the said civil suit has not been disclosed in the present writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts. (ii) It was further contended that the elections were last held in July 2017 and the period had expired in July 2020. No notice is required under Section 34-A, when the same is initiated in September 2021. (iii) He has further contended that a company under the name and style of Black Light Technologies is functioning in the address of the petitioner/Society, which is run by the son of the Secretary of the petitioner/Society. However, the annual account submitted by the Society does not reveal any rent received from the said company. (iv) A portion of the land belonging to the Society has been rented out to a theater with 20,000 sq.fts. However, the annual account submitted by the Society does not reveal any rent received from the said company. (iv) A portion of the land belonging to the Society has been rented out to a theater with 20,000 sq.fts. The account submitted by the Society indicates that just a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) is being paid by the said theater. He further contended that they have received a rental agreement with one Kumar Mess, which is not reflected in the annual accounts. Hence, they contended that the impugned order may be sustained, so that all the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the executive committee members shall be unearthed. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records filed on their behalf. 7. Whether notice as contemplated under 34-A is required at all: (i) The learned Additional Advocate General for the official respondents and the learned counsel for the private respondents have contended that the last elections were held in the year July 2017 for a period of 3 years and the period had expired in July 2020. Once the period had expired, the executive committee cannot continue and hence, no notice at all is required as contemplated under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. (ii) Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that due to Covid-19, the Government has passed an order, under which the period of the executive committee of various Societies has been extended up to 31th December, 2020, in view of the fact that the elections could not be conducted. Hence, the executive committee was alive and a notice was mandatory. After going through the Government Orders, this Court finds that though the period of office bearers had expired in July 2020, the Government by various Government Orders have extended their period up to 31st December 2020. Hence, the contention on the side of the respondents that no notice is required to the committee members, whose period had expired is not legally sustainable. 8. Whether notice was issued as contemplated under Section 34-A of the Act: (i) As per reference number 5 of the impugned order, the first respondent is said to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner/Society on 28.09.2021 calling for their explanation to be submitted within a period of 15 days. 8. Whether notice was issued as contemplated under Section 34-A of the Act: (i) As per reference number 5 of the impugned order, the first respondent is said to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner/Society on 28.09.2021 calling for their explanation to be submitted within a period of 15 days. According to the petitioner/Society, neither the Society nor anyone of its members have received the notice. The learned Additional Advocate General has produced a copy of the show cause notice, dated 28.09.2021. A perusal of the show cause notice reveals that the address of the petitioner/Society is mentioned as West Mada Street, Madurai I. Admittedly, the Society is functioning in West Veli Street, Madurai I for more than 100 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced records to indicate that there is a street, by name, West Mada Street in Madurai. Hence, it is clear that the notice has been sent to a wrong address. (ii) The extract of the despatch register produced on the side of the Government also indicates that the notices have been sent to West Mada Street and not to West Veli Street. The extract of postal charges register does not indicate usage of stamps for M1 department on 28.09.2021 for issuing the said notices. Even as per the counter filed by the respondents, the notices were sent only by ordinary post and not by registered post. Hence, it is clear that the show cause notices issued by the first respondent on 28.09.2021 has not reached the hands of the petitioner/Society or anyone of its members. The documents filed on the side of the Government to establish the proof of sending the said notice is also not acceptable in view of different address and the discrepancy in the stamp register. Hence, this Court finds that the mandatory notice as contemplated under Section 34-A of the Act has not been served upon the petitioner/Society or anyone of its members. (iii) According to the first respondent, the notice, dated 28.09.2021 has been sent by the ordinary post on the same day. Even assuming that it had reached Madurai, on the next day, it should have been served on the petitioner/Society on 29.09.2021. However, the impugned order has been passed on 14.10.2021. As per the show cause notice, 15 days time has been granted to the petitioner/Society to submit its explanation. Even assuming that it had reached Madurai, on the next day, it should have been served on the petitioner/Society on 29.09.2021. However, the impugned order has been passed on 14.10.2021. As per the show cause notice, 15 days time has been granted to the petitioner/Society to submit its explanation. However, without waiting for an expiry of the said 15 days, the present impugned order has been passed on the 15th day itself. 9. Whether action under Section 34-A of the Act is justified: (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that already proceedings were initiated under Section 36 of the Act in the year 2013 and they were dropped on 09.12.2013. The complaint lodged before the third respondent for initiating action under Section 36 of the act was also closed on 12.12.2018. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration had also rejected a similar request by his proceedings, dated 06.03.2020. Hence, for the same allegations, the District Collector has chosen to direct the third respondent again on 14.10.2020, which has culminated in the present impugned order and hence, the impugned order should be quashed and no liberty should be granted to the first respondent to initiate fresh enquiry. (ii) However, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that the charges as against the petitioner/Society, especially the Secretary therein are very serious in nature. Most of the allegations relate to the financial irregularities committed by the Secretary of the Society, especially in the receipt of rental income and advances from the shops that have been rented out. There is also a complaint as against the son of the Secretary of the petitioner/Society that he is utilizing a prime space inside the premises of the Society, without paying any rent for running a commercial establishment. In view of the serious charges as against the committee, the Government cannot be restrained from conducting an enquiry. 10. This Court has carefully considered the allegations made against the executive committee of the petitioner/Society. Most of the allegations relate to the financial mismanagement of the Secretary of the Society relating to receipt of rental income and the advances from shop that have been rented out. One of the charges is that the Secretary’s son is utilizing a space in the Society premises without paying any rent whatsoever. I am not going into the merits of these allegations. One of the charges is that the Secretary’s son is utilizing a space in the Society premises without paying any rent whatsoever. I am not going into the merits of these allegations. However, these allegations require a thorough enquiry to be conducted. Just because previous proceedings under Section 36 have been closed, it is not a bar for the Government to initiate action under Section 34-A to supersede the committee and hand over the administration in the hands of a Special Officer. 11. A reading of Section 34-A of the Act reveals that a Special Officer is appointed only to find out the mismanagement of the Society. The appointment of a Special Officer is only for a limited period of one year to be extended up to a period of 3 years in total. Hence, the proceedings under this provision are only temporary in nature so as to restore proper administration of the Society and thereafter, hand it over to the newly elected office bearers of the Society. Whereas the powers of the Registrar under Section 36 of the Act are completely different. The proceedings under Section 36 are likely to culminate in cancellation of registration of the Society or in winding up of the Society. Section 34-A(5) of the Act clearly states that nothing contained in the Section shall be deemed to affect the power of the Registrar to order the winding up of the Society under Section 40. Hence, it is clear that any proceedings under Section 34-A is only a temporary measure and an attempt to restore proper management of the Society. If such an attempt fails, the Registrar has got ample powers to invoke Section 36. However, the pendency of proceedings under Section 34-A is not a bar for the Registrar to initiate proceedings under Section 36 of the Act. As per the provisions of the Act, both the proceedings can be proceeded parallelly, culminating in different outcomes. 12. Proceedings under Section 34-A seems to be summary in nature, because, on the prima facie opinion of the Government, a Special Officer could be appointed to manage the Society for a limited period of 3 years, within which, he has to conduct an election and hand it over to the newly elected office bearers. 12. Proceedings under Section 34-A seems to be summary in nature, because, on the prima facie opinion of the Government, a Special Officer could be appointed to manage the Society for a limited period of 3 years, within which, he has to conduct an election and hand it over to the newly elected office bearers. However, the procedure contemplated under Section 36 of the Act is a quasi judicial enquiry, under which the Registrar will have powers to have free access of all the books, accounts and documents of the registered Society and he can call upon any office bearer to produce those documents. The Registrar will also have a power to summon anyone, whom he has reason to believe, has knowledge of any of the affairs of the registered Society. After completion of the enquiry under Section 35, the Registrar if satisfied, can close the enquiry or call for an explanation from the office bearers and cancel the registration of the Society or even proceed to wind up the Society. 13. The discussion about the above said two sections will clearly reveal that an action now initiated by the State Government is summary in nature and in fact, it is just a suspension of the executive committee for a limited period. Considering the fact that the allegations as against the office bearers, especially the Secretary of the Society are serious in nature, touching upon the financial aspects of the Society, this Court is not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceedings may be quashed without remitting the matter back to the first respondent herein. Therefore, this Court finds that the first respondent is fully justified in initiating an action as against the petitioner/Society, but without providing any proper opportunity to the executive committee to place their explanation before the first respondent. 14. In view of the above said discussion, this Court finds that mere closure of a complaint under Section 36 or rejection of a request for initiation of proceedings under Section 34-A on previous occasions will not bar the Government from initiating any such action in future provided they discover/unearth new facts or documents. 14. In view of the above said discussion, this Court finds that mere closure of a complaint under Section 36 or rejection of a request for initiation of proceedings under Section 34-A on previous occasions will not bar the Government from initiating any such action in future provided they discover/unearth new facts or documents. In the present case, after the closure of proceedings under Section 36, the expelled members and the District level authorities have conducted an enquiry, recorded statements from the tenants of the petitioner/Society and have placed the same before the Government. Hence, the closure of the proceedings on an earlier occasion would not be a bar for the Government to initiate proceedings under Section 34-A. 15. In view of the above said discussions, this Court proceeds to pass the following orders: (i) The order impugned in both the writ petitions are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the first respondent herein for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in this writ petition. (ii) The petitioner/Society is at liberty to offer their explanations/representation to the first respondent herein for the show cause notice, dated 28.09.2021 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve(12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. With the above said observations, the Writ Petitions stand allowed and remitted back to the file of the first respondent herein. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.