Madras High Court
N.Kumaran Sethupathy vs Madurai Tamil Sangam on 17 June, 2014
Bench: V.Ramasubramanian, V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Writ Appeal(MD)No.709 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 N.Kumaran Sethupathy ... Appellant/ 3rd respondent Vs. 1.Madurai Tamil Sangam, (Regn.No.2/1908), rep.by its Secretary R.Alagumalai, No.54, Tamil Sangam Road, Madurai-625 001. ... Respondent-1/ Petitioner 2.The Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 3.The District Registrar (Admn.), Madurai North District Registration, Combined Department of Registration Office Complex, TANU Nagar, Rajagambeeram Village, Y.Othakkadi-Post, Madurai-625 107. ... Respondents 2 & 3/ Respondents 1 & 2 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.05.2014, made in W.P.(MD)No.11368 of 2013. !For Appellant : Mr.G.R.Swaminthan ^For Respondent-1 : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj, 2&3 Spl.Govt.Pleader. :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J) The appeal arises out of an order passed in a writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, for a mandamus.
2.Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.
3.The Madurai Tamil Sangam was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, way back in the year 1908. It has its registered office at Madurai.
4.As in the case of every other society, this Madurai Tamil Sangam has also been involved in a series of litigation, contributing both to the development of law and to the development of literature, perhaps more to the development of law than to the development of literature. When the District Registrar issued a notice in May, 2010, that became the subject matter of a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8780 of 2010. The said writ petition was dismissed, giving liberty to the Society to submit their explanation.
5.There was yet another writ petition filed in W.P.(MD)No.4953 of 2013, questioning the Notification calling for applications to fill-up teaching vacancies in an Arts and Oriental College run by the Sangam. That writ petition was closed on the basis of an undertaking given by the College to issue a fresh notification.
6.Thereafter, the Sangam issued a notice on 27.06.2013, convening an Extraordinary Meeting of the General Body of the Association to be held on 21.07.2013. Immediately, the Secretary of the Society came up with a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11368 of 2013, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Inspector General of Registration and the District Registrar not to permit the Society to conduct an Extraordinary General Body Meeting, pursuant to the Notice issued. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge, by directing the District Registrar to take note of certain developments and conduct an enquiry and pass orders. As against the said order of the learned Judge, the president of the Society has come-up with the above appeal.
7.The short ground on which the appellant challenges the order of the learned Judge is that the very prayer made by the 1st respondent was not maintainable. In order to appreciate the validity of the contention, it is necessary to have a look at the prayer made in the writ petition. The prayer of the 1st respondent in the writ petition reads as follows:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein not to permit the 3rd respondent to conduct sue moto Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the petitioner's sangam, which is scheduled to held on 21.07.2013 pursuant to the notice issued by the 3rd respondent dated Nil and the same was published in the Tamil Daily called Dinamani dated 27,.06.2013, and pass any such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
8.Even a bare reading of the above prayer would show that such a writ of mandamus could not have been entertained by this Court. The 1st respondent is only a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. By virtue of the provisions of Section 55 to the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1976, the Society is deemed to have been registered under the Tamil Nadu Act also.
9.Therefore, no writ will lie even as against the Society. But, the 1st respondent made a prayer virtually as against the appellant herein, who is the president of the Society, so as to prevent the Extraordinary General Body Meeting from being convened. Though, apparently, the direction appears to have been sought against the Inspector General of Registration and the District Registrar, the effect of the prayer is to prevent the appellant herein, who is an individual and who happens to be the president of the Society, from going ahead with the Extraordinary General Body Meeting. Therefore, the prayer made by the 1st respondent in their writ petition is not at maintainable.
10.As a matter of fact, an Extraordinary General Body Meeting can be convened by a Society registered under the Act, if the conditions stipulated in Section 28 of the Act are fulfilled. As per Section 28(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the Committee of a Society may call for an Extraordinary General Body Meeting, at any time. They shall call for such a meeting, upon receipt of a requisition in writing from such number of members as prescribed by the bye-laws. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 28 also contain other restrictions and regulations with regard to the convening of Extraordinary General Body Meetings.
11.Therefore, it is clear that an Extraordinary General Body Meeting convened by a Society is not at the instance of an individual. Either it is at the instance of the Committee or at the instance of some requisitionists, bearing a particular proportion to the total number of members.
12.In such circumstances, it is very strange that the Society filed a writ petition against the president, for a mandamus not to convene an Extraordinary General Body Meeting. The writ petition has been filed by the Secretary of the Society, who is virtually the Secretary of the Executive Committee. The Act imposes an obligation upon the Committee, most of the times represented by the Secretary, to convene such Extraordinary General Body Meetings. Therefore, for the Secretary to file a writ petition in the name of the Society, for abdication of his duties under Section 28(1) of the Act cannot at all be accepted.
13.We have to point out one more aspect. For filing a writ petition in the name of the Society, the Secretary requires an authorisation in terms of the bye-laws. Though the Society may sue or be sued in the name of the Secretary, he would require the authorisation of the Committee to file a writ petition on behalf of the Society. We do not see any averment in the affidavit filed by the Secretary to the effect that he had been authorised by the Committee to file the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, especially in the name of the Society, for preventing an Extraordinary General Body Meeting, is wholly not maintainable.
14.However, it is submitted by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent, that the cause of action for the writ petition was a statement issued by the District Registrar, incorporating the names of members who have already been removed from the rolls of the Society. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contended that in the said circumstances, the writ was maintainable.
15.But, we do not think so. The information furnished by the District Registrar cannot be taken to be a licence for the Secretary to file a writ petition in the name of the Society for prohibiting the convening of the Extraordinary General Body Meeting. Any General Meeting of the Society is to enable the members to take decisions collectively. That cannot be prevented by the Secretary. The question as to who could be permitted to attend such meeting and who could not be allowed is something that could be gone into only before a civil court. These aspects have not been considered by the learned Judge. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.
16.Hence, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the 1st respondent is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed.
To
1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2.The District Registrar (Admn.), Madurai North District Registration, Combined Department of Registration Office Complex, TANU Nagar, Rajagambeeram Village, Y.Othakkadi-Post, Madurai-625 107.