High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:12.12.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.35542 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 20071. Ramalingam2. K.P. Rajavelu3. R. Govindasamy4. V. Muthusamy5. R. Subramaniam6. K. Thangavel7. P. Ganesan8. K. Subramaniam9. Ramasamy10.C. Thangaraju11.K. Mani12.M. Kandasamy13.G. Thangaraju14.S. Ravi15.Vaiyapuri.... Petitionersvs1. The Inspector General of Registration Registration Department Santhome High Road Chennai-600 0282. The District Registrar (Societies) Namakkal District Trichy Road Namakkal Town Namakkal District3. The Tahsildar Namakkal Taluk Namakkal4. Navaladian Small farmers Lift Irrigation society (Registration No.33/94) (Administrtion-In-charge) S.P. Kandasamy Mohanur village Namakkal Taluk and District .. Respondents Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus for therelief as stated therein.For petitioner :Mr.R. Bharathidhasan forMr.R. KarthikeyanFor respondents 1 to 3:Mr.N. SenthilkumarFor 4th respondent:Mr.D. KrishnakumarORDERThe petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the first andsecond respondents to take action based on the representation made bythe petitioners on 10.10.2007 and appoint an appropriate authority toenquire into the affairs of the 4th respondent Society.2. The 4th respondent is a registered Society with the Registrarof Societies with an object to provide irrigation facilities to theagriculturists in and around the Mohanur village in Namakkal Taluk.Based on the request of the 4th respondent Association, the Governmenthad sunk bore wells in the Cauvery Basin and pumped water throughpipes to the lands belonging to the members of the 4th respondent.There was dispute regarding membership of the Society, which arose inthe year 2003 and the petitioners were not allowed to participate inthe election, which was conducted in the year 2003. This waschallenged by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.18035 of 2003 by thepetitioners. It is seen that the above writ petition was allowed on23.12.2004. However, on appeal by the 4th respondent, the DivisionBench has directed the petitioners to approach the Civil court, sincecivil dispute cannot be decided in the writ petition.3. Pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench of this Court,the petitioner has filed O.S.No.216 of 2005 on the file of Sub Judge,Namakkal challenging the election conducted on 29.5.2003 and the sameis pending as on date. In the meantime, there was some disputeregarding supply of water by the 4th respondent and there was PeaceCommittee Meeting, which was conducted by respondents 2 and 3, inwhich, the 4th respondent had also participated. Based on the saiddecision taken on 8.8.2005, the 4th respondent continues to supplywater to the members of the 4th respondent and also to the petitioners.4. The case of the 4th respondent is that the petitioners haveceased to be the members of the 4th respondent Society and whether theycontinue to be the member or not has to be decided by the CivilCourt. The petitioner, having approached the Civil Court as per thedirection of the Division Bench of this Court, cannot be stated tohave any locus-standi to complain about the conduct of the 4threspondent in supplying water. In the representation given by thepetitioners to the respondents 1 and 2 dated 10.10.2007, thepetitioners have raised some allegations against the 4th respondent inrespect of collection of amount and therefore, in the public interest,they want an enquiry to be conducted against the conduct of the 4threspondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Mr.R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitsthat even though membership of the petitioners in the 4th respondentSociety is in question, which is pending adjudication in the suit,inasmuch as admittedly the petitioners were also supplied water basedon the arrangement entered in the Peace committee Meeting and the 4threspondent is in fact of receiving money, the petitioners have rightto request the public authorities viz., the respondents 2 and 3 toinspect the affairs of the 4th respondent.6. On the other hand, Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned counselappearing for the 4th respondent submits that in fact the petitionerswant an enquiry to be conducted by the Registrar which is permissibleonly under Sec.36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.Sec.36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 reads asfollows:36. Power of Registrar to inquire into the affairsof registered Society:(1) The Registrar may, of his own motion or on theapplication of a majority of the members of thecommittee of a registered society or on the applicationof not less than one-third of the members of thatregistered society, or, if so moved by the DistrictCollector hold or direct some person authorised by theRegistrar by order in writing in his behalf to hold, aninquiry, into the constitution, working and financialcondition of that registered society".(2)...All the petitioners are not the members of the 4th respondent societyas on date and therefore, to have an enquiry under Sec.36 of theTamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the petitioners have nolocus-standi at all.7. He also submits that 4th respondent has accepted to give waterto the petitioners only as a matter of interim measure and notrecognising the petitioners as members of the 4th respondent societyand concession was given only to avoid any unpleasant situation.8. On the other hand it is the case of the petitioner that thepetitioners do not require any enquiry under Sec.36 of the Act butwhat is required is the Registrar to get information about thefunctioning of the Society, which will be covered under Sec.34 of theAct. Sec.34 of the Act reads as follows:34 Power of Registrar to call forinformation or explanation:(1) Where the Registrar, on perusal ofany document which a registered society isrequired to file with him under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provisions of this Act, is of opinion thatany information or explanation is necessarywith respect to any matter to which suchdocument purports to relate, he may, by orderin writing, call on the registered societyfiling the document to furnish in writingsuch information or explanation within suchtime as he may specify in the order.9. On the face of it, there is no difficulty to come to theconclusion that as far as membership of the petitioners is concerned,the same is in question and pending adjudication in the civil court,Admittedly the petitioners themselves filed O.S.No.216/2005, pendingon the file of Sub Judge, Namakkal challenging the election conductedon 29.5.2003. It is only after the suit is disposed of, the status ofthe petitioner will be known. Pending the same, even if arrangementshave been made by the Peace Committee, it cannot be said that thepetitioners have become the members of the 4th respondent Society.The membership of the 4th respondent society depends upon the outcomeof the civil suit and pending the same, the petitioners cannot compelthe public authorities to invoke his jurisdiction under Sec.36 of theAct to conduct an enquiry. 10. A reference to Sec.34 of the Act shows that it does notrelate to enquiry regarding functioning of the Society, it onlyenables the Registrar to obtain some information or explanation andthat power will not enable him to conduct an enquiry.11. On the other hand, functioning of the Society can beinvestigated only under Sec.36 of the Act which clearly contemplatesthat the minimum requirement is one third of the members of thatregistered Society.12. Considering the above, I am of the considered view that therepresentation of the petitioners dated 10.10.2007 cannot be permittedto be enquired into by the District Registrar except leaving thepetitioner to wait for the outcome of the suit. Therefore, the writpetition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, theconnected W.P.M.P is closed.13. Considering that the suit is of the year 2005, the learnedSub Judge, Namakkal is directed to give priority to O.S.No.216/2005and dispose of the same expeditiously in any event, within a period ofsix months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. It is made clear that after the suit is disposed of and basedon the decision of the suit, it is open to the petitioners to maketheir representation to the concerned authorities in respect offunctioning of the 4th respondent.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsrTo1.The Subordinate Judge,Namakkal.2. The Inspector General of Registration Registration Department Santhome High Road Chennai-600 0283. The District Registrar (Societies) Namakkal District Trichy Road Namakkal Town Namakkal District4. The Tahsildar Namakkal Taluk, Namakkal+1cc to Mr.D.Krishna Kumar, Advocate Sr 73372+1cc to Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Advocate Sr 73535+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 73813SK (CO)km/18.12.W.P.NO.35542/2007