Disposed

Tirunelveli C.M.S. Evangelical v. the District Registrar

Madras HC15 Nov 2016WP(MD)/4903/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) disposed of a writ petition filed by a church society seeking a directive to register its delayed annual returns. The Court issued a direction to the District Registrar to examine the representation and pass appropriate orders on merits within twelve weeks after hearing parties, noting the Registrar's past inaction despite a government exemption order. Locus s

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent (District Registrar) to look into the issue and pass appropriate orders on merits within twelve weeks of the order.

Tirunelveli C.M.S. Evangelical Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 15.11.2016 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶3

W.P.(MD).No.4903 of 2011

¶4

Tirunelveli C.M.S.Evangelical Church Society, rep. by its Secretary, R.Paul George .. Petitioner .Vs.

¶5

District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶6

P.Jeyasingh Malraj Secretary, Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church Society ... Respondents (R2 is impleaded vide Court order dated 04.10.2016 in MP(MD)No.1 of 2011)

¶7

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to verify and register the Annual Returns submitted by the Petitioner Society from the year 2004 till now by considering the representation made by the petitioner society dated 10.09.2010 as instructed by the Inspector General of Registration in his Proceedings O.Mu.No.49405/S3/2010-2 dated 29.10.2010.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneerselvam For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar (for R1) Government Advocate Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai (for R2)

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to verify and register the Annual returns submitted by the petitioner society from the year 2004 till now by considering the representation made by the petitioner society dated 10.09.2010 as instructed by the Inspector General of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Registration in his proceedings O.Mu.No.49405/S3/2010-2 dated 29.10.2010.

¶11

¶12

2.The case of the petitioner’s society represented by its Secretary namely R.Paul George is that their society is running from the year 1925 and the same was registered vide Reg.No.2/192526 before the 1^st respondent herein. Subsequently on enactment of new act, the petitioner society was re-registered with Reg. No. 4/1984. The petitioner society runs about 27 schools in Tirunelveli and Tuticorin District. Being so, some 3^rd persons without making application to the General Body which is competent to admit new members, but attempted to become members of the petitioner society. For the subsequent period i.e. 2000-2002 election was conducted by the original members and Form VII was submitted and the same came to be approved. The said approval of Form VII came to be challenged by the rival group in a writ petition. Wherein, this Court by appointing an Advocate Commissioner in this regard found that 95 members of the society are the actual members as per law. Subsequently an adhoc committee was constituted by the petitioner society further on scrutiny found that totally there were 146 members. Challenging the said member list published by the petitioner society a writ petition came to be filed, wherein this Court directed the parties to work out their remedy before the civil forum. There upon the rival party filed a civil suit in O.S.No.138 of 2004 in this regard and the same came to be dismissed. The appeal suit in A.S.No.55 of 2005 filed as against the dismissal of the above Original Suit also came to be dismissed. Thus now the petitioner society is being run by the original members. However because of the pendency of the above disputes, the Returns of the petitioner’s society could not be submitted in time from the year 1995-1996 onwards.

¶13

3.Thereafter, the dismissal of appeal suit, the returns of petitioner society was filed before the respondent. The said return was forwarded to the Inspector General of Registration, who in turn forwarded the same to the Government. The Government vide G.O.Rt.No.958, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 18.08.2009, by exercising its power under sub-section (1) of Section 54 Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,1975 exempted the petitioner’s society from Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 for the years 1995-96, 1996-97, 2000-01, 2001-02. On issuance of the above said Government order, there is no impediment to receive and register the documents as per section 16(3) read with rule 49 and 50.

¶14

4.Wherefore for the subsequent years the annual returns were filed periodically by the petitioner society, however despite of the issuance of the G.O. the respondent has not taken any steps to register the annual returns, whereas the documents were received kept awaited for an order from the Government. Therefore the petitioner society made a representation on 10.09.2010 to the Inspector General of Registration to take appropriate action in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this regard. The Inspector General of Registration communicated vide his letter dated 29.10.2010 that already instruction has been

¶15

¶16

given to the respondent herein to take appropriate action in this regard. However there is neither any response nor any reply made by the respondent. Therefore the petitioner society has come up with the present writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent to verify and register the annual returns from the year 2004.

¶17

5.I heard Mr.V.Panneerselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1^st respondent and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶18

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner society is being run by the original members. However, because of the pendency of the above dispute, the Returns of the petitioner’s society could not be submitted in time from the year 1995-1996 onwards.

¶19

7.Thereafter, the dismissal of appeal suit, the returns of the petitioner society was duly filed before the respondent. In the meantime, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.958, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 18.08.2009, by exercising its power under subsection (1) of Section 54 Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,1975 exempted the petitioner’s society from Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 for the years 1995-96, 1996-97, 2000-01, 2001-02. Therefore there is no impediment to receive and register the documents as per section 16 (3) read with rule 49 and 50.

¶20

8.However, the annual return filed periodically by the petitioner society thereafter from the year 2003 is kept awaited for an order from the Government. The said stand of the respondent is erroneous and highly arbitrary. In the light of the issuance of the above said G.O. there is no legal impediment to register the annual return of the petitioner society.

¶21

9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent filed counter and contented that the writ petition is not maintainable either on law or facts. It is noteworthy that the 2^nd respondent herein claiming to be the Secretary of the petitioner society has impleaded himself as a party to the writ petition. It was contented that the above said R.Paul Geroge does not have any right to file the writ petition by representing himself as the Secretary of the Society. The said R.Paul Geroge was elected as Secretary in the year 2008 for the tenure of three years. Later due to the arbitrary and unlawful acts of Mr.Paul Geroge, he was removed from Secretaryship by the General Body of petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ society. Thereupon “Mr.P.Jeyasingh Malraj” representing the 2^nd respondent was elected as the Secretary of the petitioner society

¶22

¶23

and further he was instructed to file a civil suit if he is aggrieved of removal from the Secretariship. While so, the said Paul Geroge has not filed any suit in this regard. Hence the writ petition is not maintainable either on law or facts.

¶24

10.Though very many contentions were raised by either side, this Court finds that there is admittedly no order has been passed by the 1^st respondent on the representation of the petitioner society. It is needless to say the 1^st respondent herein being a public authority is duty bound to look into the claims made before him and pass appropriate orders on merits.

¶25

11.In view of the same, the 1^st respondent is directed to look into the issue and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that such order shall be passed after hearing either party to this writ petition and other interested parties if any.

¶26

12.In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32