6.The second respondent has assigned two reasons for declining to file the Form VII presented by the writ petitioner. The first reason is that W.P.(MD)No.11514 of 2018 and W.P.(MD)No.9044 of 2018 are still pending. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, these writ petitions pertain to tenure of the previous Executive Committee. Virtually, those writ petitions have become infructuous and their pendency cannot be put as ground for refusing to take the present Form VII on file. The other reason is predicated on the Circular No.7 of 2011, dated 27.07.2011 issued by Inspector General of Registration. The effect of the said circular is that Form VII will not be taken on file unless the returns for the preceding year have already been filed. This circular was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in the decision reported in (2016) 6 MLJ 568 (Kallar Kalvi Kalazhagam Vs. The District Registrar (Admn.) Periyakulam and Others). The learned Judge had held that no circular of the Inspector General of Registration can override the ingredients of statue. The filing of Form VII could be refused to be taken on file only for the reasons set out in the statute. Respectfully following the said decision, I hold that reliance placed on the said circular is misplaced. More than anything else, when the general body of the registered society was convened as per law and the said general body has unanimously elected the members of the Executive Committee and there is no controversy or challenge to the election, it is the duty of the registering authority to accept Form VII. The reasons set out in
