Dismissed

K.R. Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Madras HC18 Nov 2022WP(MD)/7965/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Government Order granting exemption from Societies Registration Rules to a specific society. The petitioner, not a member, argued the society was defunct. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus standi and directed him to seek civil remedies if settlement purposes were not fulfilled.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions also dismissed. No costs awarded.

K.R. Natarajan Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.7965 of 2009 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2009 and WMP(MD)No.5331 of 2022

¶7

K.R.Natarajan ...Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Commissioner and Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Religious, Endowment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 5. 2.Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 28. 3.The District Registrar, Ariyalur, Perambalur District. 4.Shrimath Vedantha Desika Vilasa Vidhya Viruthi Sabha, Represented by its Secretary, Peramalmalai Advivaram, Sorathur Post, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating

¶9

1/9

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶12

to the impugned G.O.Rt.No.1060 Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department, dated 24.10.2008 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Shammugavel Additional Government Pleader For R4 & R5 : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed challenging

¶16

the Government Order in G.O.Rt.No.1060, Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department, dated 24.10.2008, granting exemption from provision of Rules 17(2), 22 and 26 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978, to Shrimath Vethantha Desika Vilasa Vidhyabi Virudhi Sabha, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli.

¶17

2.The petitioner claims that his grand mother

¶18

Janaki Ammal and his relative one Ramasamy Ramanua

¶19

Dasar have executed a settlement deed

¶20

dated 13.08.1964 in favour of the Shrimath Vedantha

¶21

Desika Vilasa Vidya Viruthi Sabha with certain conditions that out of the income derived from the

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/9

¶24

W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶25

properties, the Sabha should conduct Padasala,

¶26

establish public library in order to study Veda books, to conduct regular poojas in the temple situated in Perumalmalai Adivaram and to conduct urchavam. There is also a condition that if the Sabha does not properly function, the legal heirs of the executanant shall get back the possession of the endowed properties.

¶27

3.The petitioner claims that the Sabha became defunct in the year 1989 and the Registration

¶28

Department has issued notice to the Sabha and the 5^th respondent, who was not a member of the society is

¶29

now claiming to be a member and has filed an application before the second respondent seeking exemption from the provisions of 17(2), 22 and 26 of

¶30

the Societies Registration Rules, 1978 and the 2^nd respondent has sent a proposal to the Government and the Government has passed the impugned Government

¶31

Order granting exemption to the 5^th respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed that the 4^th respondent society became defunct

¶32

3/9

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶35

and the 5^th respondent is a stranger to the society.

¶36

submits that the 4^th respondent Sabha is a registered society under Societies Registration Act in the year 1964 with Registration number 9 of 1964. The accounts

¶37

of the said society were not periodically submitted

¶38

to the 3^rd respondent herein in time.

¶39

The 4^th respondent namely the Shrimath Vedantha Desika Vilasa Vidya Viruthi Sabha, Thuraiyur has placed its audited accounts for the years 1982-83 to 2005-2006

¶40

before the Annual General Body meeting and got approval and filed the same with the 3^rd respondent belatedly. The form VII was also filed belatedly on 29.04.1997. Further, the by-law amendments were also

¶41

filed on 09.09.2003 instead of 17.07.2002.

¶42

The request of the said association for exemption

¶43

from the provisions of Rules 17(2), 22 and 26 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 were

¶44

also considered by the 2^nd respondent and the same was

¶45

recommended to the 3^rd respondent vide his letter K.Dis 16409/12/2007 dated 10.05.2007 and

¶46

4/9

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶49

letter No.29329/12/2008, dated 26.09.2008. After

¶50

careful consideration of the connected records and in exercise of powers conferred under Section (1) of Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 the Government of Tamil Nadu have exempted

¶51

the 4^th respondent Sabha from the provisions of Rules 17(2), 22 and 26 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 for having belatedly filed the documents specified in the Sub Section (3) of Section 16 of the said Act from the year 1982-83 to 2005 along with Form VII and amendment to by-law to

¶52

the 3^rd respondent vide its GO.RT.No.1060 CT and Registration (M1) Department dated 24.10.2008.

¶53

5.The learned Counsel for the 4^th and 5^th

¶54

respondents submits that the Society is functioning and is also conducting regular poojas and urchavams in the temple during the month of Purattasi and also providing Annadhanam to the devotees, who are participating in the urchavam. However, inadvertently they have failed to file the audit report to the Registrar of Societies and therefore, they have filed

¶55

5/9

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶58

necessary application in the year 1997 and exemption was also granted by the 1^st respondent.

¶59

6.Considering the rival submissions made this

¶60

Court has also appointed an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether the Sabha is performing poojs and are complying with other conditions. The learned Advocate Commissioner has also filed a detailed report dated 29.04.2022 that poojas are being performed regularly in the temple and during the Purattasi month Urchavam is conducted regularly and Annadhanam is provided to the devotees who are participating in the Urchavam. However, he claims that the other intentions of the donor have not been fulfilled so far and no proper election has been conducted for the Sabha.

¶61

7.This Court considered the rival submissions

¶62

and perused the materials placed on record.

¶63

8.This writ petition is filed as against the exemption granted to the 4^th respondent Society by the

¶64

6/9

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶67

Government vide its order in G.O.Rt.No.1060

¶68

Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department,

¶69

dated 24.10.2008. The 4^th respondent society is a

¶70

registered society under the Societies Registration Act, in the year 1964. Though the society has submitted its accounts in the year 2014 and 2015, it has not submitted its accounts after 2015 and it did not function after 2015. Therefore, the society has approached the 2^nd respondent for exemption from the provisions of Rule 17(2), 22, 26 of the Society Registration Rules, 1978 and accordingly the 2^nd

¶71

respondent has also recommended to the 1^st respondent. The very recommendation itself was challenged by this petitioner before this Court in WP(MD)No.4099 of 2005 and it was dismissed by order dated 05.08.2008 that the petitioner is a stranger to the society and he

¶72

has no locus standi to question the activities of the 4^th respondent society. The petitioner challenging the said order has filed an appeal in WA(MD)No.809 of 2008 and it was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the government order, which is impugned herein.

¶73

7/9

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶76

9.The petitioner is not a member of the 4^th

¶77

respondent society and he has no locus to question the orders passed in favour of the 4^th respondent society. If the petitioner is having any grievance that the purpose for which, the properties have been settled by his ancestors is not fulfilled/ achieved, it is always open to him to approach the civil court for appropriate remedy. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

18.11.2022

dsk

1.The Commissioner and Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Religious, Endowment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 5.

¶82

2.Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 28.

¶83

3.The District Registrar, Ariyalur, Perambalur District.

¶84

4.Shrimath Vedantha Desika Vilasa Vidhya Viruthi Sabha, Represented by its Secretary, Peramalmalai Advivaram, Sorathur Post, Thuraiyur Taluk,Tiruchirapalli District.

¶85

8/9

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶88

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶89

dsk

¶90

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.7965 of 2009

¶91

18.11.2022

¶92

9/9

¶93

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.R. Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R. Natarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

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

K.K.Karuppasamy(Died) 1. Santhanakaruppasamy Vs v.G.Ramdoss

A. Viswanathan, Vs Muthu Sangeetha

Uthayakumar, Vs K. Vanaja

S.K.J.Satheesh, Vs the Principal Chief Manager

Kavitha, Vs Dhinakar Babu

R.Shamili Vs C. Manojkumar