Disposed

S.M.Aslam v. the District Registrar

Madras HC6 Aug 2021WP(MD)/13534/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking an inquiry into the affairs of a Sangam. While noting the petitioner did not meet the one-third membership threshold for a mandatory inquiry, the Court directed the District Registrar to consider a suo motu inquiry after providing the President a fair hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Registrar to consider the representation for a suo motu inquiry under Section 36 after hearing the respondent-President.

S.M.Aslam Vs the District Registrar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13534 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.08.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P(MD)No.13534 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.10492 of 2021

¶4

S.M.Aslam ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Registrar, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

¶7

2.The President, Shamsul Islam Sangam, No.62, Pudhumanai Street, Athirampattinam, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to hold enquiry under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 based on the petitioner's representation, dated 02.11.2020.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Arul Jenifer For R-1 : Mr.R.Baskaran Counsel for State.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The petitioner seeks an enquiry under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, based on his representation dated 02.11.2020.

¶12

Mr.R.Baskaran, learned counsel for the State, takes notice for the first respondent.

¶13

The petitioner alleges that the second respondent has deviated from the by-laws of the Sangam especially with regard to the selection of office bearers. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation on 02.11.2020 and has filed this writ petition for issuance of a mandamus to the District Registrar to hold an inquiry as requested for by the petitioner.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P(MD)No.13534 of 2021

¶17

A perusal of Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, indicates that an inquiry may be held by one of two methods. The first method is pursuant to a request by not less than 1/3^rd of the members of the relevant Society and the second method is on suo motu basis. In the case at hand, the petitioner, admittedly, does not represent 1/3^rd of the total membership of the Sangam. As such, the first respondent is not required to institute an inquiry merely on the basis of the request by the petitioner. However, it is still permissible for the first respondent to initiate such inquiry on suo motu basis if he is satisfied that the evidence against the second respondent warrants a suo motu inquiry.

¶18

However, the second respondent would clearly have to be heard before any decision is taken in such regard. Accordingly, it would suffice if the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation purely from the view point of examining whether it warrants a suo motu inquiry.

¶19

For the reasons set out above, W.P.(MD).No.13534 of 2021 is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and examine whether it constitutes a valid basis for a suo motu inquiry under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Such decision should be taken after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the second respondent herein. On account of the fact that the merits of the matter have not been examined and because the first respondent has been directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the second respondent before deciding on whether to institute an inquiry, the Writ Petition is disposed of without notice to the private respondent. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD).No.10492 of 2021 is closed.

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

Tsg

¶23

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

2/3

¶26

W.P(MD)No.13534 of 2021

¶27

¶28

1.The District Registrar, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

¶29

2.The President, Shamsul Islam Sangam, No.62, Pudhumanai Street, Athirampattinam,

¶30

Thanjavur District.

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-25632[F] dated 09/08/2021 )

¶32

W.P(MD)No.13534 of 2021 06.08.2021

¶33

SB(25.08.2021) 3P 4C

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

3/3

S.M.Aslam v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.M.Aslam v. the District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Sam Devadasan, Vs S. Jeyakumar

Seenivas Thangadurai.v Vs The Commissioner

Anthonysamy Vs The Revenue divisional Officer/Maintenance Tribunal

Aathilingam.v Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Rajendran Vs the Tahsildar

K.Annamalai Vs the District Revenue Officer