High Court · 2011

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 07.06.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRANW.P.(MD)No.2952 of 2011andM.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011Ekta Resource Centre for Women,Represented by its SecretaryBimla Chandrasekar,Bethel Nagar, Bible Bhavan Street,Ponmeni, Bye Pass Road,Madurai - 625 010.Petitioner Vs1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Pattinampakkam, Chennai.2.The District Registrar of Societies (Administration), Office of the Registrar of Societies, Madurai South, Madurai.RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records ofthe impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3904/E1/2010 dated 11.11.2010 on the fileof the second respondent and quash the same as illegal.For Petitioner:M/s.T.Lajapathi RoyFor Respondents :Mr.K.BalasubramanianAdditional Government PleaderORDERThe petitioner is the Secretary-cum-Director of Ekta Resource Centrefor Women, a society registered under the Tamil Nadu SocietiesRegistration Act. According to the petitioner, they are doing yeomanservice for the society. When there was an inspection of the society,the second respondent had pointed out that Article 14 of the Bye-laws ofthe society is inconsistent with the Section 25(3) of the Tamil NaduSocieties Registration Act inasmuch as it provided for the payment ofhonorarium to the Director of the society appointed among the officebearers of the Executive Committee of the society. 2.According to the petitioner, on 11.08.2001, a special GeneralBody Meeting was convened and a resolution was passed appointing her asthe Director of the Ekta with a meager amount of honorarium for herworking as Executive Head and as the post of Honorary Secretary is adifferent one, payment was made to the Honorary Secretary post. Theremuneration for the post of Director was a meager amount and theresolution was communicated to the second respondent. Again, on asubsequent inspection on 14.02.2003, some defects were pointed out to thefirst respondent. Once again, a special General Body Meeting was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2conducted on 25.06.2003 resolving to amend the Article 14 itself as "TheExecutive Committee shall appoint the Director at such salary as decidedby the committee". Once again, on an inspection on 31.03.2004, thatamendment to Article 14 of the Bye-laws was not properly filed with thesecond respondent and therefore, subsequently on 03.09.2004, according tothe petitioner, the amended resolution was filed. But, in the subsequentinspection on 17.10.2005, no inconsistency was pointed out in the bye-laws. Later on, in the inspection carried out on 16.11.2006 also, therewere no remarks. Subsequently, in the inspection made on 27.08.2008 also,no discrepancy was pointed out. On an inspection on 25.08.2010, it wasreported that the amendment to the bye-laws of the Ekta Resource forWomen was not properly filed with the second respondent in Form No.IIIand she was instructed to submit the receipt for the filing of the saidamendment. It was further pointed out that the Director appointed by theexecutive committee of the society should not be of a Secretary or amember of the executive committee. Hence, the Director was directed toreimburse the honorarium received from the society for which a detailedexplanation was offered on 19.10.2010. The impugned order was passed on11.11.2010 directing the Director to reimburse the amount ofRs.1,83,000/- for the period commencing from 01.08.2009 to 29.03.2010 andfurther citing that no receipt has been produced for the filing of theamendment of the bye-laws of the society with the second respondent andthe Director cannot be a member of the Managing/Executive Committee ofthe society. 3. According to the petitioner, the honorarium is paid not in thecapacity of the Managing/Executive Committee of the society, but, as theSecretary only. She would only contend that the second respondent has nopower to pass the impugned order directing her to reimburse the amountand that the payment of honorarium to the Executive Head is the internalaffairs of the society. 4.Even at the time of admission, a specific question was putforth as to whether the payment was made in the capacity as a Director ofthe society or in the capacity of a Secretary. It is further clarifiedthat as per the bye-laws, when a Director receives money, she cannot beappointed as the Executive Head. In this connection, as per theMemorandum of Association as filed in the typed set of papers, thesociety shall be managed by the Executive Committee elected by theGeneral Body. As per Rule 13, an Executive Committee shall consist of aPresident, Secretary, Treasurer and four committee members. According tothe petitioner, the clause No.13 was amended to the effect that one ofthe office bearers of the executive committee shall be appointed as theDirector of the society at such honorarium as decided by the committee.Then, in the subsequent amendment on 20.02.2003, clause 14 is furtheramended to the effect that the executive committee shall appoint Directorat such honorarium as decided by the Committee. 5.Even though amendments have been carried out, as pointed out bythe respondent, unfortunately, the petitioner is not able to provide anydocument to show that has been duly filed before the respondent in theprescribed form. Therefore, the authorities now would contend that thereis a discrepancy as regards the payment of money as there cannot be aSecretary / Director from and out of the committee. In spite of the factof repeated defects and inconsistencies pointed out in every inspection, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3even though they have alleged that the amendments have been carried out,unfortunately, no document has been produced to substantiate the case ofthe petitioner. Further, even though they contend only a meager amounthas been fixed for the remuneration for a period of seven months i.e.from 01.08.2009 to 29.03.2010 a sum of Rs.1,83,000/- has been paid whichis very high amount and not a meager amount as stated by the petitioner.Therefore, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent.The petitioner is not able to pin point any irregularity in the impugnedorder. The authorities are vested with the power to pass an order underSection 36 of the Act, but, at the same time, if the petitioner isaggrieved, it is always open for her to file an appeal/revision underSection 45 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Withoutavailing the appeal remedy, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. Itis always open to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned inthis regard.6. Without going into the merits of the case and also withoutexpressing any opinion as to the eligibility, or otherwise, since as perthe Act, an appeal is provided, the writ petition as filed by thepetitioner is not maintainable and it is always open to the petitioner toapproach the appellate authority under Section 45 of the Tamil NaduSocieties Registration Act to redress their grievance. Under thosecircumstances, the writ petition is dismissed in limini only on theground that an alternative remedy is available under Section 45 of theTamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S)To1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Pattinampakkam, Chennai.2.The District Registrar of Societies (Administration), Office of the Registrar of Societies, Madurai South, Madurai.+ 1 cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR No.17508+ 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.17458Order made inW.P.(MD)No.2952 of 201107.06.2011SrmRJ/14.6.113p/5c