Writ Appeal No. 1333 of 2007 · Madrasdated High Court · 2007

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J."Siddharth Heights" is a complex of residential apartmentscomprising of about 113 flats and the owners of these apartmentshave joined together and formed an Association known as "SiddharthHeights Apartments Owners Association". The said Association wasregistered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975,bearing Sl.No.46 of 2004.2. On the ground that a new set of office bearers wereelected to the society, in an election held on 28.01.2007, FormNo.VII under Rule 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies RegistrationRules, 1978, was filed with the District Registrar of Societies,South Chennai, on the same day. Later, objections were lodged withthe District Registrar on the ground that election was not properlyconducted in accordance with the Bye-laws. Therefore, the DistrictRegistrar, South Chennai, passed an order dated 30.05.2007,rejecting the Form No.VII filed on 28.01.2007 and directing theconduct of fresh elections.3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.05.2007, passed bythe District Registrar, the office bearers, who had filed FormNo.VII, came up with the writ petition in W.P.No.24017 of 2007.The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Judge, by anorder dated 12.09.2007, directing the parties to agitate the issuesbefore the Civil Court and also directing both the parties not tooperate the bank account, till the matter is taken to the CivilCourt. However, the learned Judge also expressed a view that theDistrict Registrar, having accepted Form No.VII at the beginning,on 28.01.2007, ought not to have passed the order dated 30.05.2007rejecting Form No.VII and directing the conduct of fresh elections.Therefore, challenging the order of the learned Judge, the membersof the ad-hoc Committee, who were impleaded as respondents 2 to 8in the writ petition and at whose instance the District Registrarpassed the order impugned in the writ petition, have come up withthe present writ appeal.4. Heard Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for theappellant, Mr.P.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader for thefirst respondent and Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanandam, learned counsel for thesecond respondent.5. The second respondent Association itself was formed onlyin February, 2004, and the first set of office bearers was electedin April, 2004. But, they resigned, following some unpleasantincidents. Therefore, an ad-hoc Committee was constituted, whichcomprised of the appellants herein.6. In a General Body Meeting held on 24.12.2006, two personswere named as Election Officers to conduct elections on 28.01.2007,but one of the Election Officers declined to act as such. However,the election was purportedly conducted on 28.01.2007 and as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ required by Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies RegistrationAct read with Rule 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies RegistrationRules, Form No.VII was filed on the same day, viz., 28.01.2007.This Form No.VII was accepted by the District Registrar. 7. However, a letter of protest was lodged with the DistrictRegistrar on 30.01.2007 by the members of the ad-hoc Committee, whoare the appellants herein. Similarly, when the newly electedoffice bearers informed the State Bank of India about theirelection and their intention to operate the bank account, theappellants lodged a protest with the State Bank of India also.Therefore, the State Bank of India sent a communication to theDistrict Registrar on 05.03.2007 to clarify as to whether the newlyelected officer bearers or the ad-hoc Committee, was in charge ofthe affairs of the Society. In response to the said letter, theDistrict Registrar sent a reply dated 14.03.2007 pointing out thatthere were lot of irregularities in the conduct of the affairs ofthe Society and that consequently a Notification had already beenpublished in the Government Gazette under Section 44(2) of the Actfor the removal of the name of the Society from the Register. Incontinuation of the said communication, the District Registrar alsowrote another letter dated 26.03.2007 to the State Bank of Indiainforming the bank that an enquiry was being held and requestingthe bank not to take any action on the basis of the previouscommunication dated 14.03.2007 of the District Registrar.8. Thereafter, the District Registrar passed a detailed orderdated 30.05.2007, holding that the elections purportedly held on28.01.2007 were in violation of the Bye-laws and the Provisions ofthe Act and the Rules and that therefore, Form No.VII filed andaccepted on 28.01.2007 was liable to be rejected. Accordingly, herejected Form No.VII and directed the Society to convene a generalbody meeting and elect a new set of office bearers in anappropriate manner.9. In pursuance of the said order of the District Registrar,the ad-hoc Committee issued a notice on 06.06.2007 for holding theelections on 15.07.2007. In the election schedule so announced,the date for publication of final list of contesting candidates wasfixed as 09.07.2007.10. Thereafter, a fresh Form No.VII was filed with theDistrict Registrar on 16.07.2007 with the names of persons, whowere declared elected unopposed.11. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent herein, who claimed tohave been elected as President in the elections purportedly held on28.01.2007, filed the writ petition, W.P.No.24015 of 2007 (on12.07.2007) challenging the order of the District Registrar dated30.05.2007, by which, Form No.VII filed on 28.01.2007 was rejected.The writ petition, as stated earlier, was disposed of, by an orderdated 12.09.2007 holding that the order of the District Registrardated 30.05.2007 was illegal and directing the parties to approachthe Civil Court for redressal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. From the above conspectus of facts, two things emerge,viz.,(a) that there are now two groups of office bearers, who claim tohave been duly elected (one group in the election held on28.01.2007 and another in the elections held on 09.07.2007) and(b)that each group of persons is assailing the validity of theelections held on the above dates, alleging various violations ofthe Provisions of the Bye-laws, the Act and the Rules.Thus, it is seen that disputed questions of fact have arisen in thematter, which cannot really be decided in a writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.13. Apart from the fact that disputed questions of fact havearisen, the very maintainability of the writ petition as againstthe acceptance or rejection of Form No.VII by the DistrictRegistrar, is in doubt. Though the scheme of the Tamil NaduSocieties Registration Act, 1975, and the Tamil Nadu SocietiesRegistration Rules, 1978 impose a statutory obligation upon aSociety registered under the Act to maintain certain Registers andto file certain returns in the formats prescribed, no correspondingobligation is imposed upon the District Registrar by the Act andthe Rules, to adjudicate upon the correctness of such forms. Theentire scheme of the Act and the Rules appear to envisage only aministerial function on the part of the District Registrar, whilereceiving Form No.VII. In order to understand and appreciate thislegal position, it is necessary to look into the various provisionsof the Act and the Rules, which mandate the maintenance ofRegisters and the filing of the forms.14. Section 6 of the Act makes it compulsory for a Societyseeking registration under the Act to file with the Registrar,(i) a Memorandum of Association and (ii) Bye-laws of the Society.Section 10(1) of the Act empowers the Registrar to issue aCertificate of Registration and Section 10(2) requires theRegistrar to enter certain particulars in a Register maintained byhim, after the issue of the Certificate of Registration. Section11(1) enables a registered society to change its name, by a SpecialResolution, with the approval of the Registrar in writing. Section11(2) requires the Registrar to enter the new name in the Registerand issue a fresh Certificate of Registration. Section 12 enablesa registered society to amend its Memorandum and Bye-laws and subSection (4) of Section 12 requires the Registrar to register theamendment, if he is satisfied that such amendment is not contraryto the provisions of the Act. Section 14(1) of the Act requiresevery registered society to maintain a Register containing thenames, addresses and occupations of its members. Section 15(1)obliges the Society to file a notice of any change among themembers of the Society or of the Committee.15. Section 16(3)(b) requires every Society to file returns,containing an authenticated copy of the receipts and expenditureaccounts, balance sheet and report, a statement of details of themembers of the Society and a declaration. Section 27 of the Actmandates the Society to file a copy of every Special Resolutionpassed by a Society. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. Section 30 enables two or more registered societies toget amalgamated or a registered society to get divided into two ormore Societies, by Special Resolution, with the prior approval ofthe Registrar. Section 32 declares certain mortgages and chargescreated by a registered Society, to be void unless the particularsof such mortgage or charge, along with the instrument is filed withthe Registrar for registration. 17. Section 34 empowers the Registrar to call for informationor explanation relating to any documents filed with him under theprovisions of the Act. In other words, Section 34 appears to bethe only provision which requires the Registrar to do something inrelation to any document or any Form filed with him. 18. Section 34-A deals with the supersession of the Committeeof management of a registered society, by the Government. Section35 empowers the Registrar to inspect the books of every registeredsociety. Section 36 empowers the Registrar to inquire into theaffairs of the registered society, either on his own motion or onan application of a majority of the members of the Committee ofManagement or on the application of not less than 1/3rd of themembers or if so, moved by the District Collector. Section 37deals with the action to be taken by the Registrar in pursuance ofthe inquiry conducted under Section 36. Section 38 empowers theRegistrar to cancel the registration of a society carrying onunlawful activities. Section 40 empowers the Registrar to appointa Liquidator to wind up a society after the registration of thesociety is cancelled. Section 44 enables the Registrar to strikeoff the name of the society from the Register. Section 49 empowersthe Registrar to condone the delay in certain cases.19. Thus, a careful reading of the entire Act shows that therole of the Registrar is clearly defined by the statute in respectof various statutory obligations created under the Act. Thefunctions expected to be performed by the District Registrar havebeen clearly demarcated into three categories, viz., (a)Ministerial, (b) Administrative and (c) Quasi-judicial. This can beeasily appreciated by the language employed, in each of theprovisions of the Act, where the Registrar is assigned a role/duty.20. Wherever the functions of the Registrar are expected tobe merely ministerial in nature, the Act and the Rules do notconfer any discretion on him and do not expect him to do anythingother than merely filing papers and making entries in theRegisters. Wherever the functions assigned to the Registrar areexpected to be administrative in nature, the Act and the Rulesmandate the Registrar to either, "arrive at a satisfaction" or"approve" the action of the registered society. Wherever theRegistrar is expected to perform quasi judicial functions, the Actrequires him to conduct an inquiry and pass appropriate orders.21. The following are the provisions, where the Registrar isassigned administrative functions/duties:-(a)Section 10(1) which empowers the Registrar to issue a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Certificate of Registration to a Society, "on being satisfiedthat the Society has complied with the Provisions of the Act".(b)Section 11(1) which entitles a registered Society to change itsname by a Special Resolution, "with the approval in writing ofthe Registrar".(c)Section 12(4) which enables the Registrar to register anyamendment to the Memorandum or Bye-laws of the Society,"if he issatisfied that such amendment is not contrary to the Provisionsof the Act or Rules".(d)Section 30 which enables two or more registered Societies to getamalgamated or a Society to be divided into two or moreSocieties, "with the prior approval of the Registrar".(e)Section 44 which empowers the Registrar to remove defunctSocieties from the Register after sending a letter enquiringwhether the Society is carrying on business or in operation.(f)Section 49 which empowers the Registrar to allow extension oftime to any registered Society to comply with the provisions ofSections 4(1)and(2), 13(1), 15(2), 16(3) and 27. Being administrative functions, an element of discretion isvested on the Registrar, under the above provisions of the Act andhence, they are subject to judicial review.22. The provisions of the Act, which confer quasi judicialpowers on the Registrar, are as follows:-(a)Section 36(1) empowers the Registrar to inquire into theconstitution, working and financial condition of a registeredSociety. Since it is expected to be a quasi judicial enquiry,sub Section (5) of Section 36 treats any order passed under subSection (4) as a decree of a Civil Court and sub Section (8)empowers the Inquiry Officer to summon any witness or documents.(b)Section 38(1) empowers the Registrar to cancel the Registrationof any Society, if it is found to be carrying on any unlawfulactivity. The Registrar is obliged to conduct an inquiry intothe activities of such Society before cancelling the registrationunder this Section. There can be no iota of doubt about the availability ofthe power of judicial review over these quasi judicial functionsconferred on the Registrar. 23. In contrast to the administrative and quasi judicialfunctions, there are certain functions assigned to the DistrictRegistrar, which are merely ministerial in nature and no writ wouldlie in respect of the ministerial functions so performed by theDistrict Registrar. But what is the test to distinguish aministerial act/duty from an administrative act/function? 24. A "Ministerial Act" is defined in P.Ramanatha Aiyer's,'The Law Lexicon', as follows:-"Ministerial Act. A ministerial act may bedefined to be one which a person performs in a givenstate of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedienceto the mandate of a legal authority, without regardto, or the exercise of, his own judgment upon the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property of the act done."According to Ballentine's Law dictionary, "Ministerial Duty"means, "a duty in regard to which no discretion isleft in the officer on whom the duty is imposed, anact which is absolute, certain and imperativeinvolving the mere execution of a set task, the lawwhich imposes it prescribing the time, mode andoccasion of its performance with such certainty thatnothing remains for judgment or discretion."Black's Law Dictionary also defines a "Ministerial act" as an "actperformed without the independent exercise of discretion orjudgment."25. Applying the above test, it can be safely concluded thatthe acceptance of forms and returns filed by the registeredsocieties, is nothing but ministerial in nature. This conclusionis inevitable on account of the fact that no element of discretionis conferred upon the Registrar under the Act, while accepting anyof the forms/returns.26. The Appendix to the Tamil Nadu Societies RegistrationRules, 1978 contains as may as 10 Forms, which are to be used forvarious purposes. While Form No.I contains the form of theapplication to be made for Registration of a Society, Form No.IIcontains the format of the Certificates of Registration. FormNo.III contains the format in which the Registrar is required tomaintain a Register of Societies which have been registered underthe Act. Form No.IV is the format of an alphabetical index to bemaintained in respect of societies registered in each calendaryear. Form No.V contains the format in which the notice of thesituation of the Registered Office of the Society and any changethereto, is to be filed. Form No.VI prescribes the format in whicha society is obliged to maintain a Register of Members. FormNo.VII prescribes the format in which a notice of any change amongthe members of the society or of the committee is to be filed withthe Registrar. Form No.VIII and Form No.IX prescribe theparticulars of any charge created on the property of the societyand the mortgage or charge subject to which a property was acquiredby a society. Form No.X contains the form of certificate to beissued by the Registrar, whenever the committee of a registeredsociety is superseded and a Special Officer appointed.27. Thus it is seen that some of the Forms prescribed in theAppendix are in the nature of certificates, some of them are in thenature of registers to be maintained and a few of them are in thenature of notices to be filed by the Societies with the Registrar.28. Out of the 10 forms prescribed in the Appendix, Form No.Vand VII alone are in the nature of notices. While Form No.V is anotice of location of the Registered Office of the Society and itis required to be filed within three months, by virtue Rule 15 ofthe Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978, Form No.VII is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notice of the change among the members of the society or of thecommittee and it is required to be filed within three months fromthe date of such change, by virtue of Rule 17(2) of the aforesaidRules.29. It is seen that the requirement under Rule 17(2) forfiling Form No.VII stems out of the requirement under Section 15 ofthe Act. Section 15 reads as follows:-"15.Committee.-(1) Every registered Society shall have acommittee of not less than three members to manageits affairs. Every registered society shall filewith the Registrar a copy of the register maintainedby it under sub-section (1) of Section 14 and fromtime to time, file with the Registrar notice of anychange among the members of the Committee.(2) A copy of the register shall be filed eitherat the time of the registration of the society orwithin such period as may be prescribed from theappointment of the members of the first committee andthe notice of any change among the members of thesociety or the committee shall be filed within suchperiod as may be prescribed from the date of suchchange.(3) The members of the committee shall beappointed at a meeting of the society by a resolutionof a majority of the members present and entitled tovote thereat. (4) The term of office of the members ofcommittee shall not exceed three years from the dateof their appointment.(5) The members of the committee shall beeligible for reappointment.Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, reads asfollows:- 17. Filing of copy of the register ofmembers and notice of change of members orcommittee.-(1) A copy of the register of membersmaintained by the society under sub-section (1) ofSection 14, if not filed at the time of registrationof the society, shall be filed with the Registrarwithin one month from the date of registration ofthe society.(2) The notice of any change among the membersof the society or of the committee shall be filed inForm No.VII within [three months] from the date of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such change. The notice of change among the membersof the committee shall be accompanied by theresolution of the meeting, if any, effecting suchchange."30. It is seen from the language in which Section 15 of theAct and Rule 17 of the Rules is couched that there is a statutoryobligation cast upon the society to file Form No.VII within thetime limit prescribed thereto. The Act or Rules do not envisageany corresponding statutory duty or responsibility on the part ofthe Registrar of Societies while accepting Form V or Form VII filedunder the Act. Therefore, it appears that what the Registrar doeswhile accepting the forms, is only a ministerial act of receivingthe form, scrutinising the same to the extent necessary to verifythe correctness of the particulars contained therein andregistering the same. In other words, the Registrar does no morejob than that of the Registrar of Companies accepting Form No.32 orForm No.34 under the Companies Act, 1956.31. The above conclusion also derives support from theProvisions of Section 34 of the Act, which reads as follows:-"34. Power of Registrar to call for informationor explanation.-(1) Where the Registrar, on perusal of anydocument which a registered society is required tofile with him under the provisions of this Act, isof opinion that any information or explanation isnecessary with respect to any matter to which suchdocument purports to relate, he may, by order inwriting, call on the registered society filing thedocument to furnish in writing such information orexplanation within such time as he may specify inthe order.(2) On receipt by the registered society of anorder under sub-section (1), it shall be the duty ofall persons who are or have been its officers tofurnish such information or explanation to the bestof their power.(3) On receipt of such information orexplanation, the Registrar, may annex the same tothe original document filed with him and anyadditional document so annexed by the Registrarshall be subject to the like provisions as toinspection and the taking of copies, as the originaldocuments is subject."32. From a bare reading of Sub Section (1) of Section 34, itis clear that the only obligation cast upon the Registrar, uponreceipt of any document or Form filed under the Act, is to call forany further information or explanation in respect of any matter, towhich, such document relates to. Sub Section (3) makes it stillmore clear by prescribing that the Registrar may annex such https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ information or explanation to the original document filed with him.Therefore, if Form No.VII is filed with the Registrar, as requiredby Section 15(1) of the Act read with Rule 17(2) of the Rules, allthat the Registrar can do is only to call for further informationor explanation under Section 34(1) and keep the information orexplanation received by him as an annexure to the originaldocument. This is nothing but a mere ministerial function andhence, it cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.33. In any event, the filing of Form No.VII is only aconsequential action to an election purportedly conducted. Theacceptance of such a Form by the Registrar would neither affix aseal of approval on the validity of the election nor would therejection of Form No.VII by the Registrar, invalidate an electionproperly conducted. Therefore, a person, who is aggrieved by anelection, should only go before a Civil Court challenging theelection. A person aggrieved by an election cannot challenge theacceptance or rejection of Form No.VII by the Registrar as a shortcut to invalidate an election. This is why the Full Bench of thisCourt, in C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher SecondarySchool Committee -vs- The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi andfour others (2005-2- L.W. 550), held that the power under Section34 is only incidental and that it was only for the purpose ofmaintaining correct records. Paragraph No.18 of the Judgement ofthe Full Bench reads as follows:-"18. The power of the Registrar to enquireinto the affairs of the society is only to hold asummary inquiry for his own satisfaction. Thesaid power cannot be construed as the power ofappeal. Under Section 36, the Registrar has notbeen empowered to adjudicate upon the conflictingclaims to represent the society based uponquestion of fact. A plain reading of Section 36shows that the Registrar could look only theprovisions of the Act and the Rules and primafacie materials to arrive at a conclusion eitherto believe or not to believe Form No.VII in orderto effect change in the register. The Power ofthe Registrar to call for information andexplanation under Section 34 does notcontemplate any power to examine witnesses or toallow opportunity for cross examination ofwitnesses. The power in our view is incidentaland it is only for the purpose of maintainingcorrect records. As the power to conduct inquiryis only limited in order to find out whetherconstitution of members are valid, the inquiry islimited only for the purpose of making entries inthe register. However, the exercise of power mustnot be arbitrary as the orders passed ordirections issued by the Registrar is amenable tochallenge in the Writ Jurisdiction."34. As seen from paragraph No.18 of the judgement of the Full https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Bench extracted above, the Full Bench dealt with the power of theRegistrar both under Section 36 and under Section 34. Since Section36 empowers the Registrar to conduct an inquiry, the Full Benchconcluded in paragraph No.18 that the exercise of such power by theRegistrar should not be arbitrary as the orders passed by theRegistrar would be amenable to challenge in writ jurisdiction. Butinsofar as the power under Section 34 is concerned, the Registraris not expected to conduct any enquiry except to call foradditional information or explanation and that too, just for thepurpose of filing it as annexure to the original document. This iswhy the Full Bench held that the power of the Registrar isincidental and that it is only for the purpose of maintainingcorrect records.35. That the Registrar has a power to conduct an inquiry onlyunder Section 36 and not under Section 34, while receiving FormVII, is made clear by the conclusion reached by the Full Bench inparagraph No.20. Paragraph No.20 of the judgement of the Full Benchreads as follows:-"20. As the power of the Registrar to hold enquiryis only to arrive at a prima facie conclusion as to thecorrectness of the particulars given in Form VII, theprovision of Sub-Section (9) of Section 36 should alsobe understood to mean that he could issue suchdirections to the registered society or any of themember of the society only with reference to thedetails furnished in Form VII. It must also be borne inmind that the enquiry under Section 36 is not onlylimited to the regular affairs of the society and suchaffairs not only include the constitution of aregistered society but also to the working andfinancial condition, and hence the power of theRegistrar to issue such direction under Sub-section (9)of Section 36 of the Act, in regard to the constitutionof the registered society must be understood in thecontext of Form VII. Section 14 obligates theregistered society to maintain a register containingthe names, addresses and occupations of its members.Section 15 further mandates such registered societyshall file with the Registrar a copy of the registermaintained by it under Section 14 and from time to timefile with the Registrar notice of any change among themembers of the committee. In the absence of failure tocomply with Section 14, the Registrar could only resortto the power under Section 37 to cancel theregistration. Hence, the power under Sub-Section (9) ofSection 36 cannot be stretched to a power on theRegistrar to direct the registered society to holdfresh election. A direction to hold fresh electionwould amount to indirectly setting aside the earlierelection and such power is not conferred on theRegistrar under any of the provisions of the Act. Solong as the election is not declared invalid in themanner known to law, no direction for fresh electioncould be ordered. Validity of the election could very https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ well be decided only by the competent Civil Court asthe parties are entitled to let in their evidence tosustain their respective claims. In the event theRegistrar satisfies himself as to the particularsfurnished in Form VII as correct, he should enter thenames in the register maintained for that purpose. Inthe event if he does not satisfy as to the particularsand thereby does not accept Form VII, he has to issue adirection relegating the parties to approach the CivilCourt for appropriate orders and thereafter shall actas per the orders of the Civil Court. Accordingly, theissue is answered."36. In fact, the Full Bench has gone to the extent of holdingthat the Registrar has no power to direct a Society to hold freshelection, even while invoking the jurisdiction under Section 36 ofthe Act. It is made clear by the Full Bench that an election can beset at naught only by the Civil Court in a suit and not even in aninquiry under Section 36. The necessary corollary of such aconclusion by the Full Bench is that what is not possible even inan inquiry under Section 36, cannot be made possible whilereceiving Form No.VII and looking into it under Section 34.Therefore the acceptance or rejection of Form No.VII and theaction of the Registrar in calling for additional information orexplanation under Section 34 is a mere ministerial act, notamenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, thewrit petition, out of which, the present appeal arises, is itselfnot maintainable.37. When a similar situation arose with regard to theacceptance and registration of Form No.32 by the Registrar ofCompanies under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, aDivision Bench of the Delhi High Court considered the role of theRegistrar of Companies, while accepting Form No.32, inS.K.Battacharya and another -vs- Union of India [1998 (Vol.91)Company Cases (Delhi) 37]. It is useful to extract the relevantportion of the judgement of the Division Bench of the Delhi Highcourt, as follows:-"Form No.32 is required to be submittedpursuant to the requirement of sub-section (2) ofsection 303 of the Act as regards particulars ofappointment of directors and manager and changesamongst them. Sub-section (1) of section 303requires a company to maintain a register at itsregistered office containing all pertinentinformation about the directors, managingdirector, manager and secretary. The first partof sub-section (2) of Section 303 requires everycompany to send to the Registrar a return induplicate containing the particulars specified inthe register referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) thereof. It also enjoins upon thecompany to communicate to the Registrar thechanges amongst the directors, managing directors,managers or secretaries, specifying the change of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ date. Form No.32 in Appendix-I is the prescribedform for the purpose. Section 306 of the Act saysthat the Registrar shall keep a separate registeror registers in which entries of the particularsreceived by him under sub-section (2) of section303 in respect of the companies shall be made,which shall be open for inspection to any memberof public at any time during office hours onpayment of the prescribed fee.The Company Law Board is the authoritycompetent to take decisions on the affairs of thecompany. No doubt the order passed in C.P.No.30of 1993, is the subject matter of appeal, but forthe purpose of the present petition, suffice it toobserve that the mere acceptance and registrationof Form No.32 by the Registrar could not haveprejudiced the case of the petitioners in anyproceedings before the competent authorities,since, as observed above, acceptance of the formby the Registrar is only a ministerial act."38. After holding so, the Delhi High Court refused any reliefto the writ petitioner, even though there were allegations that theRegistrar of Companies did not follow the guidelines issued by theMinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, while acting on FormNo.32 filed by the rival parties. 39. Therefore, we hold that a writ would not lie againstany ministerial act performed by the Registrar of Societies underthe Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,including the acceptance or rejection of Form No.VII. Whenever FormNo. VII is filed, the District Registrar can only call for furtherinformation/explanation and file the same along with the Form underSection 34 and he is not entitled to adjudicate any dispute.Therefore, the direction issued by the District Registrar in hisorder dated 30.05.2007 holding the elections held on 28.01.2007 tobe invalid and directing the parties to go in for fresh election,cannot be sustained, on account of the fact that he exercised ajurisdiction not vested in him by law while accepting Form VII. 40. In view of the above, the writ appeal is allowed and theorder of the learned Judge dated 12.09.2007 passed in W.P.No.24017of 2007 is set aside and the writ petition filed by the secondrespondent is dismissed. However, it is open to the appellants aswell as the second respondent to approach the Civil Court withregard to the validity of the elections held either on 28.01.2007or on 09/15.07.2007. It is further made clear that if the partieschoose to approach the Civil Court, the Civil Court should dealwith the matter independently on merits without reference to anyorder passed by the Registrar of Societies either on 28.01.2007 oron 30.05.2007, since the Registrar had no powers to go into the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ validity of the elections or to issue a direction to hold freshelections. The writ appeal is allowed on the above terms.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.bs/To1. The District Registrar, South Madras.+ 1 CC To Mr. A.V.Bharathi, Advocate SR NO.75502+ 1 CC To Mr. J.R.K.Bhavanantham, Advocate SR NO.75736W.A.No.1333 of 2007 asm[co]gp/7.1.