J.Selvaraj Yadav Vs The District Registrar of Societies

The District Registrar of Societies Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 No.268, Bharathi Salai, Royapettah, Chennai -600 014.

¶11

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

¶12

3.All India Yadav Mahasabha,

¶13

Rep. By Its President, Dr.udai Pratap Singh Yadav Sri Krishna Bhawan, Sector -iv, Vaishali, Ghaziabad -201 011

¶14

4.Dr. Udai Pratap Singh Yadav

¶15

President -aiyms Ex. Adh Vaksh, Hindi Sansthan, Government Of Up No.71, Green Wood Colony, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow -226 001

¶16

5.Dr.Swapan Kumar Ghosh

¶17

6.Sh.Pramod Chaudhary

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 3866 of 2021

¶20

7.Mr.Sathyaprakash Singh Yadav

¶21

8.Mr.A.Radhakrishnan,

¶22

9.Mr.K.Neelamurali Yadav

10.V.Muruganandam,

11.Mr.Dinesh Yadav

12.S.Sundravarthnan

13.Mr.M.P.Gunasekar,

14.Smt. Poornima Krishnappa,

¶28

Respondent(s)

¶29

The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of declaration declaring that the election said to have conducted and the Circular of office bearer appointment dated 05.11.2020 is null and void and to initiate inquiry in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 and the rules framed thereunder in accordance with law.

¶30

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Revanth Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Sasikumar, GA RR1 & 2 Mr.N.Thiyagarajan, Sr.C. For M/s.S.Ramesh Kumar RR3 to 13

¶31

ORDER

¶32

At the outset, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is finding misconceived, frivolus and as vague as it could be.

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 3866 of 2021

¶35

The petitioner who claims to be a member of the third respondent Sabha since a declaration that election conducted for the third respondent sabha and the appointments made thereon, to be null and void and also to initiate enquiry in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975.

¶36

The third respondent is All India yada maha sabha having its registered office at Vaishali, Ghaziabad. Interestingly, the petitioner has added the Registration Department of Tamil Nadu as respondents 1 & 2. The petitioner has nowhere in the affidavit averred as to how the respondents 1 & 2 could act upon any representation or complaint made by the petitioner with regard to an organisation which is situated outside the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶37

The averments made in the affidavit by the petitioner are also as vague as they could be. The averments are not supported with any documents and bald allegations are made through out in the affidavit. The respondents 4,5,6,7 and 14 are shown to be deciding outside Tamil Nadu and spread across various States in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has not stated that the respondents are no way connected in the averments in the affidavit and how any direction would be passed by this court against them through the respondents 1 & 2.

¶38

The first respondent has a detailed counter affidavit wherein it has stated that third respondent is situated outside of the State and he is not registered with the first respondent. The third respondent is situated in the State

¶39

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

¶40

WP No. 3866 of 2021

¶41

of Uttarpradesh and the petitioner ought to have approached the territorial High Court for any other relief.

¶42

The first respondent has also stated that the representation sent by the petitioner dated 12.03.2020 was not sent by the required coram of the members of the society as requited under relevant laws. The first respondent has also stated that the petitioner is not a member of South India Yadava Mahasabha which is mentioned in the representation dated 12.03.2020.

¶43

It is to be noted that though the petitioner has invoked the name of south India Yadava Maha sabha, the relief sought for is against All India Yadav Mahasabha, which is situated in the State of Uttarpradesh.

¶44

The 10th respondent has filed a detailed counter wherein he has questioned very locus standard of the petitioner to file this writ petition.

¶45

This Court is not inclined to discuss the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties since the petitioner has not satisfied with the initial burden of making how the case as to how this Court could issue a direction in respect of an organisation which is situated in Uttarpradesh and which is not registered with the first respondent, as per the relevant laws of Tamil Nadu. This Writ petition is highly misconceived and the said is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

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

¶47

WP No. 3866 of 2021

¶48

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶49

08-09-2025

¶50

rli

¶51

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶52

To

¶53

1.The District Registrar of Societies Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 No.268, Bharathi Salai, Royapettah, Chennai -600 014

¶54

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

¶55

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

WP No. 3866 of 2021

M.DHANDAPANI J.

rli

W.P.No.3866 of 2021