Petitioner challenged an order condoning a 26-year delay in auditing a society's accounts. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the petitioner provided no documentary evidence to support their allegations, the executive acted within its discretion.
The writ petition for quashing the G.O.(D).No.223 dated 18.11.2019 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.1608 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.1608 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.1885 of 2020
S.Chinna Gounder
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in G.O.(D).No.223 dated 18.11.2019 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, as it against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules.
1/7
W.P.No.1608 of 2020
For petitioner : Ms.L.Sweety for S.Ramesh Kumar For respondents : Mr.M.Alagu Goutham,GA for R1 to R3 Mr.P.Raja for M/s.K.Jegraj for R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of
Certiorari to quash G.O.(D).No.223 dated 18.11.2019 on the file of the 1 st
respondent as it is against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, fourth respondent and others formed a society in the name and style of Sri Sastha Nagar Manai Nila Sonthakkarargal Sangam registered as S.No.24 of 1983 under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, the said society actively performed its duties only for a period of three years. Thereafter, the fourth respondent and his family members took over the administration of the society and did not file the audit report and books of accounts from the year 1992 till 2018. However, after a lapse of 26 years, the fourth respondent has paid Rs.7,55,700/- from the funds of the Sangam, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7
W.P.No.1608 of 2020
contributed by the members as penalty u/s.49 of the Act and made a representation dated 24.10.2018 to the first respondent to revive the defunct Sangam by condoning the delay of 26 years, which resulted in the petitioner filing an objection petition on 13.03.2019, pursuant to which the first respondent vide G.O.(D)No.223, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 18.11.2019 exempted the delay under Section 54 of the Act. Challenging the same the petitioner has come up with the relief supra.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the fourth respondent has not filed the audit report and books of accounts for a period of 26 years, the first respondent allowed the representation made by the fourth respondent for reviving the said sangam condoning the delay of 26 years by invoking Section 37(3) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978 without considering the objection filed by the petitioner which is per se unsustainable. Hence, the impugned G.O.(D)No.223, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 18.11.2019 issued by the first respondent is liable to be quashed as it is against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules.
W.P.No.1608 of 2020
4. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted
that the petitioner has every right under Section 14(2) and 29(3) of the Act to
verify the accounts book, minute books and members register, free of cost during business hours of the society. Whereas, the petitioner without perusing the said records has simply alleged the society with regard to maintenance of accounts etc., Further the Act does not permit enquiry on the allegation of a member on the working and financial condition of the society. It is further submitted that since the petitioner alone made allegations against the society without any documentary evidences to prove the same, no enquiry can be conducted by the first respondent. In support of his contentions, he relied upon
the decision of this Court in the case of A.Samiappan Vs. The District Registar, Office of the Registrar of Societies, Chennai and Others reported i n 2007 (4) MLJ 421.
5. On the above contentions heard learned counsel appearing for the
fourth respondent and perused the materials placed on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent made an application
before the first respondent for revival of defunct sangam. However, it is the
W.P.No.1608 of 2020
grievance of the petitioner that though the fourth respondent has not filed the
audit report for a period of 26 years, the first respondent allowed the representation made by the fourth respondent seeking revival of aforesaid sangam without considering the objections made by the petitioner by invoking Section 37(3) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978. Though such a stand is taken by the petitioner, it is seen that except the petitioner no other person made allegations against the sangam. Further, in the absence of the petitioner placing documentary evidence to prove the allegations against the aforesaid sangam, this Court cannot quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.04.2023 1/2
Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Nonspeaking order Netrual Citation Case : Yes / No (rap)
W.P.No.1608 of 2020
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
(rap)
To
W.P.No.1608 of 2020
19.04.2023
1/2
W.P.No.1608 of 2020
W.M.P.No.1883 of 2020 in W.P.No.1608 of 2020
M.DHANDAPANI ,J.
Dispensed with for the
present.
19.04.2023 2/2
rap
7/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a High Court can quash an administrative order condoning a delay in filing audit reports if the objector failed to provide documentary evidence of their allegations.
Whether the welfare executive can be compelled to consider objections from one member while ignoring documentary evidence of other members.
Whether the issuance of a workmen's compensation certificate constitutes a final determination of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.Samiappan Vs. The District Registrar, Office of the Registrar of Societies, ChennaiReferred¶30
A.Samiappan Vs. The District Registar, Office of the Registrar of Societies, Chennai and Others reported in 2007 (4) MLJ 421.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
S.Chinna Gounder
The Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department
The Inspector General of Registration
The District Registrar (West)
S.Balasundaram
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
