High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 2025from approving the proceedings ad resolutions of the meetings of the Sri Ramakrishna Kudil conducted on 14.06.02025, 29.09.2025 and 17.10.2025 based on the representation dated 29.09.2025.For Petitioner: Mr.S.MuthukrishnanFor R1 & R2: Mr.R.Baskaran Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Gandhi Raj Special Government PleaderFor R3 - R6: Mr.K.Govindarajan for Mr.R.MuraliORDERThe writ petitioner seeks a mandamus to the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 29.09.2025 and forbearing him from approving the proceedings and resolutions of the meetings of Sri Ramakrishna Kudil conducted on 14.06.02025, 29.09.2025 and 17.10.2025.2. The case of the petitioner is that the Sri Ramakrishna Kudil (hereinafter called as society) was established under the leadership of Brammachari Ramasamy and is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The Society is governed by the _________Page 2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 2025memorandum of Association under the article of association which were framed by Brammachari Ramasamy. The society has the object of establishing elementary and high school, colleges, training centers and educational institutions and hostels. In short, the society was founded for ensuring education reaches every level of society. 3. As per the memorandum of association of the society, only a Brammachari can be elected as a President / Treasurer and Secretary. From 1949 till 2022, it was only Bramachari who were holding the post of President / Treasurer and Secretary and they were all residing within the premises of the society.4. The founder President died in the year 1999. After his death, Brammachari Durai was functioning as President / Treasurer of the society till his death in 2016 and thereafter, Brammachari Karuppaiah was discharging the aforesaid functions. The petitioner would submit that he was functioning as a Secretary of the Society._________Page 3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 20255. As per the byelaws, the society consists of 12 members. The respondents 3 to 6 had become members of the society in the year 2021. The respondents 3, 4 and one Gomathinayagam submitted their resignation letter evincing their interest to resign from the membership of the society. This letter was considered at the general body meeting of the society on 11.12.2022 and accepted. The 3rd respondent had also participated in these proceedings and signed the proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioner that the sole aim of the 3rd respondent was to take over the administration of the society and its property for his personal gains and with this intent in mind, he was taking all the steps in this regard.6. The petitioner would submit that at the behest of the 3rd respondent, a false complaint was lodged against Brammachari Karuppaiah, Brammachari Dhanasekar, Brammachari Parthipan before the All Women Police Station, Jeeyapuram and case was registered against them and two others. They were arrested and by orders of this Court dated 20.06.2024, they were suspended from the society. _________Page 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 2025Thereafter, the 3rd respondent prepared Form VII application on his whims and fancies and forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent which was not approved by the 2nd respondent. Consequently, the 3rd respondent had filed W.P(MD)No.9453 of 2024 challenging this order and seeking a consequential relief of approving the Form VII submitted. By an order dated 20.06.2024, the 2nd respondent was directed to conduct an enquiry under Section 36 of the Act and pass orders on merits within a period of four months. Since three of the members have been suspended, this Court had directed the general body meeting to be convened. The entire meeting was directed to be videographed and the District Registrar (Societies) was directed to depute an observer for this election.7. Pursuant to this order, a meeting was convened and attended by respondents 3 to 6 and one Marudhu. Another member Kannan was not permitted to participate in the meeting. Though respondents 3 and 4 had already resigned from the membership, which was accepted by the general body, suppressing this fact, respondents 3 and 4 had participated in the meeting held on 21.09.2024. The other member Marudhu was not _________Page 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 2025permitted to attend the meeting. In this meeting, the 3rd respondent was elected as the President / Treasurer and the 4th respondent as Secretary of the society. The respondents 5 and 6 were appointed as Executive Committee members of the society. The petitioner would submit that he was unable to attend the meeting on account of his ill-health which was also informed to the respondents. It is the further case of the petitioner that though Marudhu had attended the meeting, he has not signed the minutes.8. The petitioner has questioned the meeting held on 21.09.2024 inasmuch as to this meeting, persons who had already resigned had attended the meeting and the minutes of the meeting was not signed by one of the members. The main grouse of the petitioner is that as per the byelaws, only a Brammachari can be appointed as a President / Treasurer and Secretary and the 3rd respondent was not a Brammachari. Further, he had already resigned from the society which resignation was also accepted by the general body of the society. Therefore, the petitioner and three other members of the society had submitted a petition to the _________Page 6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 2025respondents 1 and 2 to take action to set aside the proceedings conducted in the meeting held on 21.09.2024. The petitioner would submit that he is the only competent person to hold the post of President / Treasurer as he is a Brammachari and complies with the byelaws of the society. The representations sent by the petitioner on 14.06.2025, 29.09.2025 and 17.10.2025 have not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.9. The sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is not a Brammachari and therefore, as per the byelaws of the society, he was not qualified to hold the said post. He would submit that as per the byelaws, only a Brammachari can hold the post of President / Treasurer and Secretary. That apart, it is also the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court in its order dated 20.06.2024 in W.P(MD)No.9453 of 2024 had only directed the holding of general body meeting and not to elect the committee members of the society._________Page 7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 202510. Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.R.Murali would submit that there is no embargo for a non-Brammachari holding the post of President / Treasurer and Secretary. He would contend that the petitioner is reading the byelaws in a truncated manner. He would further submit that the petitioner, who was holding the post of Treasurer has been misusing the funds of the society. Huge amounts have been withdrawn to pay the counsel who is appearing for the suspended Brammachari, accused in POCSO offenses. He would submit that the 2nd respondent by order dated 30.01.2024 had rejected two sets of Form VII submitted by K.Chandramohan and 11 others and V.Thirunavukarasu and 11 others. Meanwhile, an F.I.R was also been lodged against four of Brammacharis. He would submit that, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.244 of 2025 and 2386 of 2024 which was filed challenging the order passed in W.P(MD)No.9453 of 2024 had confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeals. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to question the proceedings of the society conducted on 14.06.2025, 25.09.2025 and 17.10.2025._________Page 8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 202511. Heard the learned counsels on either side.12. The two grounds on which the writ petition is sought to be canvassed is that the byelaws of the society does not permit a non-Brammachari from becoming the President / Treasurer and Secretary. In this regard, byelaw 9 (,) requires to be looked into and is extracted as follows :“(,) (i) jiytiuj; jtpu> Vida MAs; mq;fj;jpdu;fspd; ];jhdk; fhyp Vw;gl;lhy; kfhrigapypUe;J ahNuDk; xUtiu MAs; mq;fj;jpduhfj; Nju;e;njLj;Jf;nfhs;syhk;.(ii) jiytu; ];jhdk; fhyp Vw;gLk; fhyj;jpy; ,ju MAs; mq;fj;jpdu;fs; =uhkfpU\;zu;> Rthkp tpNtfhde;jUila nfhs;iffisf; filg;gpbf;Fk; ,Nj ];jhgdj;jpy; gapw;rpngw;w xU Jwtpia Nju;e;njLj;J ,e;j ];jhgdj;jpd; jiytuhf epakpf;fyhk;.(iii) ,e;j ];jhgdj;jpy; mj;jifa Jwtp fpilf;fhj gl;rj;jpy; MAs; mq;fj;jpdu;fs; ,e;j ];jhgdj;jpd; nfhs;ifiaf; _________Page 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 2025filg;gpbf;Fk; xU Jwtpiaj; jiytuhff; nfhz;Ltuyhk;.(iv) mg;gb xU Jwtp ,e;j ];jhgdj;jpYk; ntspapYk; fpilf;fhj gl;rj;jpy; ,e;j ];jhgdj;jpd; nfhs;iffspy; gw;Ws;stUk;> ,e;j ];jhgdj;jpd; tsu;r;rpapy; Mu;tk; nfhz;L ciof;ff; $batUkhd xUtiu epu;thff; FO jw;fhyPfkhf jiytuhf epakpf;fyhk;.”13. A mere perusal of these byelaws would clearly indicate that the byelaws have also contemplated the appointment of non-Brammachari to the Executive Committee. The holding of the election has also been questioned by the petitioner by contending that the order in W.P(MD)No.9453 of 2024 did not contemplate the holding of election. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the order in question. The issue that was being agitated was the general body meeting that had been convened on 21.08.2022 wherein two officials, Chandramohan and Muthusamy were removed and one Thirunavukkarasu and Gomathinayagam had been inducted as members despite serious _________Page 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 2025opposition. When the matter came up, it was represented that Chandramohan and Muthusamy were no longer members of the society and that Thirunavukkarasu and Gomathinayagam were inducted as new members. The Court also took note of the persons who had constituted the membership of the society. The learned Judge was conscious of the fact that the office bearers had not been elected. That apart, the learned Judge has taken note of the fact that three of the Brammacharis had been involved in POCSO cases and in fact, the learned Judge had opined that the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Brammacharis who have been accused were one and the same and later a change of vakalat was filed for the petitioner herein. The Court had further opined that since 12 members had been suspended, it became necessary to convene the general body meeting and directions were issued to the 1st respondent therein to conduct the Section 36 enquiry. The very perusal of the order, dated 20.06.2024 in W.P(MD)No.9453 of 2024 clearly indicates that the learned Judge had contemplated an election being held and therefore, the resolutions passed in the general body is very much in tune with the directions of this Court and the same cannot be called in question. _________Page 11 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 202514. Therefore, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 24.11.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex: Yes/No Internet : YesgbgTo1.Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department, Chennai -04.2.The District Registrar, Administration, Registration Department, Tiruchirappalli._________Page 12 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.32613 of 2025P.T.ASHA, J.gbgW.P.(MD)No.32613 of 202524.11.2025_________Page 13 of 13