Madras High Court
Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 13 January, 2020
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order Reserved on : 20.11.2019
Order Pronounced on : 13.01.2020
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013 & WMP.No.24505 of 2016
Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai
rep. by its President
B.S.Perumal, Salem 2,
Regd.No.36 /2009 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028.
2. The District Registrar,
Salem.
3. The Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution
rep. by its Secretary Mr.K.Veeramani,
E.V.K.Sampath Salai,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
1/30
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
4. Salem Suyamariyathai Sangam,
rep. by its President,
Palani Pullaiyanan,
No.287-290 Trichy Main Road,
Dhathagapatti , Salem 6
(R4 is impleaded as per order dated 04.01.2016
in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.21277/2013 )
... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to call for the records of the first respondent in his
proceedings 55646/I-3/2012 dated 19.06.2013 and to quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Kumarasamy
For Respondents : Mr.P.Purushothaman,
Gov. Advocate,
for R1 and R2
Mr. G.Masilamani,
Senior Counsel, for
Mr. D.Veerasekaran,
for R3 & R4
2/30
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent, Inspector General of Registration, setting aside the order passed by the second respondent, District Registrar, Salem, approving the amalgamation of the petitioner's Society with the 4th respondent society, namely, Salem Suyamariyathai Sangam.
2. The brief facts leading to file the writ petition are as follows :-
The petitioner is the Registrar Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, (herein after called as "Act)", by name, Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai, and the society has been registered on 13.03.1953, with the Registration No.5/53. Another Society, by name Salem Suyamariyathai Sangam, the 4th respondent herein, has been registered under the Act on 30.05.1957. Both the Societies were functioning at 3/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 Salem. According to the petitioner, both the societies are having common objects and the majority of the members in both Societies thought of merging the societies into one society for better utilization of the assets and available resources. Consequently, petitioner society passed a resolution on 26.04.1998, seeking for permission of the second respondent to merge both the societies into one entity. Likewise, 4th respondent society also passed a special Resolution on 01.08.1998, seeking similar permission for amalgamation.
Considering the resolution passed by both the societies, the second respondent, District Registrar, granted approval for the amalgamation in and by his proceedings dated 08.09.1998. Thereafter, both the societies had been merged in the name of “Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai” with the registration No.36/2009.
2. Earlier one Natesan, a founder member of the 4th respondent society had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8637 of 4/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 1999, challenging the amalgamation of both the societies on the ground that, the objects of both the societies are different, hence, the societies cannot be merged. The writ petition was allowed by this Court setting aside the order of amalgamation and the Appeal filed by the petitioner in W.A.No.1162 of 2006 was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 04.02.2008. Thereafter, the third respondent herein, who is not a member of both societies, had filed an appeal before the first respondent, challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent, and also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30009 of 2012 seeking for speedy disposal of the appeal. This Court disposed the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to dispose the appeal on merit. Consequent to the order passed by this Court, the first respondent passed the impugned order setting aside the order passed by the second respondent, on the ground that, the amalgamation of both the societies are not in accordance with law, and consequently directed the second respondent to initiate further proceedings under Sections 40, 42 and 44 of the Act. 5/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent on the ground that, the third respondent has no locus-standi to challenge the order passed by the second respondent. Earlier, the writ petition filed by one Natesan, who was a member of the 4th respondent Society challenging the order passed by the second respondent has been allowed, subsequently, a writ appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed setting aside the order passed in the writ petition. Hence, the second writ petition challenging the very same order passed by the second respondent is not maintainable, that apart the present appeal has been filed with a delay of more than 13 years, which is barred by limitation. As the object of the petitioner and 4th respondent's societies are one and the same, both the societies had passed a special resolution as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act, and there is no impediment for amalgamation of the two societies. The first respondent, without considering the objects of the societies, has mechanically passed the impugned order.
6/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
4. Pending writ petition, the Salem Syuamariyathai Sangam has been impleaded as fourth respondent.
5. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit, interalia contending that, the object of the societies are totally different, on a mis-representation the societies have been amalgamated. Petitioner society was started by a particular community people for the welfare and promotion of that community people residing in a particular locality in Salem Town. The prime object of the petitioner society was to give education to the students, who belongs to Devanga community, where as 4th respondent society is a rational thinking society, working against the discrimination of the people on the ground of caste, religion, etc., the 4th respondent society is also opposed to superstitious belief and caste. However, with the aim to snatch the property of the 4th respondent society, by a collusive act, on misrepresentation, both the societies were merged and the second respondent, without considering the object of both the societies, mechanically 7/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 approved the amalgamation, which was rightly rejected by the first respondent. So far as the earlier writ petition filed by Natesan, challenging the amalgamation is concerned, the writ petition was originally allowed, later the writ appeal filed by the petitioner herein was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court, on the ground that, under Section 30(3) of the Act, no amalgamation or division of registered society shall have effect until and unless a new society is duly registered in accordance with provisions of the Act. Therefore, until the amalgamated society is registered in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, no prejudice will be caused to the writ petitioner, and the writ appeal was not allowed on merits. Now, amalgamated society has been registered as per Section 30(3) of the Act. Hence, that order was challenged, and there is no bar for the same. According to the third respondent , it is the parent body, which was established by the Periyar E.V.Ramasamy, president of the Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution, who was the patron of the 4th respondent society. That apart, one of the 8/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 founder members of the 4th respondent society, namely, R.Natesan, sent a letter to the third respondent requesting to challenge the amalgamation and requested to pursue the appeal as he was seriously ill. Hence, the third respondent has proceeded with the appeal and his locus-standi cannot be questioned. The first respondent considering the entire issue in proper perspective, rightly allowed the appeal. It is also stated that after the order passed by the first respondent, 4th respondent society got revived on 03.07.2013 and Dr.K.Veeramani, Life Secretary of the Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution, the 3rd respondent herein, has become patron of the Sangam and 4th respondent society also now functioning as per bye-laws and conducting executive committee meetings periodically.
6. The fourth respondent 4th respondent society also filed a counter affidavit with identical averments contains in the third respondent counter affidavit.
9/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
7. Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner would contend that, first respondent ought not to have entertained the appeal filed by the third respondent, who has no locus standi at all to challenge the order of amalgamation, that too after 13 years of the order passed by the second respondent, and the appeal itself barred by limitation. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the object of both the societies are one and the same, and after following the mandate of Section 30 of the Act, a special resolution has been passed unanimously by the members of both the societies, and an approval was also obtained from the second respondent before merger under Section 30(2) of the Act. The second respondent after considering the object of both the societies, after being satisfied has approved the amalgamation. Subsequently, a new society has also been registered with a new bye-law. According to him, even assuming that the objects of both the societies are different, it is not a bar for amalgamation of the societies. According to him, what is required under the Act is only a special 10/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 resolution be passed by the members of both the societies and obtain a prior approval, which has been duly done in the instant case. But the first respondent without considering the same, has mechanically set-aside the order on the ground, the object of both the societies are different and erroneously held that the third respondent has locus-standi to maintain the appeal.
8. According to the learned senior counsel, against the order passed by the second respondent Section 30 of the Act, no appeal is provided under the Act and entertaining the appeal itself not valid and without jurisdiction, on that ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel, appearing for the third respondent would contend that the object of both the societies are totally different. Petitioner society is a society formed by a particular community with a sole object of promoting interest of their community people, where as 4th 11/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 respondent society is a society formed by rational thinking people, who are opposed to superstitious belief, caste, religion and formed with the object for the welfare of the women and downtrodden people. When the 4th respondent society is totally opposed to the caste and religion, it cannot be said that both the societies have identical object. But, on a mis-representation that the objects of both the societies are identical, a special resolution came to be passed and the amalgamation was sought for, the second respondent also without looking into the object of the societies granted approval mechanically on the ground that the object of both the societies are identical in total non-application of mind. According to the learned senior counsel before amalgamation, the mandatory requirement under the 30 of the Act, was not followed. Under Section 30(1) of the Act, only after obtaining a prior approval for amalgamation, the societies can pass a special resolution. Whereas, in the instant case, no such prior approval was granted by the registrar and only after passing the special resolution, the approval was granted, which is totally 12/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 against the mandatory provisions of Section 30 of the Act. Hence, the approval itself is without jurisdiction and not valid in the eye of law.
10. According to the learned Senior Counsel, so far as the locus standi of the third respondent to pursue the appeal is concerned, the third respondent is the parent body of the self respect propaganda institutions, which was established by the Periyar E.V.Ramasamy, and 4th respondent society is part of the parent body, in which, Periyar E.V.Ramasamy, was the patron, and the third respondent has a lien over the 4th respondent society. That apart one Natesan, one of the founder members of the society, has opposed the amalgamation, earlier filed a writ petition and requested the third respondent to pursue the appeal due to his illhealth. In the above circumstances, the third respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent and the locusstandi of the third respondent cannot be questioned . That apart, the impugned order has been passed by the first 13/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 respondent invoking his power under Section 52 of the Act. Hence, the question of locus standi or limitation cannot be raised in the writ petition. The first respondent after considering the entire materials in proper perspective has rightly set aside the order passed by the second respondent and there is no illegality in it.
11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on records carefully.
12. An order of amalgamation of two societies is in dispute. The petitioner's society and the fourth respondent's society sought for an amalgamation, which was approved by the second respondent by an order dated 08.09.1998, which was set aside by the first respondent by the impugned order dated 19.06.2013, it is under challenge now.
14/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
13. Before considering the rival contention it is useful to refer the relevant provision of the Act. Section 30 of the Act deals with the amalgamation of the society, which reads as follows :-
"30 . Amalgamation and division of registered societies :-
(1) Any two or more registered societies may with the prior approval of the Registrar, by special resolution of both or all such registered societies, become amalgamated together as one society, with or without any dissolution or division of the funds of those registered societies or any of them.
(2) Any registered society may with the prior approval of the Registrar, by special resolution, divide itself into two or more societies. The resolution shall contain 15/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 proposals for the division of the assets and liabilities of the registered society among the new societies into which it is proposed to divide it and may specify the area of operation of, and the members whom will constitute,, each of the new societies.
(3) No amalgamation or division of a registered society under sub-section (1) or sub-section(2), as the case may be, shall have any effect until and unless the new society or societies is or are duly registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
(4) Upon the registration of the new society or societies, as the case may be, the assets and liabilities of the original registered society or societies shall, subject to the provisions of Section 18, be transferred to, and be the assets and liabilities of the new society 16/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 or societies, in the manner specified in the special resolution mentioned in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be."
14. Under Section 30(1) of the Act, any two or more registered societies could be amalgamated with a prior approval of the registrar, and by a special resolution by both the societies, become amalgamated as one society. On a careful reading of the above provision, it could be seen that, before passing a special resolution for amalgamation, a prior approval of the Registrar is required for such amalgamation. In the instant case, perusal of records shows that the petitioner Society passed a special resolution on 26.04.1998 for amalgamation with the 4th respondent society. Likewise, the 4th respondent society also passed a special resolution on 01.08.1998, expressing their unanimous approval for amalgamation. Thereafter the petitioner society submitted a representation before the second respondent on 27.08.1998, seeking for approval for amalgamation. 17/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 Considering the above representation, the second respondent passed an order on 08.09.1998 giving approval on the ground that both the societies have common, similar and identical objects and the amalgamation can be permitted. Thereafter, a new society has been registered in the name of “Manurkula Devanga Vasaga Salai” on 20.02.2009 with a registration No.36/2009.
15. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the procedure followed by the second respondent is contrary to Section 30(1) of the Act. Before seeking for amalgamation, a prior approval from the District Registrar should be obtained, only thereafter, the societies can pass a special resolution for amalgamation. But, in the instant case, without getting prior approval from Registrar, the special resolution has been passed for amalgamation, thereafter only the second respondent granted an approval on 08.09.1998, which is not permissible under law. I find much force in the above 18/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 submission, before convening a general meeting for passing a special resolution seeking for amalgamation of societies, the society should get a prior approval from the Registrar as per section 30(1) of the Act. Only after obtaining the prior permission, they can convene a general body meeting and pass a special resolution seeking for amalgamation of the societies . But in the instant case, a special general body meeting has been convened and passed the special resolution even without getting the prior approval from the second respondent which is in violation of Section 30(1) of the Act.
16. That apart, a perusal of the order passed by the second respondent dated 08.09.1998, it is seen that, the approval has been granted on the ground that both the petitioner and 4 th respondent societies have common and identical object. From the perusal of original records shows that the approval has been granted only on the ground that the object of both the societies are one and the same, and the resolutions have been passed 19/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 stating that the objects are one and the same. Now, it is contended that the objects of the societies are diametrically opposite to each other, and on mis-representation, the petitioner got the approval for amalgamation. The original bye-laws of both the societies have also been placed before this Court, the second respondent also produced the original records. A perusal of the bye-laws of the petitioner society, it is seen that, the object was to give elementary education to the children belongs to the “ Devangar community” and to provide free education to them. The object and qualification to become a member reads as follows :
** v/ njth';f Fyj;jth;fspd; Mz;? bgz;
Mfpa ,U juj;jth;fspd; fy;tpahtph;j;jpapd; bghUl;L? Kf;fpakhf Fhe;ijfspd; Muk;gf; fy;tp 1MtJ Kjy; 5Mk; tFg;g[tiu jdpj;jdpahf Mz;?bgz; ghlrhiyfshf itj;J ,ytyrkhaf;
fy;tp nghjpj;J tUjy;/ ////// //////////11/ ,t;thrf rhiyf;F 25 taJf;F 20/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 nkwg;gl;lth;fs; g[jpa $%tpa fhy m';fj;jpdh;fsha; nruyhk;/ Mdhy; ,jpy; nru tpUk;gk[ ; m';fj;jpdh;fs; njth';f Fyj;jth;fsha[k;.
nryk; lt[d; brt;tha;ngl;il njth';fHfk; m';fj;Jf;Fs; trpf;ff; Toath;fsha[k; ,Uf;f ntz;Lk;/ ** the qualification to become member of the petitioner society is that the member should belongs to Devanga Community and residing SevvaiPettai at Salem Town. Whereas the object of the 4th respondent society is to spread healthy political knowledge, to eradicate the discrimination in the name of caste and religion, to encourage inter-caste marriage, and registered marriage, and to fight for equal rights for the women,etc., which reads as follows :
2. r';fj;jpd; nehf;f';fs;
1. eyd; tpistpf;Fk; murpay; mwpt[ gutr;
bra;tJ/ 2/ kf;fSf;Fk; rKjha eyj;jpw;Fk;bghJ 21/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 thH;t[f;Fk; Mfpaitfspy; ey;y gapw;rpia cz;lhf;FtJ/
3./ kf;fis mtuth;fsJ gFj;jwpt[ Muha;r;rpapd;go elf;Fk;goa[k; K:l ek;gpf;iffSf;F moikg;glhky; ,Uf;Fk;goa[k; bra;tJ/ 4/ kf;fis mtuth;fsJ thH;f;ifapy;
kjrk;ge;jkhfkt[k; rKjha rk;ke;jkhft[k; eilbgUk;
fhhpa';fspy; bghUsw;wJk; njitaw;wJkhd rl';FfspypUe;J tpLgLk;go bra;tJk; mitfSf;fhf gzk; brytplr; bra;ahky; ,Uf;ft[k; bra;tJ/ 5/ rKjhaj;jpy; ,Ue;JtUk; rhjp. kj. tFg;g[ Mfpa ngj';fs; xHpj;J fyg;g[ kzk;. gjpt[ kzk;. g[nuhfpjkw;w kzk; Kjypaitfs; elf;Fk;go bra;tJ/ 6/ kf;fs; ahtiua[k; rhprkdhd xnu rKjhakhf Mf;FtJ/ 7/ Mz; bgz; thH;f;ifapy; bgz;fSf;'Fk;.
Mz;fisg; nghynt mnefkhf vy;yh JiwfspYk;
rk chpik Vw;gLk;go bra;tJ/
8/ nryk; khtl;lk; jhYf;fh v';Fk;
fpuhk';fspYk;. thh;LfspYk; gy r';f';fis
22/30
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
Vw;gLj;JtJ/
9/ M';fh';F E}y;epiyak;. thrfrhiy
Vw;gLj;JtJ/
10/ r';f bfhs;iffis gpurhuk; bra;tJ
11/ r';f bfhs;iffs;. gpurhuj;jpw;fhf
gj;jphpf;if elj;JtJ g[j;jf';fs;; mr;rplL ; mlf;f tpiyf;F kf;fSf;F tpdpnahfpg;gJ/ **
17. A cursory reading of the objects of both the societies, it is seen that they are diametrically opposite to each other, and it cannot be said that both the societies have common object. However, the second respondent granted approval only on the ground that both the societies have common and identical object. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent, the approval was obtained on misrepresentation, and the second respondent without considering the objects of the societies in proper perspective has mechanically granted approval.
23/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
18. That apart, from the perusal of the original records, it is seen that, the 4th respondent society was registered in the year 1957 and at the time of passing the resolution for amalgamation in the year 1998, as per Form-VI, filed by the 4th respondent before the Registrar, there were 22 members, out of them, 11 members have joined the society between 1993 and 1995, and the oldest member available in the 4th respondent, has joined the society in the year 1972. In the said circumstances, the contention of the third respondent, that the newly joined members had played a role in the amalgamation, without considering the object of the society, also cannot be brushed aside.
19. The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the third respondent has no locusstandi to file an appeal against the order passed by the second respondent, that too, after 13 years, which is barred by limitation. That apart, the earlier writ petition, filed by one of the 24/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 founder members of the 4th respondent society has been dismissed by this Court. Hence, the second writ petition is not maintainable. The third respondent is a self respect propoganda Institution, originally founded by “ Periyar” E.V.Ramasamy, affectionally called as "Thanthai Periyar", which is called as Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution. The Society has been started in the year 1925, for the upliftment of poor and downtrodden people, to promote equality, empowering women in the society, it is totally against the caste system and also opposed the superstitious belief. Thereafter, similar societies have been formed in various parts of Tamilnadu. According to the third respondent, the 4th respondent society is one such society, which had a lien to the third respondent. Thanthai Periyar was the patron of the 4th respondent society, which has been formed with a similar object as that of the third respondent. According to the third respondent, the 4th respondent society was registered in the year 1957, now some of the newly joined members of the society with a malafide 25/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 intention to grab the property belongs to the 4th respondent, passed a resolution in collusion with the petitioner's society and sought for amalgamation. It was opposed by one of the founder members, by name Natesan, and he has filed a writ petition challenging the amalgamation, and on the request made by the said Natesan, the third respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent against the order of amalgamation, hence, the third respondent has locus-standi to file the writ petition .
20. The first respondent in the impugned order has elaborately considered the issue of locus-standi as well as the limitation, and elaborately considered the object of both the societies, has held that the third respondent has locus-standi to challenge the order passed by the second respondent. Further the first respondent has invoked the power conferred on him under Section 52 of the Act, and came to a conclusion that the order passed by the second respondent is not in accordance with the Act, and held that granting approval for the amalgamation is erroneous and set aside the same.
26/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
21. Section 52 of the Act is a general power of superintendence, bestowed on the first respondent over the Registrars functioning under this Act, which reads as follows :
52. Powers of Inspector General of Registration :-
1. The Inspector General of Registration shall have superintendence over all other Registrars functioning under this Act."
Under Section 52, the first respondent, exercising his power of Superintendence, is entitled to set aside any illegal order passed by the District Registrars. Once the 1st respondent exercising his power under Section 52 of the Act, the question of limitation, or locus-standi of 3rd respondent do not arise. In the instant case, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order exercising his power of Superintendence over the 2nd respondent and set aside the order, so the contention of the petitioner regarding limitation and locus-standi cannot be countenanced.
27/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013
22. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the first respondent has rightly held that amalgamation has been done without following the mandatory requirement under Section 30 of the Act and also based on misrepresentation, and set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the first respondent. Hence, I find no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
23. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.01.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes Speaking/Non-speaking order mrp Note : Issue order copy on 22.01.2020.
28/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 To
1. The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.
2. The District Registrar, Salem.
3. The Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution rep. by its Secretary Mr.K.Veeramani, E.V.K.Sampath Salai, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
4. Salem Suyamariyathai Sangam, rep. by its President, Palani Pullaiyanan, No.287-290 Trichy Main Road, Dhathagapatti , Salem 6 29/30 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 V.BHARATHIDASAN, J mrp Pre-delivery order in W.P. No. 21277 of 2013 Dated :13.01.2020 30/30 http://www.judis.nic.in