Madras High Court
Mrs.A.Nagalakshmi @ Kumari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 March, 2023
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 23.02.2023
Pronounced on : 03.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.Nos. 19695 of 2017, 9013 of 2018 & 34563 of 2019
And
Crl.Rc.No. 278 of 2022
And
W.M.P.Nos. 21248 of 2017 & 10865 of 2018
And
W.M.P.Nos. 21249 of 2017, 35924 of 2018, 10866 of 2018 & 6171 of
2019
W.P.No. 34563 of 2019
Mrs.A.Nagalakshmi @ Kumari ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Inspector General of Registration
Office of the Inspector General of Registration
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The District Registrar of Societies,
District Registration Office
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
4. S.N.R.Balasubramaniam (Deceased)
5. M.Prem Kumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents particularly
1st to 3rd to sanction or approve the new committee as per the 71st Annual
General Body Meeting dated 09.04.2017 of “The Cine Technicians
Association of South India” considering petitioner's representation dated
26.10.2019.
W.P.No. 19695 of 2017
K.Ramachandra Kurup ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. The Secretary to Government
of Tamil Nadu
Department of Commercial Taxes
and Registration
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Inspector General of Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai – 600 028.
3. The District Registrar of Societies
South Chennai,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
4. V.V.R. Choudhary ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised in the
proceedings of the third respondent bearing No. 7220/E2/2017 dated
21.07.2017 and quash the same.
W.P.No. 9013 of 2018
S.N.R. Balasubramaniam (Deceased)
2. M.Prem Kumar ... Petitioners
..Vs..
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Commercial Taxes and Registration Department
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Inspector General of Registration
Office of the Inspector General of Registration
Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The District Registrar of Societies,
District Registration Office
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
4. Mr.V.V.R. Choudary ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records comprised in the
proceedings of the first respondent bearing G.O.Ms.No. 39 dated
22.03.2018 and quash the same.
Crl.R.C.No. 278 of 2022:
K.Ramachandra Kurup ... Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
1. Smt.B.Kumari @ Naga Lakshmi
2. Mr.Gajendran T P, ... Respondents/Accused
PRAYER: Revision under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying
to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No. 2025 of 2020 on the file of the XIV
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and set aside the order dated 10th
December 2021.
***
For Petitioner in
W.P.No. 34563 /2019 :: M/s. A.Nagalakshmi @ Kumari
Party-in-Person
For petitioner in
W.P.Nos. 19695/2017 &
9013/2018 :: Mr. T.T.Ravichadran
For petitioner in
Crl.R.C.No. 278/2022 :: Mr.G.R.Hari
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5
For RR 1 to 3 in
all W.Ps. :: Mr. U.Baranidharan
Additional Government Pleader
For 1st Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No. 278/2022 :: M/s. A.Nagalakshmi @ Kumari
Party-in-person
For 2nd Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No. 278 of 2022 :: Mr.G.Vijayakumar
For 4th Respondent in
W.P.No. 9013/2018 :: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No. 19695 of 2017 had been filed by K.Ramachandra Kurup, President, Cine Technicians Association of South India, against the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration, the Inspector General of Registration and the District Registrar of Societies, South Chennai and V.V.R.Choudhary, in the nature of a Certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent bearing No. 7220/E2/2017 dated 21.07.2017 and to quash the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6
2. W.P.No. 9013 of 2018 had been filed by S.N.R.Balasubramaniam, Vice President of Cine Technicians Association against the very same respondents in the nature of a Certiorari to call for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No. 39 dated 22.03.2018 and quash the same. Pending the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner died and M.Prem Kumar, Secretary of the Association had been impleaded as the petitioner.
3. W.P.No. 34563 of 2019 had been filed by Mrs. A. Nagalakshmi @ Kumari, against the same first to third respondents and against S.N.R.Balasubramaniam, the petitioner in W.P.No. 9013 of 2018, who died and thereafter M.Prem Kumar had been impleaded as further respondent, in the nature of a Mandamus seeking a direction to approve the new committee as per the 71st Annual General Body Meeting dated 09.04.2017 of the Cine Technicians Association of South India and to consider the representation dated 26.10.2019.
4. Crl.R.C.No. 278 of 2022 had been filed by the complainant in Crl.M.P.No. 2025 of 2020 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, K.Ramachandra Kurup, seeking to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No. 2025 of 2020 dated 10.12.2021. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7
5. Crl.M.P.No. 2025 of 2020 had been filed by the petitioner K.Ramachandra Kurup under Sections 190(1)(a), 199(1) read with Section 200 Cr.P.C., for offence under Sections 499 & 500 IPC against M/s. B.Kumari @ Nagalakshmi and T.P.Gajendiran. The said petition was dismissed leading to the filing of the Criminal Revision Case.
6. The facts surrounding all the four matters overlapped and the arguments were also advanced by all the learned counsels. In view of that particular fact, a common order is being passed.
7. All the Writ Petitions surround the functioning of the Cine Technician Association of South India. The writ petitioner in W.P.No. 19695 of 2017 has claimed that he is the President and the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 9013 of 2018 claims that he is the Vice President and they both claim that the fourth respondent in the said Writ Petitions, V.V.R.Choudary is an expelled member of the Association. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8
8. The Cine Technician Association of South India was registered before the Registrar of Societies under Serial No. 179/1988 under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act 1975. It had been formed for the benefit of Cine Technician in the film industries all over South India. It had been claimed that V.V.R. Choudary, the fourth respondent in the two Writ Petitions was a former Secretary and who had been removed from primary membership. It is alleged that he had been instigating the writ petitioner A.Nagalakshmi @ Kumari in W.P.No. 34563 of 2019 to make false and frivolous complaints against the executive Committee of the Association before the jurisdictional police station. A suit had also been filed in OS.No. 1808 of 2016 before the 11 th Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
9. The third respondent in view of various representations which had been received, had passed an order on 21.07.2017 whereby after taking into consideration the various allegations and the various writ petitions filed by one party against the other, had stated that a Special Officer should be appointed and that in due course a Special Officer would actually be appointed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9
10. In W.P.No. 9013 of 2018, the writ petitioner, who has since expired and the writ petition now represented by Mr. Prem Kumar has stated that the various complaints have been given by the fourth respondent V.V.R.Choudary and that he had instigated the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 34563 of 2019 A.Nagalakshmi @ Kumari and the writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorari to quash G.O.Ms.No. 39 dated 22.03.2018.
11. G.O.Ms.No. 39 dated 22.03.2018, Commercial Taxes and Registration Tamilnadu Department, had been passed after the report of the District Registrar, South Chennai and recommendation of the Inspector General of Registration, after issuing a show cause notice under Section 34- A of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act 1975 and affording a personal hearing to the Officer bearer of the Association and examining the various litigations pending relating to the Society. In exercise of the powers under Section 34-A(1), a Special Officer had been appointed for a period of one year from the date of issue of a Government Order in the extraordinary issue of Tamilnadu Government Gazattee dated 23.02.2018. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10
12. By an order dated 16.04.2018 an order of status quo was granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
13. The petitioner in W.P.No. 34563 of 2019 in her affidavit stated, that though a Special Officer had been appointed and the appointment was challenged, the writ petition in W.P.No. 9013 of 2018 had been filed by the petitioner, who was not the Vice President of the Association. The petitioner claimed that she alone was the authorised person to file any case on behalf of the Association. She claimed that she had been elected in democratic manner. It had been therefore stated that the Committee which had been so elected in the 71st Annual General Body Meeting held on 09.04.2017 should be approved by the Registrars.
14. Counter affidavits have been filed denying the issues raised, the various allegations and raising counter allegations.
15. It is clear that all the parties to all the three writ petitions are at war with each other. It is extremely difficult to decipher as to who has grievances against whom and on whose side each person is. All of them https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11 appear to be enemies and none of them appear to be friends. Those, who are affected by all these quarrels are the members of the Cine Technician Association of South India.
16. As is always the case with every Association, the officer bearer have taken a very conscious decision to look only after their personal interest and not after the interest of the Members of the Association.
17. The petitioner in W.P.No. 34563 of 2019 claims that she has been a victim by a fraud played whereby specific amounts had been collected from the members on the promise that housing plots will be allotted after purchase. It is the grievance that the Housing Plots were allotted to members and to third parties over looking genuine members. It is stated that with respect to the same, she had preferred a complaint before the Jurisdictional Police and subsequent to investigation, a final report had also been filed, and had also been taken cognizance by the competent jurisdictional Magistrate Court. I would therefore refrain from stating anything further on that particular aspect. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12
18. With respect to all the three writ petitions, the one fact which stands out is that the third respondent District Registrar of Societies South Chennai in its proceedings dated 21.05.2018 had recommended appointment of a Special Officer. Accordingly, a Special Officer had also been appointed in G.O.Ms.No. 39 dated 22.09.2018. The said Government Order was passed on 22.03.2018. It was directed that it should be published in the extraordinary issue of Tamilnadu Government Gazettee dated 22.03.2018. The Special Officer was appointed for a period of one year. The status quo was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 06.04.2018 within a period of 16 days from the date of appointment of the Special Officer. He could have hardly located the address of the Association before which the order of status quo had been passed. Thus, the quarrels continue. Though the petitioner in W.P.No. 34563 of 2019 claimed that a General Body Meeting was held on 09.04.2017 and office bearers have been elected, the Association has been functioning like any other Association without a head, and if there is a head without a mind, and if there is a head with a mind, then without a body. In effect, the Association can be categorised as having been brought to an end naturally owing to the quarrels among the office bearers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13
19. It is a complaint that G.O.Ms.No. 39 dated 22.09.2018 had been passed without providing opportunity to all the stake holders. It is complained that it had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also complained that the term of one year has expired and therefore, the Government Order has also lapsed.
20. The first to third respondents in all the Writ Petitions have to take up the responsibility to clean house so far as the Association is concerned. One way of doing that is to appoint a Special Officer. A Special Officer had actually been appointed. There may be questions that opportunity of being heard was not given. But the principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to wait for every individual to air his views. After following due procedure, the Special Officer had been appointed. Within a period of 10 days, the order had suffered an order of status quo was passed by a learned Single Judge of the Court. It is claimed that therefore, the Government Order itself has lapsed.
21. In (2019) ( SCC 538 [Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Others], the Hon'ble https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 Supreme Court had taken into consideration the pendency of numerous litigation surrounding the aforementioned Sabai and had finally held as follows:-
“ 20. Therefore, we are of the view that the only way to bring to an end all the litigations between the parties before various fora is to set aside the impugned order and the elections held pursuant thereto and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to convene the General Body as well as the Executive Committee for the election of office-bearers. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court as well as the elections purportedly held pursuant to the order of the High Court are set aside. Smt S. Sornalatha, Advocate, No. 1, 1st Street, Chidambara Nagar, Thoothukkudi-628 008, is appointed as Commissioner with a mandate to do the following:
20.1. Within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order, the Advocate Commissioner shall address letters to the sponsoring bodies/Societies of the first respondent Society, for nominating https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15 members to the General Body and the Executive Committee of the first respondent Society, as per the bye-laws.
20.2. Within one week of receipt of the letter from the Advocate Commissioner, the sponsoring bodies shall send a list of members nominated by them to the General Body/Executive Committee of the first respondent Society.
20.3. Within four weeks of receipt of the nominations, the Advocate Commissioner shall convene a meeting of the General Body and the meeting of the Executive Committee and hold elections in accordance with the bye-laws.
20.4. After holding elections, the Advocate Commissioner shall ensure that Forms 6 and 7 are registered with the Registrar of Societies so that the registration of such forms does not become the subject-matter of any litigation at the instance of the rival groups.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16 20.5. The Advocate Commissioner shall be paid, by the first respondent Society, a remuneration of Rs 1,00,000 apart from the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by her.
20.6. Till the elections are held and results declared, the Advocate Commissioner shall discharge the duties of the Secretary of the first respondent Society. ”
22. It is thus seen that order has to brought about in the Association.
23. In Civil Appeal No.2417 of 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by Judgment dated 25.03.2022, [State of U.P., the Secretary and Ors. Vs. Prem Chopra] reported in [2022 SCC Online SC 1770], had examined the impact of stay order and had held as follows:-
“18. When the interim order was in force, the recovery of license fee was temporarily suspended. The restraint was only against the Department not to recover the license fee. There was no prohibition for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17 the respondent to deposit the balance of license fee. It is to be stated here that the High Court has not quashed the demand of license fee made by the appellants. There is a difference between stay of operation of an order and quashing of an order which has been explained by this Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI CINOD Secretariat, Madras [1997] 3 SCC 1 as under:
“While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18 not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence.”
19. Following the said decision, this Court in Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board (1997) 5 SCC 772, has held that an order of stay which is granted during the pendency of a writ petition/suit or other proceeding comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantive proceedings and it is the duty of the court in such cases to put the parties in the same position that they would have been in but for the interim order of the court. In that case, this Court rejected the contention that when the operation of the notification itself was stayed, no surcharge could be demanded upon the amount withheld. It was held thus:
“11. ….Holding otherwise would mean that even though the Electricity Board, who was the respondent in the writ petitions succeeded therein, yet deprived of the late payment surcharge which was due to it under the tariff rules/regulations. It would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19 be a case where the Board suffers prejudice on account of the orders of the court and for no fault of its. It succeeds in the writ petition and yet loses. The consumer files the writ petition, obtains stay of operation of the notification revising the rates and fails in his attack upon the validity of the notification and yet he is relieved of the obligation to pay the late payment surcharge for the period of stay, which he is liable to pay according to the statutory terms and conditions of supply — which terms and conditions indeed form part of the contract of supply entered into by him with the Board. We do not think that any such unfair and inequitable proposition can be sustained in law.
xxx xxx xxx It is equally well settled that an order of stay granted pending disposal of a writ petition/suit or other proceeding, comes to an end with the dismissal of the substantive proceeding and that it is the duty of the court in such a case to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20 the interim orders of the court. Any other view would result in the act or order of the court prejudicing a party (Board in this case) for no fault of its and would also mean rewarding a writ petitioner in spite of his failure. We do not think that any such unjust consequence can be countenanced by the courts. As a matter of fact, the contention of the consumers herein, extended logically should mean that even the enhanced rates are also not payable for the period covered by the order of stay because the operation of the very notification revising/enhancing the tariff rates was stayed. Mercifully, no such argument was urged by the appellants. It is ununderstandable how the enhanced rates can be said to be payable but not the late payment surcharge thereon, when both the enhancement and the late payment surcharge are provided by the same notification — the operation of which was stayed.”
20. In Rajasthan Housing Board v.
Krishna Kumari (2005) 13 SCC 151, this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21 Court observed that Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides for grant of temporary injunction at the risk and responsibility of the person who obtains it and, if ultimately case is decided against such person, he would be liable to pay interest on the arrears of any amount due which had been stayed by the injunction order. The legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, which means that an act of the Court shall prejudice no man, becomes applicable in such a case.
21. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
v. State of M.P., [2003] 8 SCC 648 the writ petitioner therein had argued that interest accrued due to non-payment of enhanced amount of royalty was protected by a judicial order of an interim nature and, therefore, merely because the writ was finally dismissed, the writ petitioner should not be held liable for payment of interest so long as money was withheld under the protective umbrella of the injunction order. This submission was rejected by this Court by holding as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22 “The principle of restitution has been statutorily recognized in Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Section 144 CPC speaks not only of a decree being varied, reversed, set aside or modified but also includes an order on a par with a decree. The scope of the provision is wide enough so as to include therein almost all the kinds of variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of a decree or order. The interim order passed by the court merges into a final decision. The validity of an interim order, passed in favour of a party, stands reversed in the event of a final decision going against the party successful at the interim stage. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the successful party at the end would be justified with all expediency in demanding compensation and being placed in the same situation in which it would have been if the interim order would not have been passed against it. The successful party can demand (a) the delivery of benefit earned by the opposite party under the interim order of the court, or (b) to make https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23 restitution for what it has lost; and it is the duty of the court to do so unless it feels that in the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the restitution far from meeting the ends of justice, would rather defeat the same. Undoing the effect of an interim order by resorting to principles of restitution is an obligation of the party, who has gained by the interim order of the court, so as to wipe out the effect of the interim order passed which, in view of the reasoning adopted by the court at the stage of final decision, the court earlier would not or ought not to have passed. There is nothing wrong in an effort being made to restore the parties to the same position in which they would have been if the interim order would not have existed.”
22. In Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited v. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (2011) 1 SCC 216, the appellant therein had challenged the revised tariff rates imposed by the respondent therein and obtained an interim order of stay against collection of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24 disputed amounts. The High Court subsequently upheld upward revision of tariff. Thereafter, the respondent therein raised a demand for additional charges/interest on outstanding amounts from the date of tariff revision and the High Court upheld such demand holding that there was no subsisting relief once the demand was upheld. This Court further held that the principle of restitution entitles the successful party to be restored back to the position it would hold had there been no order/judgment adverse to it. The appellant therein had obtained only an ad-interim order of stay against enforcement of tariffs. A party who fails in the main proceedings cannot take benefit from the interim order issued during the pendency of such proceedings. Therefore, it was held in that case that the amount became recoverable from the appellant therein no sooner the judgment of the High Court was reversed and the revision of tariffs was upheld.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25
23. In State of Rajasthan v. J.K. Synthetics Limited [2011] 12 SCC 518, the interest for the period of which recovery of royalty was to be paid under Section 9 (2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 remained stayed under the interim orders of the court.
However, eventually the writ petition was dismissed. This Court held that whenever there is an interim order of stay in regard to any revision in rate or tariff, unless the order granting interim stay or the final order dismissing the writ petition specifies otherwise, on the dismissal of the writ petition or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order. It was held thus:
“23. It is therefore evident that whenever there is an interim order of stay in regard to any revision in rate or tariff, unless the order granting interim stay or the final order dismissing the writ petition specifies otherwise, on the dismissal of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26 writ petition or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order. Where the statute or contract specifies the rate of interest, usually interest will have to be paid at such rate. Even where there is no statutory or contractual provision for payment of interest, the court will have to direct the payment of interest at a reasonable rate, by way of restitution, while vacating the order of interim stay, or dismissing the writ petition, unless there are special reasons for not doing so. Any other interpretation would encourage unscrupulous debtors to file writ petitions challenging the revision in tariffs/rates and make attempts to obtain interim orders of stay. If the obligation to make restitution by paying appropriate interest on the withheld amount is not strictly enforced, the loser will end up with a financial benefit by resorting to unjust litigation and the winner will end up as the loser financially for no fault of his. Be that as it may.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27
24. From the above discussion, it is clear that imposition of a stay on the operation of an order means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of passing of the stay order. However, it does not mean that the stayed order is wiped out from the existence, unless it is quashed. Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order. In other words, the interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of the proceedings. In such a situation, it is the duty of the Court to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the proceedings specifies otherwise. On the dismissal of the proceedings or vacation of the interim order, the beneficiary of the interim order shall have to pay interest on the amount withheld or not paid by virtue of the interim order.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28
24. The ratio laid down is that an order of stay would only be a temporary halt to the proceedings.
25. It is clear that the elections to the Association will have to be conducted afresh. The first to third respondents must take up the responsibility to conduct such elections. I would therefore state that the appointment of the Special Officer by G.O.Ms.No. 39 dated 22.03.2018 must be restored and a Special Officer must be appointed by the Government.
26. The Special Officer must be appointed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
27. The earlier order was in force only for 16 days. The said Special Officer may take control of the Association and examine the accounts, conduct elections and regularise the functioning of the Association. This is for the benefit of all the parties to the association. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29
28. In view of the above reasons, the three Writ Petitions are all dismissed and the following directions are given:-
(i) G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 22.03.2018 is revived. The Special Officer is to be appointed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(ii) The Special Officer is to take control of the Association, namely, the Cine Technician Association of South India;
(iii) The Special Officer is take the assistance of the jurisdictional police to enter into Association and take control of the accounts and all other aspects;
(iv) The Special Officer is to regularise the accounts and prepare the list of members and proceed to conduct elections in manner known to law;
(v) The Office of the Special Officer should be for a period of one year less 16 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30 Crl.R.C.No. 278 of 2022:
29. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 190(1)(a), 199(1) read with Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the two respondents, for offence under Sections 499 & 500 read with 34 of IPC complaining about a publication in Kumutham Reporter alleging that the petitioner had collected amounts from the members for constructions of house but had sold the land to private parties.
30. The issue relating to that particular aspect is pending trial in a competent criminal Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner complained that the Judicial Magistrate had given a reason, that the publication is an exercise of the right to speak under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) for the constitution. It had also been stated that no malice had been alleged against the respondents.
31. I hold that the reasons given is correct and acceptable. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31
32. It is a fact that a criminal case is pending with respect to the very same subject matter of collection of money and purchase of lands and allotment of lands to third parties. It is a fact that in such a situation, there is a right to approach the newspaper. There cannot be unreasonable restrictions.
33. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can always file a suit for damages, provided the suit is neither implicitly nor explicitly barred, but filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and under Section 499 and 500 IPC will naturally have to stand the scrutiny of the Court.
34. The learned Magistrate had examine the publication in entirety and had found that the publication was justified and there had been no infringement of any right or commission of offences under Section 499 and 500 IPC. This is a finding based on facts. There is no complaint that the learned Magistrate had refused to exercise jurisdiction vested. I find no merits in the Criminal Revision Case and the same is dismissed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32
35. In the result:-
(i) W.P.No. 34563 of 2019 is dismissed with direction;
(ii) W.P.No. 19695 of 2017 is dismissed with direction;
(iii) W.P.No. 9013 of 2018 is dismissed with direction;
(iv) Crl.R.C.No. 278 of 2022 is dismissed;
(v) W.M.P.Nos. 21249 & 21248 of 2017, 35924 ,10865 & 10866 of 2018 are closed. W.M.P.No. 6171 of 2019 is dismissed; and
(vi) No order as to costs.
03.03.2023 vsg Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order To
1. The Secretary The State of Tamil Nadu Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Inspector General of Registration Office of the Inspector General of Registration Santhome, Chennai – 600 004.
3. The District Registrar of Societies, District Registration Office Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J., vsg Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.Nos. 19695 of 2017, 9013 of 2018 & 34563 of 2019 And Crl.Rc.No. 278 of 2022 And W.M.P.Nos. 21248 of 2017 & 10865 of 2018 And W.M.P.Nos. 21249 of 2017, 35924 of 2018, 10866 of 2018 & 6171 of 2019 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34 03.03.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis