The Inspector General of Registration Vs Samiyappan (71 2023)

4.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board, Commissionerate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Veterinary Polyclinic Campus, No.571, Nandanam,

¶14

Chennai - 600 035.

¶15

... Review Applicants / 1^st to 4^th Respondents

Vs.

1.Samiyappan

Page No. 1 of 47

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

¶20

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶21

S/o.Thangavel Pillai, Honorary Secretary, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (SPCA), No.129, Dabeerkulam Road, East Gate, Thanjavur - 613 011. ... 1^st Respondent/ Writ Petitioner

¶22

2.The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (SPCA), Rep. by its Society, O/o. Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Old Collectorate Campus, Court Road, Thanjavur - 613 001. ... 2^nd Respondent/ 5^th Respondent

¶23

Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to review the order dated 25.04.2025 made in W.P.(MD) No.11019 of 2023.

¶24

For Review Applicants : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General - II assisted by Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader

¶25

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.Henri Patrick Tiphange

¶26

Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶27

T.Samiyappan S/o.Thangavel Pillai, Honorary Secretary, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA),

¶28

Page No. 2 of 47

¶29

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

¶30

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶31

No.129, Dabeerkulam Road, East Gate, Thanjavur - 613 001.

¶32

... Contempt Petitioner/ Writ Petitioner

¶33

Vs.

¶34

1.Mr.Dinesh Ponraj Oliver, I.A.S., The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

¶35

2.Mr.V.Chinnaraj The District Registrar (Societies), Thanjavur District, Thanjavur - 613 010.

¶36

3.Tmt.B.Priyanka Pankajam, I.A.S., The District Collector, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶37

4.Mr.M.Baskaran,

¶38

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Thanjavur District, Rep. by its Secretary, Office of the Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Old Collectorate Campus, Court Road, Thanjavur District - 613 001. ... Respondents / R1 to R3 and R5

¶39

Prayer : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents/contemnors for their willful disobedience of the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.11019 of 2023.

¶40

Page No. 3 of 47

¶41

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

¶42

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶43

For Contempt Petitioner : Mr.Henri Patrick Tiphange

¶44

For R1 : Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy Senior Counsel for M/s.Roy & Roy Associates For R2 to R4 : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General - II assisted by Mr.G.Suriyananth Additional Government Pleader

¶45

¶46

COMMON ORDER

¶47

By this common order, both the Review Application and Contempt Petition are being disposed of.

¶48

These proceedings arise out of Order dated 25.04.2025 passed by

¶49

the Writ Court, whereby the Writ Court allowed W.P.(MD) No.11019 of 2024 filed by the Contempt Petitioner/1^st Respondent in the Review Application. Operative portion of the Order dated 25.04.2025 in W.P.

¶50

(MD) No.11019 of 2024 reads as under:

¶51

“14. I have considered the rival submissions made by the respective learned counsels and also perused the materials available on record.

¶52

15. On a careful perusal of the case, it is seen that the petitioner is not disputing the formation of the new SPCA, Thanjavur but however opposed the action of the respondents in taking their ownership of the

¶53

Page No. 4 of 47

¶54

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

¶55

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶56

subject properties in issue. This Court recognises the importance of the statutory mandate issued under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the corresponding Rules, 2001, whereby the State Governments are empowered to constitute societies in every districts for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs) in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Board and accepts that the formation of the new Society namely, SPCA Thanjavur District is found to be in conformity with the objects of the said policy. But however, as per the decision of the Kerala High Court in K.Kanakavally's case as stated supra, the creation of a new SPCA under the 2001 Rules does not ipso facto extinguish the legal existence, autonomy or proprietary rights of an earlier society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 wherein it has held that “the Society being a society registered under the societies Registration Act, 1860 unless it is dissolved, will continue to exist and in the absence of any law prohibiting such a society from functioning, it cannot be said that the society cannot continue its activities or hold its properties”.

¶57

16. In the present case on hand, it appears that the properties stands in the name of the erstwhile Society [SPCA, Thanjavur, registered under No. 32/1973] have been transferred to the newly formed society without adherence to any formal statutory procedure, such as dissolution, merger or a lawful transfer of title supported by consent or resolution of the competent governing body of the original society.

¶58

17. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the K.Kanakavally's case as stated supra, wherein the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has noted that even where Government officers are Honorary members or functionaries in both societies, their ex-officio involvement does not, by itself, effectuate a transfer of ownership or vesting of rights. It also held that property transfers, especially involving registered societies must

¶59

Page No. 5 of 47

¶60

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

¶61

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶62

conform to due legal processes, failing which such transfers are rendered legally unsustainable.

¶63

18. Considering the submissions made on either side and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court as stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner's society is a registered society which is in existence as it is not officially dissolved till date and formation of the new Society i.e., SPCA, Thanjavur District does not automatically dissolve it and its rights over the properties acquired by it through its members. Hence, the subject properties in issue of the society which have been transferred to the newly formed society without any legal provisions, is unsustainable and illegal in the eye of law. This Court finds force in the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and at the same time, acknowledges the formation of the new society as per the Act and Rules as stated supra. The legal existence, autonomy or proprietary rights of the petitioner's society remains valid, the prayer sought for by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶64

19. In view of the orders passed in the Writ Petition in W.P.No. 11019 of 2023, the Contempt Petition viz., Cont.P.No.3032 of 2024 stands closed. However, the action of the respondents not complying with the interim orders of this Court dated 01.06.2023, is condemnable.

¶65

20. In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed; Contempt Petition is closed; and the Miscellaneous Petition filed in WMP(MD) No.23125 of 2024 is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶66

The present Review Application has been filed by the 1^st to 4^th Respondents in the above Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.11019 of 2023

¶67

_____________ Page No. 6 of 47_

¶68

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

¶69

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶70

namely, (i) the Inspector General of Registration, (ii) the District Registrar (Societies) of Thanjavur District, (iii) the District Collector of Thanjavur District and (iv) the Member Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board, Commissionerate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, to review the aforesaid Order dated 25.04.2025 of the Writ Court.

¶71

On the other hand, the present Contempt Petition has been filed by the Writ Petitioner against (i) Mr.Dinesh Ponraj Oliver, I.A.S., Inspector General of Registration; (ii) Mr.V.Chinnaraj, District Registrar (Societies), Thanjavur District; (iii) Tmt.B.Priyanka Pankajam, I.A.S., District Collector, Thanjavur District; and (iv) Mr.M.Baskaran, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Thanjavur District, for violation of the Order dated 25.04.2025 of the Writ Court passed in W.P. (MD) No.11019 of 2023.

¶72

Since the ranks of the parties in the Review Application and the Contempt Petition are different, the ranks of the parties in the Writ Petition shall be referred to in this order, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

¶73

_____________ Page No. 7 of 47_

¶74

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

¶75

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶76

At the time of admission of W.P.(MD) No.11019 of 2023 on 01.06.2023, this Court had directed that there shall not be any encumbrance over the properties in question.

¶77

Meanwhile, the Director of the Tamil Development, Information and Publicity Department issued a Notification dated 04.12.2024 inviting tenders to set up stalls in the said properties. It led to the filing of Cont.P. (MD) No.3032 of 2024 by the Writ Petitioner/1^st Respondent in the Review Application. The said Contempt Petition was however closed by the Writ Court while allowing W.P.(MD) No.11019 of 2023 on 25.04.2025.

¶78

However, two days prior to Order dated 25.04.2025 of the Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No.11019 of 2023, the 1^st Respondent (Inspector General of Registration) in Cont.P(MD) No.2038 of 2025, issued an order dated 23.04.2025 bearing reference No.17092/13/2025. The 1^st Respondent in Cont.P(MD) No.2038 of 2025 directed no registration shall be carried out in respect of the properties taken over by a new Society named 'Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Thanjavur District,' registered on 28.02.2022 with Registration No.

¶79

_____________ Page No. 8 of 47_

¶80

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

¶81

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶82

11/2022 [for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as '2022 SPCA'].

¶83

Details of the properties in the said order dated 23.04.2025 bearing reference No.17092/13/2025 of the 1^st Respondent (Inspector General of Registration) are given below:-

¶84

i. Extent of 6.47 Acres in Survey No.99/1 situated in Nanjikottai, Thanjavur Taluk and District.

¶85

ii. Extent of 4.85 Acres [1.96.50 Hectare] in Survey No. 105/4 situated in Nanjikottai, Thanjavur Taluk and District.

¶86

iii. Extent of 1.56 Acres in Survey No.105/4 situated in Nanjikottai, Thanjavur Taluk and District.

¶87

iv. Extent of 0.0441.5 sq.mt. in Block-3, T.S.No.23/1, situated in Pudupattinam, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶88

These properties were purchased by one Mr.Ponnusamy Nadar in the year 1935 for the Society called 'jQ;rht+H SPCA kpUf f~;l epthuz rq;fk;'.

¶89

The said Society namely 2022 SPCA was registered purportedly in compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as 'PCA Rules, 2001']

¶90

Page No. 9 of 47

¶91

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

¶92

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶93

pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 06.08.2008 rendered in W.P.(Civil) No.440 of 2000. PCA Rules, 2001 were framed by the Central Government purportedly under Section 38(1) and Section 38(2) of the PCA Rules, 1960.

¶94

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS (REVIEW APPLICANTS) :-

¶95

The principal contentions of the Respondents (Review Applicants) made by the learned Additional Advocate General are captured in the ensuing paragraphs:

¶96

12.1. The SPCA, Thanjavur (32/1973) [hereinafter referred to as 1973 SPCA] never filed annual reports before the Animal Welfare Board as is contemplated under the provisions of the PCA Rules, 2001 and Societies Registration Act, 1975 and Tamil Nadu Socities Registration Rules, 1978. In compliance with Rule 3 of the PCA Rules, 2001 and pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order dated 06.08.2008 passed in W.P. (Civil) No.440 of 2000, a new society, namely 2022 SPCA was registered in the year 2022.

¶97

_____________ Page No. 10 of 47_

¶98

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

¶99

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶100

12.2. Both the 1973 SPCA and 2022 SPCA are headed by the District Collector and have similar objects. Since certain allegations were made against the contempt petitioner/writ petitioner, he was not included as an Executive Member of the SPCA, Thanjavur District (11/2022) and that the office bearers are to be elected/appointed in accordance with the Bye-laws of the 2022 SPCA.

¶101

12.3. The Honorary Secretary of 1973 SPCA has no locus standi either to file the writ petition or to file the present contempt petition by claiming himself to be the Honorary Secretary of 1973 SPCA as both the Honorary Secretary and the Joint Secretaries of SPCA, Thanjavur (32/1973), being ex officio members of the Executive Committee, were required to be elected by the General Body. There are no records to substantiate that any election was held appointing Mr.T.Samiyappan as the Honorary Secretary of 1973 SPCA.

¶102

12.4. The Respondents (Revenue Applicants) conducted a thorough search and found that the Society called 'jQ;rht+H SPCA kpUf f~;l epthuz rq;fk;' was registered in the year 1929 and that the properties were purchased by the said Society in the year 1935. The 1973 SPCA

¶103

_____________ Page No. 11 of 47_

¶104

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

¶105

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶106

cannot lay any claim over the aforesaid properties, although it was under the control of the District Collector, if not earlier, at least from the year 1973.

¶107

12.5. As per Rule 3(1) of the PCA Rules, 2001, every State shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish a Society for every district in the State to function as the SPCA in that district, as soon as may be and in any event within six months from the date of commencement of the Rules.

¶108

12.6. As per the procedure stated in Rule 3(1) of the PCA Rules, 2001, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals functioning in a district shall continue to discharge its functions only until a new Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is established in that district under these Rules.

¶109

12.7. The 2022 SPCA has been established and registered in compliance with the mandatory procedure under Rule 3(1) of the PCA Rules, 2001. Once a new society is formed, namely the 2022 SPCA, the earlier society, i.e., the 1973 SPCA automatically ceased to exist.

¶110

_____________ Page No. 12 of 47_

¶111

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

¶112

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶113

12.8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while passing the order dated

¶114

06.08.2008 in W.P. (Civil) No. 440 of 2000, directed the States which had not constituted a State Animal Welfare Board to do so within a period of three months and further directed that a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals be constituted in every district as contemplated under Rule 3(1) of the PCA Rules, 2001. However, the Writ Court failed to note this fundamental aspect while passing the order dated 25.04.2025 in W.P. (MD) No.11019 of 2023.

¶115

12.9. The Bye-laws of 1973 SPCA do not specify any property in its name. There has been large-scale mismanagement of the properties situated within the Corporation limits of Thanjavur. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Government to safeguard the value of the properties purchased in the year 1935 from unauthorized sale and to protect the assets of the Society.

¶116

12.10. The argument of the Contempt Petitioner/Writ Petitioner that

¶117

the mere registration of the new society, namely 2022 SPCA, ipso facto would not result in the transfer of the properties purchased in the year 1935, cannot be countenanced. In Paragraph No. 6 of the Affidavit filed in

¶118

_____________ Page No. 13 of 47_

¶119

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

¶120

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶121

support of the Writ Petition, the Contempt Petitioner/Writ Petitioner himself contended that the registration obtained in the year 1929 was not kept alive and therefore, a new society was registered in the year 1973 under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide Document No.3 of 1973. If the same argument is applied, the 1973 SPCA, equally cannot take over the properties of the earlier society.

¶122

12.11. The resolution was passed on 16.02.2022 by the 1973 SPCA to change its name from “SPCA, Thanjavur (32/1973)” to “SPCA, Thanjavur District (11/2022)” in order to renew the society. The Secretary, namely Mr.T.Samiyappan, the Contempt Petitioner/Writ Petitioner himself, signed the said resolution and hence the transfer of management of the properties to the 2022 SPCA was with the approval of the committee members of the 1973 SPCA.

¶123

12.12. The Writ Court committed a grave error in relying upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Kannur v. K. Kanakavally and others dated 04.11.2022 in RCREV No. 5 of 2013, which requires to be reviewed and in respect of which a necessary order is to be passed.

¶124

_____________ Page No. 14 of 47_

¶125

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

¶126

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶127

CONTENTIONS OF THE 1st RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT PETITION :-

¶128

The contentions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the 1^st

¶129

Respondent in the Contempt Petition are, more or less, similar to the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General for the review applicants. Apart from the said contentions, the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the 1^st Respondent in the Contempt Petition are captured in the ensuing paragraphs.

¶130

13.1. It is submitted as per Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the Committee or any officer of the registered society authorised in this behalf by its by-laws, may bring or defend, or cause to be brought or defended, any action or other legal proceedings touching or concerning any property, right, or claim of the registered society, and may sue or be sued in respect of any such property, right, or claim.

¶131

13.2. It is stated that the property of a society vests in the Governing

¶132

Body and not in its Trustee, as per Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also vests in the Committee as per Section 5 of the Tamil

¶133

_____________ Page No. 15 of 47_

¶134

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

¶135

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶136

Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Therefore, there is no cause of action for the Contempt Petitioner/Writ Petitioner, as his grievance is imaginary.

¶137

13.3. It is submitted that it is a settled principle that the Central law prevails over a State enactment. Once the PCA Rules, 2001 came into force, and when a society, namely, the 2022 SPCA, was established, the former society ceased to operate, as per Rule 3(1) of the PCA Rules, 2001.

¶138

13.4. It is submitted that in this Contempt Petition, for the first time, the Petitioner has filed Additional Typed Set of Papers, which includes the Bye-laws of the 1973 SPCA in a computer-printed format, providing power to deal with the property and such a by-law raises reasonable suspicion regarding the nature of the Writ Petition.

¶139

13.5. It is submitted that when no amalgamation has been effected in accordance with law, the question of the contempt petitioner/writ petitioner claiming the property necessarily stands negated. In this connection, a reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic vs. State of Delhi and Another , AIR 1962 SC 458. Paragraph 23 of the said decision reads as under:

¶140

_____________ Page No. 16 of 47_

¶141

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

¶142

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶143

“ 23. As to clause (1) of Article 31 there is no question of any violation of that clause if the law by which the transference of management has been made is valid law. We have already held that the impugned legislation was well within the legislative competence of the Delhi State Legislature. Now the question is — is the impugned legislation bad on the ground that it violates the right of the petitioners under Article 19(1) (f)? The property for the protection of which Article 19(1)(f) is invoked belonged either to the Board or to the members composing the Board at the date of the dissolution. In either event, on the terms of Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the property was to be deemed to be vested in the governing body of the Board. There could be no doubt that if the Board was dissolved by competent legislative action, and in view of our conclusions on the first point raised it must be held that this had taken place, the Board would cease to exist and having ceased to exist cannot obviously lay any claim to the property. This however may not be sufficient to negative the contention urged before us by the petitioners. If the legal ownership of the property by the Board or the vesting of it in the governing body was merely a method or mechanism permitted by the law whereby the members exercised their rights quoad the property, the dissolution of the Board and with it of the governing body thereof would merely result in the emergence of the right of the members to that property. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain the precise rights the members of the Board possessed to see whether the changes effected by the impugned Act amount to an infringement of their rights within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f). During the subsistence of the society, the right of the members was to ensure that the property was utilised for the charitable objects set out in the memorandum and these did not include any beneficial enjoyment. Nor did the members of the society acquire any beneficial interest on the dissolution of the society;

¶144

Page No. 17 of 47

¶145

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

¶146

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶147

for Section 14 of the Act, quoted earlier, expressly negatived the right of the members to any distribution of the assets of the dissolved body. In such an event the property had to be given over to some other society i.e. for being managed by some other charitable organisation and to be utilised for like purposes, and the only right of the members was to determine the society to whom the funds or property might be transferred and this had to be done by not less than three-fifths of the members present at the meeting for the purpose and, in default of such determination, by the civil court. The effect of the impugned legislation is to vary or affect this privilege of the members and to vest the property in a new body created by it enjoined to administer it so as to serve the same purposes as the dissolved society. The only question is whether the right to determine the body which shall administer the funds or property of the dissolved society which they had under the pre-existing law is a right to “acquire, hold and dispose of property” within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f), and if so whether the legislation is not saved by Article 19(5). We are clearly of the opinion that that right is not a right of property within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f). In the context in which the words “to dispose of” occur in Article 19(1)(f), they denote that kind of property which a citizen has a right to hold — the right to dispose of being part of or being incidental to the right to hold. Where however the citizen has no right to hold the property, for on the terms of Section 14 of the Societies Registration Act the members have no right to “hold” the property of the dissolved society, there is, in our opinion, no infringement of any right to property within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f). In this view, the question as to whether the impugned enactment satisfies the requirements of Article 19(5) does not fall to be determined.”

¶148

CONTENTIONS OF THE CONTEMPT PETITIONER /

¶149

Page No. 18 of 47

¶150

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

¶151

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶152

WRIT PETITIONER :-

¶153

It is submitted that the Review Petition is not maintainable for the reason that the Writ Court has finally adjudicated the matter on merits, after dealing with the very points now raised in the Review Petition, which was filed only after the Contempt Petition was initiated. It is settled law that the jurisdiction of review is limited and can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances namely, in cases of an error apparent on the face of the record or on discovery of new and material evidence which, despite due diligence, could not have been produced earlier. A review cannot be used as a means to re-argue the case on merits, which is impermissible. A review is not an appeal in disguise. Reference is made to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court:

¶154

i. Lily Thomas and others Vs. Union of India and others , (2000) 6 SCC 224.

¶155

ii. Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury , (1995) 1 SCC 170.

¶156

iii. Parison Devi and others Vs. Sumithra Devi and others , (1997) 8 SCC 715.

¶157

iv. B.Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan , AIR 2004 Mad 512.

¶158

14.1. It is submitted that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,

¶159

Page No. 19 of 47

¶160

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

¶161

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶162

1890, passed on 21.03.1890, did not envisage a registered society, such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), which was constituted in the year 1929 to carry out these activities.

¶163

14.2. It is submitted that only after the enactment of the Prevention

¶164

of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, the District Collector was designated as the Honorary President of the Society and two other officials were appointed as the Vice President and Joint Secretary, while ordinary citizens of Thanjavur formed the remaining members. Such honorary positions, be it Secretary, Vice President, or Joint Secretary, do not vest ownership or control of the Society’s assets in the Government, but only in the governing body.

¶165

14.3. It is further submitted that however, in 2022, the then District Collector formed a new society and took over the properties under the said society by invoking Bye-laws 21, which states: 'The properties of SPCA Thanjavur shall be managed by the society, and any sale shall be made only after obtaining the approval of the Managing Committee.' This action constitutes a colourable exercise of power.

¶166

14.4. It is stated that Section 3 of PCA Rules, 2001 governs the

¶167

Page No. 20 of 47

¶168

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

¶169

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶170

formation of SPCA but has no provision to takeover or in any manner 'reconstitution' of the erstwhile SPCA in any of its rules.

¶171

14.5. It is submitted that 1973 SPCA has not become defunct. The

¶172

Society has, so far, not been inspected as contemplated under Section 35 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and its affairs have not been enquired into under Section 36 of the Act. The registration of the said Society has not been cancelled as per Section 37 of the Act. The Society has not been wound up and is functioning as contemplated under Section 40 of the Act. There has been no dissolution of the Society under Section 41 of the Act. Finally, it has not been declared a defunct Society under Section 44 of the Act.

¶173

14.6. It is submitted that the 1973 SPCA Society has been filing its

¶174

returns properly every year. The Registrar may issue a notice in the event of non-filing of returns for three consecutive years, if according to him the 1973 SPCA has not filed the returns.

¶175

14.7. It is submitted that the Contempt Petitioner/Writ Petitioner and Mr.Karunanidhi became the Honorary Secretary and Treasurer in the years 1995 and 2009 respectively. The communication dated 30.03.2009, issued

¶176

_____________ Page No. 21 of 47_

¶177

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

¶178

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶179

by the then District Collector to the Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Thanjavur, regarding the appointment of the new Treasurer and the authentication of the signatures of the Secretary and Treasurer, clearly reveals that they were functioning in their respective official capacities. Based on the complaint given by the then District Collector alleging misappropriation of funds, the secretaryship cannot be questioned.

¶180

14.8. It is submitted that the fact that the land belongs to 1973 SPCA can be established by the following facts: the then District Superintendent of Police, by a communication dated 01.04.2009, requested the land for construction of a new office for the District Police in Survey No.99/1, measuring an extent of 6.47 acres, which was, by a resolution, also addressed to 1973 SPCA; and the Rental Agreement dated 14.11.2019 between the Thanjavur City Municipal Corporation and the Secretary of 1973 SPCA, i.e., the Writ Petitioner fixing a monthly rent of Rs.5,16,000/-, which has also been duly reflected in the balance sheets filed.

¶181

14.9. It is submitted that neither the PCA Act, 1960 nor the PCA

¶182

_____________ Page No. 22 of 47_

¶183

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

¶184

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶185

Rules, 2001/2003 authorise the Collector or any Government authority to transfer the assets of an existing registered society to a newly constituted District SPCA. The PCA Rules, 2003 only require non-government societies using the name 'SPCA' to change their name within 60 days. They do not provide for the compulsory transfer or vesting of property.

¶186

14.10. It is submitted that the officials are violating the orders of this Court namely, the interim order dated 01.06.2023 by attempting to lease the property for an exhibition and the final order dated 25.04.2025 in the said writ petition by failing to comply with the directions issued by this Court. The then District Collector, who had formed the new society and transferred the properties, has now been transferred and posted as the Inspector General of Registration. It is alleged that he, using his position, has now ordered an encumbrance on the aforementioned properties. Therefore, compliance with the Court's orders may be appropriately overseen by a higher authority, such as the Chief Secretary to the Government.

¶187

DISCUSSION :-

¶188

I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the 2^nd to

¶189

Page No. 23 of 47

¶190

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

¶191

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶192

4^th Review Applicants/2^nd to 4^th Respondents in the Contempt Petition and the learned counsel for the Contempt Petitioner/1^st Respondent in the Review Application and the learned Senior Counsel for the 1^st Respondent in the Contempt Petition/1^st Review Applicant.

¶193

While the above Review Application has been filed for reviewing Order dated 25.04.2025 of the Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No.11019 of 2023, the above Contempt Petition has been filed for punishing the contemnors of the said Order dated 25.04.2025 of the Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No.11019 of 2023.

¶194

If the above Review Application is dismissed, the Contempt Petition may or may not have to be allowed after considering the arguments advanced by the rival parties. On the other hand, if the Review Application is allowed, the above Contempt Petition has to be necessarily dismissed. Therefore, I propose to first discuss the Review Application.

¶195

It will be useful to make a brief reference to the history of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in India. The information that is available in the Electronic Media indicates that it was first founded in Calcutta by a person named, Coles Worthey Grant to prevent cruelty to animals. It ultimately led to the enactment of the Prevention of

¶196

_____________ Page No. 24 of 47_

¶197

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

¶198

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶199

Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 by the imperial power in India.

¶200

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 extended to the whole of Pakistan and the Provincial Government could by notification in the Official Gazette, extend, on and from a date to be specified in the notification, to the whole or any part of the rest of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890, to any such local area as it thought fit.

¶201

After independence, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was enacted to criminalize cruelty to animals which also paved the way for establishment of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) under it. The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) was established to promote animal welfare and to protect the animals from cruelty. When Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was enacted, there was no reference to the institution named “Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)” that had sprung up and had been in existence under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

¶202

After the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 was replaced

¶203

Page No. 25 of 47

¶204

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

¶205

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶206

with the enactment of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as PCA Act, 1960] with effect from 20^th November, 1963, the Central Government was required to establish the 'Animal Welfare Board of India' under the control of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, in terms of Section 4 of the PCA Act, 1960.

¶207

'Animal Welfare Board of India' is a statutory body. Section 9 of

¶208

the PCA Act, 1960 prescribes its functions. They are as under:-

¶209

“ 9. Functions of the Board.- The functions of the Board shall be-

¶210

(a) to keep the law in force in India for the prevention of cruelty to animals under constant study and advise the Government on the amendments to be undertaken in any such law from time to time;

¶211

(b) to advise the Central Government on the making of rules under this Act with a view to preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals generally, and more particularly when they are being transported from one place to another or when they are used as performing animals or when they are kept in captivity or confinement;

¶212

(c) to advise the Government or any local authority or other person on improvements in the design of vehicles so as to lessen the burden on draught animals;

¶213

Page No. 26 of 47

¶214

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

¶215

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶216

(d) to take all such steps as the Board may think fit for 1 [amelioration of animals] by encouraging, or providing for, the construction of sheds, water-troughs and the like and by providing for veterinary assistance to animals;

¶217

(e) to advise the Government or any local authority or other person in the design of slaughter-houses or in the maintenance of slaughter-houses or in connection with slaughter of animals so that unnecessary pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is eliminated in the pre-slaughter stages as far as possible, and animals are killed, wherever necessary, in as humane a manner as possible;

¶218

(f) to take all such steps as the Board may think fit to ensure that unwanted animals are destroyed by local authorities, whenever it is necessary to do so, either instantaneously or after being rendered insensible to pain or suffering;

¶219

(g) to encourage, by the grant of financial assistance or otherwise 2 [the formation or establishment of pinjrapoles, rescue homes, animal shelters, sanctuaries and the like] where animals and birds may find a shelter when they have become old and useless or when they need protection;

¶220

(h) to co-operate with, and co-ordinate the work of, associations or bodies established for the purpose of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals or for the protection of animals and birds;

¶221

(i) to give financial and other assistance to animal welfare organisations functioning in any local area or to

¶222

Page No. 27 of 47

¶223

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

¶224

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶225

encourage the formation of animal welfare organisations in any local area which shall work under the general supervision and guidance of the Board;

¶226

(j) to advise the Government on matters relating to the medical care and attention which may be provided in animal, hospitals and to give financial and other assistance to animal hospitals whenever the Board thinks it necessary to do so;

¶227

(k) to impart education in relation to the humane treatment of animals and to encourage the formation of public opinion against the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering to animals and for the promotion of animal welfare by means of lectures, books, posters, cinematographic exhibitions and the like;

¶228

(l) to advise the Government on any matter connected with animal welfare or the prevention of infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals.”

¶229

Clause (h) to Section 9 of the PCA Act, 1960 clearly indicates that

¶230

the Board has to co-operate with, and co-ordinate the work of, associations or bodies established for the purpose of preventing unnecessary pain or suffering to animals or for the protection of animals and birds. Thus, there is no scope for either incorporating or registering a society or to take over the affairs of the pre-existing societies that may have been in existence under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under the Tamil Nadu

¶231

_____________ Page No. 28 of 47_

¶232

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

¶233

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶234

Societies Registration Act, 1978.

¶235

The said Board was earlier brought under the control of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change. It is presently under the control of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying.

¶236

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the PCA Rules, 2001) were framed under Section 38(1) and Section 38(2) of the PCA Act, 1960 for the first time in the year 2001 vide S.O.No.271(E) dated 26.03.2001, published in the Gazette of India, Ext. Pt.II, S.3(ii) dated 26.03.2001. PCA Rules, 2001 was framed long after the PCA Act, 1960 came into force in the year 1963.

¶237

Though the Rules were framed in the year 2001 vide S.O.No. 271(E) dated 26.03.2001, published in the Gazette of India, Ext. Pt.II, S.3(ii) dated 26.03.2001, it was not implemented in the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶238

The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its Order dated 08.06.2008 in Geeta Seshamani Vs. Union of India and another in W.P.(C) No.440 of 2000, has ordered the constitution of the State Welfare Board and to see that Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are also constituted in every

¶239

Page No. 29 of 47

¶240

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

¶241

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶242

District as is contemplated under the PCA Rules, 2001.

¶243

According to the provisions of the PCA Rules, 2001, every State Government was to establish a Society for every District. Every Society had to submit its annual reports to the Animal Welfare Board, incorporating the activities undertaken by the said Society for the welfare of animals and implementation of Act and Rules, along with the annual accounts duly audited by a Chartered Accountant or any other body authorised by law, within a period of one month from the date of finalisation of accounts by the Managing Committee.

¶244

Rule 3 of the PCA Rules, 2001 states that every State Government, shall by Notification in the Official Gazette, establish, as soon as may be and in any event within six months from the date of commencement of these rules, a society for every district in the State, to be the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in that District.

¶245

As per the Proviso to Rule 3 of the PCA Rules, 2001, any Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals functioning in any District on the date of commencement of these Rules shall continue to discharge its functions till establishment of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in that District under these Rules.

¶246

_____________ Page No. 30 of 47_

¶247

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

¶248

facie

¶249

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶250

There has been no challenge to the above Rules although prima

¶251

facie it appears to be ultra vires the provisions of the PCA Act, 1960. Section 10 of the PCA Act, 1960 merely empowers the board to make such regulation as it may think fit for the administration of the affairs and for carrying out its functions.

¶252

Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 deals with the vesting of properties in the Executive Committee of the Society that 1973 SPCA was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

¶253

Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 states the property, movable or immovable, belonging to a society registered under the Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society by their proper title.

¶254

Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 read as under:-

¶255

“ 5. Property of society how vested.- The property, movable or immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the government body of such society, and in all

¶256

_____________ Page No. 31 of 47_

¶257

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

¶258

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶259

proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society by their proper title.”

¶260

A five judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1982 SC 458 held that the expression ‘property belonging to the society’ in Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 did not vest the society with a corporate status in the matter of holding or acquiring property and that it merely described the property which either vests in the trustees or the governing body for the time being. Referring to Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1982 SC 458, observed as under:-

¶261

“ Section 13 provides for dissolution of societies and adjustment of their affairs. It says in effect that on dissolution of a society necessary steps shall be taken for the disposal and settlement of the property of the society, its claims and liabilities, according to the Rules of the society; if there be no rules, then as the governing body shall find it expedient provided that in the event of any dispute arising among the said governing body or the members of the said society, the adjustment of the affairs shall be referred to the court.”

¶262

Page No. 32 of 47

¶263

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

¶264

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶265

In Operation Asha Vs. Shelly Batra and Ors , 2025 SCC Online

¶266

SC 1605, recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Paragraph No.73 as under:-

¶267

“ Upon dissolution, the property has to be given over to some other society to be utilised for like purposes and the only right of the members was to determine which society the funds or property might be transferred to.”

¶268

The above observation was made in the context of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India which stood omitted by the Constitution (Fortyfourth Amendment) Act, 1979 with effect from 20.06.1979. The above right was re-incorporated under Article 300A of the Constitution of India vide Section 34 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1979 as property rights.

¶269

In Operation Asha Vs. Shelly Batra and Ors , 2025 SCC Online SC 1605, held that both during the subsistence and dissolution of the society, the members or the governing body cannot be said to possess any beneficial or individual interest over the proprietary vested in them. They would also safeguard the society's property for the future members of the society or the future governing body such that perpetuity is assigned to both the society and its property, unless expressly dissolved. It was concluded as follows:-

¶270

_____________ Page No. 33 of 47_

¶271

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

¶272

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶273

“ F.Conclusion:-

¶274

137. For the sake of convenience, a conspectus of the legal and factual discussion in the preceding paragraphs is as follows:-

¶275

i...

¶276

ii..

¶277

vii However, if the institution has been registered, from its inception, as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it is true that whenever a society acquires property, it cannot be said that it declares itself a trustee in respect of said property. In other words, the effect of registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would not be to automatically invest the properties of the society with the character of trust property. This has been consistently laid down by the decisions of several High Courts.

¶278

viii. Having said so, one must examine what effect the mechanism of vesting provided under Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has on the society. It reads that - “The property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body of such society[...]”. What follows is that the property belonging to the society can either be vested in ‘trustees’ or in the governing body of the society. This vesting has been envisaged because a society registered under the aforesaid Act is not a juristic person or a body corporate capable of holding property by itself.

¶279

Page No. 34 of 47

¶280

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

¶281

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶282

ix. The phrase, “if not vested in trustees” must be read to mean that a trust can be created, either expressly or impliedly, before or after the registration of society, for the purpose of holding its properties. A public trust would be created prior to the registration of a society if the broad circumstances enumerated under point (v) are met. In such a case, all the properties of the society which had been imbued with the character of ‘trust property’ would be subject to Section 92. However, if it is argued that a trust has instead separately been created for holding the property of the society after its registration as a society, the same must be clearly and sufficiently proven. Here, the separate trust which has been created and the properties which has been vested in said trust would be subject to scrutiny under Section 92. In both these scenarios, an ‘express trust’ would be created and in a suit under Section 92 CPC, the first criteria i.e., the existence of an express or constructive trust, would be met.

¶283

x. In the absence of such a separate vesting in trustees as aforesaid, the property belonging to the society would be automatically vested, through a deeming fiction, in the governing body of the society . Such a governing body is duty bound to ensure that the property is put towards and utilized for the purposes/aims of the society as laid out in its Memorandum of Association or any Rules and Regulations governing the said matter. In the event of the society’s dissolution, the members would not derive any right to distribute the assets belonging to the society between themselves. Both during the subsistence and dissolution of the society, the members or the governing body cannot be said to possess any beneficial or individual interest over the proprietary vested in them. They would also safeguard the society’s property for the future members of the society or

¶284

Page No. 35 of 47

¶285

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

¶286

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶287

the future governing body such that perpetuity is assigned to both the society and its property, unless expressly dissolved. All these factors evidence that the governing body must also act within the contours of a strict fiduciary relationship.”

¶288

The brief facts of the case which are relevant for consideration of the Review Application, indicate that originally, a Society called 'jQ ; rht+H SPCA kpUf f~l epthuz rq ; ; fk ' [hereinafter referred to as 1929 SPCA] was registered in the year 1929 when the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was in force.

¶289

The 1929 SPCA purchased several properties, including the aforesaid properties in the year 1935. When 1929 SPCA was registered, the PCA Act, 1890 was in force.

¶290

The Bye-laws of the 1929 SPCA were said to have been amended in its General Body Meeting held on 12.10.1968 purportedly in 1968 as per the direction of the then Animal Welfare Board of India after the PCA Act, 1960 came into force.

¶291

For the first time, the District Collector of Thanjavur was declared as the President of the Society; the District Veterinary Officer and the District Educational Officer were to be invited as Honorary Members of the

¶292

_____________ Page No. 36 of 47_

¶293

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

¶294

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶295

Executive Committee of the Society; the Superintendent of Police of Thanjavur and the District Magistrate (Judicial) at Kumbakonam were to be invited as Honorary Vice Presidents of the Society.

¶296

In other words, apart from the President, two Honorary Vice Presidents, namely, the Superintendent of Police of Thanjavur and the District Magistrate (Judicial) at Kumbakonam were to be invited.

¶297

The Honorary Secretary and the Joint Secretaries of the Society were to be ex-officio members of the Executive Committee of the Society and were to be elected by the General Body after the PCA Act, 1960 had replaced PCA Act, 1890.

¶298

The Executive Committee was to consist of 21 members, which included the two Honorary Members. It is clearly stated that except the Honorary Members, all other members of the Executive Committee were to be appointed at the Annual General Meeting.

¶299

Later 'Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Thanjavur', was registered on 22.06.1973 with Registration No.32/1973 [referred to as 1973 SPCA] was registered when the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was in force.

¶300

Page No. 37 of 47

¶301

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

¶302

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶303

It appears that amended Bye-Laws of 1929 SPCA was adopted and followed by 1973 SPCA from the year 1973 and was followed all along for managing the affairs of the 1973 SPCA.

¶304

The Contempt Petitioner/1^st Respondent in the Review Application, T.Samiyappan, S/o.Thangavel Pillai, claims to be the Honorary Secretary of the 1973 SPCA Society.

¶305

According to the deponent of the Affidavit in Writ Petition, he had become the Honorary Secretary of the 1973 SPCA and one Karunanidhi had become its Honorary Secretary in the year 2009. Before that, the Writ Petitioner's grandfather was the Honorary Secretary of the said Society, and thereafter his father had served in the Society.

¶306

According to the Contempt Petitioner/Writ Petitioner, since the registration of 1929 SPCA was not kept alive, the 1973 SPCA was registered which they wanted re-register in the name of 'Animal Welfare Society'. However, the then District Collector, the 1^st Respondent in Contempt Petition did not consider the same and instead proceeded to register 2022 SPCA.

¶307

Admittedly, the property purchased by 1929 SPCA was under the control of 1973 SPCA. There are also no instances of any parallel claim to

¶308

_____________ Page No. 38 of 47_

¶309

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

¶310

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶311

the aforesaid properties from the 1973 SPCA until 2022 SPCA was registered.

¶312

2022 SPCA was registered as a society purportedly to comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of the PCA Rules, 2001. Rule 3 of the PCA Rules, 2001 states that every State Government, shall by Notification in the Official Gazette, establish, as soon as may be and in any event within six months from the date of commencement of these rules, a society for every district in the State, to be the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in that District.

¶313

Prima facie , the records reveal that the 1st Contemnor namely Mr.Dinesh Ponraj Oliver, while serving as the President of 1973 SPCA, decided to implement Rule (3) of the PCA Rules, 2001 for the first time and attempted to take over the lands purchased in the year 1935 by the 1929 SPCA which was under the control of the Writ Petitioner/Contempt Petitioner under the 1973 SPCA, since the year 1973.

¶314

There is no doubt that the properties which were purchased by the 1929 SPCA in the year 1935 were under the control of the 1973 SPCA and

¶315

_____________ Page No. 39 of 47_

¶316

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

¶317

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶318

have now per force been taken over by the new society, namely 2022 SPCA, which gave rise to a cause of action in the above Writ Petition by Contempt Petitioner/1st Respondent in the Review Application.

¶319

As per the Statutory Scheme in Rule 3 of the PCA Rules, 2001, the State Government is required to establish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in every District and in such Society already functioning in any District.

¶320

As per the Proviso to Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001, any Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals functioning in any District on the date of commencement of these Rules shall continue to discharge its functions till establishment of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in that District under these Rules.

¶321

The argument that no meetings were held in 1973 SPCA and therefore 2022 SPCA was registered cannot be countenanced. If so, only actions under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1973 has to be

¶322

_____________ Page No. 40 of 47_

¶323

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

¶324

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶325

initiated.

¶326

When 2022 SPCA was registered by the 1^st Respondent in the Writ Petition/ 1^st Contemnor, the District Collector, the properties were usurped under the control of newly registered 2022 SPCA.

¶327

The main ground taken for initiation of the writ proceedings is that, in the meeting of the Executive Committee of 1973 SPCA on 16.02.2022 convened by the Contempt Petitioner, the District Collector threatened the Contempt Petitioner and it is at his instigation, a false case in Crime No.9 of 2022 was registered on 23.04.2022 against the Contempt Petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC and that the 1^st Respondent Contemnor, the District Collector arbitrarily transferred the properties of the 1973 SPCA.

¶328

1973 SPCA which were in existence on the date of commencement of PCA Rules, 2001 were to merely continue to discharge its functions till establishment of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in the District under these Rules.

¶329

However, that would not clothe the 2022 SPCA to take over the land which was under the control of 1973 SPCA. The Review cannot be an

¶330

_____________ Page No. 41 of 47_

¶331

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

¶332

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶333

appeal in disguise and therefore on this count also, this Review Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶334

Since the 1973 SPCA was not dissolved in accordance with law, mere constitution of the 2022 SPCA under the PCA Rules, 2001 ipso facto will not confer or convey the prospectus under the control of the 1973 SPCA.

¶335

Therefore, I find no reasons to review the Order dated 25.04.2025 passed in W.P(MD) No.11019 of 2023. In my view, Order dated 25.04.2025 passed in W.P(MD) No.11019 of 2023 does not warrant a review.

¶336

Further, the Constitution of India protects rights under Article 300A. Therefore, property cannot be taken except by 'authority of law'. Merely because an executive fiat for creation of a new society was given under PCA Rules, 2001, such fiat cannot amount to 'law' or give a carte blanche to take over the properties under the control of 1973 SPCA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to property is both a human right and a constitutional right, and that deprivation of property without the authority of law is void.

¶337

Unless, 1973 SPCA, is dissolved in the manner known to law and in the prescribed manner under the provisions of the Societies Registration

¶338

_____________ Page No. 42 of 47_

¶339

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

¶340

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶341

Act, 1973, properties under its control cannot be taken over by 2022 SPCA. When law mandates a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, then it was to be done in that manner as held in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.

¶342

Sinhara Singh , 1963 AIR 358.

¶343

That apart, the 1^st Contemnor i.e., the 1^st Respondent in Contempt Petition who was instrumental in registration of 2022 SPCA as the then Collector of Thanjavur, later issued order dated 23.04.2025 bearing Reference No.17092/13/2025 in his capacity as Inspector General of Registration. It prima facie exhibits undue haste and alacrity to grab the property and smacks of arbitrariness, bias and colorable exercise of power.

¶344

However, there is a grey area. Possibly, the 1^st Contemnor/1^st Respondent in the Contempt Petition may have entertained a bona fide belief to issue Order dated 23.04.2025 bearing Reference No.17092/13/2025. Therefore, the conduct of the Contemnors, the 1^st to 4^th Respondents in the Contempt Petition is condoned. Therefore, it is open for the Contempt Petitioner/Writ Petitioner to have the Order dated 23.04.2025 bearing Reference No.17092/13/2025, issued by the 1^st Contemnor/1^st Respondent in the Contempt Petition as null and void separately in appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law.

¶345

_____________ Page No. 43 of 47_

¶346

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

¶347

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶348

At best, such SPCAs which are constituted under the Rules, 2001

¶349

can continue to discharge the functions that are statutorily required to be carried out by them with the framing of PCA Rules, 2001. However that would not clothe the new SPCA to take over the assets of the erstwhile SPCAs unless there is a merger or dissolution of the later in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules made thereunder.

¶350

Merely because under Rule 3 of the PCA Rules, 2001, the State Governments are enjoined by notification in Official Gazette to constitute Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in every District ipso facto would not mean that new Society to be formed by the State Government is liable to take over the assets or for that matters, the liabilities of various SPCAs.

¶351

Therefore, the aforesaid proceeding shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is for the Writ Petitioner/Contempt Petitioner to get appropriate orders to protect the properties.

¶352

Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed and the Contempt Petition is closed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is

¶353

_____________ Page No. 44 of 47_

¶354

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

¶355

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

10.09.2025

closed.

JEN / arb

Neutral Citation : Yes

¶360

To:

¶361

1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028.

¶362

2.The District Registrar (Societies), Thanjavur District, Thanjavur - 613 010.

¶363

3.The District Collector, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶364

4.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Animal Welfare Board, Commissionerate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services,

¶365

Veterinary Polyclinic Campus, No.571, Nandanam,

¶366

Chennai - 600 035.

¶367

5.Honorary Secretary, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA),

¶368

No.129, Dabeerkulam Road,

¶369

Page No. 45 of 47

¶370

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

¶371

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶372

East Gate, Thanjavur - 613 001.

¶373

6.The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (SPCA), Rep. by its Society, O/o. Regional Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Old Collectorate Campus, Court Road, Thanjavur - 613 001.

¶374

Page No. 46 of 47

¶375

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

¶376

Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025

¶377

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶378

JEN

¶379

Pre-Delivery Common Order made in Rev.Aplw.(MD) No.164 of 2025 & Cont.P.(MD) No.2038 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.18054 of 2025