Madras High Court
Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 March, 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05-03-2013
CORAM:
THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
W.P.(MD) Nos. 13759 of 2011
and
2582, 5948, 8451, 15398,15403, 16595 to 16599 of 2012
And
1124 of 2013
and
connected M.Ps.(MD) batch.
Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi
Registered Society,
Represented by its Secretary,
K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan,
Govindarajan Campus,
Tirupalai, Madurai
Madurai District-625 014. .. Petitioner in WPs 13579/2011 & 2582,5948
8451,15398 & 15403/2012
R-3 in WPs 16595,16596,16597,16598 &
16599/2012 & 1124/2013
R.K.Sundar Raman .. Petitioner in WP 16595/2012
A.Ganapathy .. Petitioner in WP 16596/2012
T.Baskar Rajendran .. Petitioner in WP 16597/2012
R.Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner in WP 16598/2012
Dr.R.Gopal .. Petitioner in WP 16599/2012
K.Alagu Sundaram .. Petitioner in WP 1124/2013
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009. .. R-1 in WPs 2582,5948 & 8451/2012
The Director of Collegiate Education,
College Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006. .. R-2 in WPs 2582,5948,8451,
R-1 in WPs 16595,16596,16597,
16598 & 16599/2012 & 1124/2013
The Regional Joint Director of
Collegiate Education (FAC),
Madurai Region,
Madurai 625 020. .. R-3 in WPs 2582,5948 & 8451/2012
The Inspector General of Registration.
120, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 028. .. R-1 in WPs 13579/2011 & 15398/2012
The Deputy Inspector General of Registration,
Jawans Bhavan, II Floor, West Veli Street,
Near Thanga Regal Theatre,
Madurai-625 001. .. R-2 in WP 13579/2011
The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Madurai Region,
Madurai-625 020. .. R-2 in WPs 16595,16596,16597,
16598 & 16599/2012 & 1124/2013
Yadava College (Co-education),
Thiruppalai, Madurai-625 014,
Represented by its Secretary. .. R-4 in WPs 16595,16596,16597,
16598 & 16599/2012 & 1124/2013
The Registrar of Societies,
(Madurai North), Bibikulam,
Madurai-625 002. .. R-3 in WP 13579/2011 /
R-4 in WP 2582/2012 /
R-4 in WP 5948/2012
R-4 IN WP 8451/2012
R-2 in WP 15398/2012 /
R-1 in WP 15403/2012
S.Santhanakrishnan .. R-5 in WPs 2582,5948&8451/2012
Dr.Jeyabalan .. R-5 in WP 16596/2012
K.Santhanakaruppasamy .. R-6 in WPs 2582,5948&8451/2012
Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan .. R-7 in WPs 2582,5948&8451/2012
N.Kannan .. R-4 in WP 13579/2011 /
R-8 in WPs 2582,5948&8451/2012 /
R-3 in WP 15398/2012 /
R-2 in WP 15403/2012
M.Meiyadav .. R-5 in WP 13579/2011 /
R-10 in WPs 2582,5948 & 8451/2012/
R-4 in WP 15398/2012
L.Nandagopal Yadav .. R-6 in WP 13579/2011 /
R-9 in WPs 2582,5948&8451/2012 /
R-5 in WP 15398/2012
RS.Raja Kannappan .. R-7 in WP 13579/2011 /
R-11 in WPs 2582,5948 & 8451/2012/ R-6 in WP 15398/2012
WP(MD) 13579/2011:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned Notices issued by the first respondent-Inspector General of Registration vide Ref.No.24774/12/2011 dated 8.11.2011 and further Notice in Ref.No.24774/12/2011 dated 22.11.2011 directing the petitioner to appear before him for enquiry in regard to the election in the petitioner-Society and quash the same.
WP(MD)2582 /2011:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to impugned order issued by the second respondent-Director of Collegiate Education in Rc.No.17265/G4/2011 dated 27.2.2012 and the consequent proceedings issued by the third respondent-Joint Director of Collegiate Education in Rc.No.3935/B2/2011 dated 28.2.2012 and quash the same.
WP(MD) 5948/2012:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent-Director of Collegiate Education to consider and pass orders forthwith on the petitioner's proposal to him dated 30.4.2011 together with the reminders thereto dated 18.10.2011 and 12.12.2011 for the registration of the Secretary of the Yadhava College run by the petitioner.
WP(MD) 8451/2012:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to impugned order issued by the third respondent-Joint Director of Collegiate Education in Na.Ka.No.3935/Aa2/2011 dated 18.6.2012 and quash the same.
WP(MD) 15398 /2012:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned confidential report of the first respondent Inspector General of Registration dated 28.3.2012 and quash the same.
WP(MD) 15403/2012:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent-Registrar of Societies to register/file the Form-VII submitted by the petitioner-Society on 28.7.2011 under Rule 17 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules 1978 in regard to the change effected in the constitution of the Executive Committee of the petitioner-Society vide resolutions dated 30.4.2011.
WP(MD) 16595/2012:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned and the subsequent proceedings issued by the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.3935/A2/2011-1 dated 29.6.2012 and in Na.Ka.No.3935/A4/2011-1 dated 16.11.2012 and quash the same.
WP(MD) 16596/2012:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.3935/A2/2011-1 dated 29.6.2012, quash the same and further direct the third and fourth respondents herein to sanction and disburse the monthly salary arrears and other dues to the petitioner.
WP(MD) 16597/2012:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned and the subsequent proceedings issued by the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.3935/A2/2011-1 dated 29.6.2012 and in Na.Ka.No.3935/A4/2011-1 dated 16.11.2012 and quash the same.
WP(MD) 16598/2012:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned and the subsequent proceedings issued by the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.3935/A2/2011-1 dated 29.6.2012 and in Na.Ka.No.3935/A4/2011-1 dated 16.11.2012 and quash the same.
WP(MD) 16599/2012:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned and the subsequent proceedings issued by the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.3935/A2/2011-1 dated 29.6.2012 and in Na.Ka.No.3935/A4/2011-1 dated 16.11.2012 and quash the same.
WP(MD) 1124/2013:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.3935/A4/2011-1 dated 30.11.2012 and quash the same.
For Petitioner in all WPs : Mr.E.V.N.Siva
For Official Respondents in all WPs : Mr.K.Chella Pandian,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.K.Baskarapandian,
Special Government Pleader.
For Mr.C.Gopalakrishnan : Mr.M.Marappan
For the former General Secretary
of the Society N.Kannan and
Mr.Mei Yadav : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
For Mr.T.Gopi (Impleaded Party) : Ms.Jessie Jeeva Priya
For Mr.L.Nandagopal Yadav : Mr.S.Louis
For Parties-in-Person : Mr.L.Nandagopal Yadav and
Mr.S.Santhanakrishnan.
C O M M O N O R D E R
As indicated in Mahabharata, the fight among the people of the Yadhava Community appears to continue, ever since the departure of Lord Krishna and the present litigation is reflective of the same.
2. Though for the disposal of all the writ petitions on hand, it is may not be absolutely essential to trace the entire history of the litigation between the parties, a brief narration would provide the broad canvas on which they are fought and throw light upon the remedy needed to cure the malady. Therefore, the history is recorded as follows:-
(i) A Society by name Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi was formed in the year 1962 and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with Registration No.85 of 1962, as seen from the Certificate dated 30.11.1962. The objects for which the Society was formed, was to establish High Schools, Arts and Science Colleges and Engineering and Technological Institutes and Colleges, primarily for the benefit of students belonging o the Yadhava Community. To grab power and to indulge in perennial litigation was certainly not one of the objects for which the society was formed.
(ii) It appears that the members of the Society were divided into two categories viz., those who paid a donation of a particular amount and more and those who paid less. The bye-laws contemplated the Constitution of a Management Committee, known as "Governing Council", comprising of 41 members, with 20 elected from the first category of members and 21 elected from the second category of members. This Governing Council was supposed to elect among themselves, a set of office bearers including the President, the Vice President, Treasurer, General Secretary and an Auditor.
(iii) The Society established a College by name Yadhava College in the year 1969. In the year 1975, the State Government enacted the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It was followed by the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Therefore, the Society viz., Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi became automatically obliged to comply with the requirements of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the College established by the Society became obliged to be administered in conformity with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. It is relevant to note that the Yadhava College receives grant-in-aid from the State of Tamil Nadu.
(iv) In an election held in November 2000, a set of office bearers were elected for the Society. They in turn elected the Governing Council for the College. One Mr.A.R.Chandran was nominated as the Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the College on 1.12.2000 and the same was also approved by the Director of Collegiate Education by the proceedings dated 8.2.2011.
(v) The tenure of office of the said A.R.Chandran as the Secretary and Correspondent of the College, was to come to an end on 30.11.2003. But it appears that fresh elections could not be conducted due to the filing of certain cases.
(vi) Therefore, it appears that a General Body Meeting was convened on 14.12.2003 and a person by name C.Narayanan was temporarily nominated as Secretary, to function as such till elections are conducted. This meeting was presided over by one Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan and the Minutes of the said Meeting appears to have been signed by about 267 members. But unfortunately, the Minutes do not indicate clearly whether it was a General Body Meeting of the Society namely Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi. It gives an impression as though it was only a meeting of the College. The College was not an independent legal entity. The Society was the Educational Agency of the College and generally, elections are held only for the Society and not for the College. From among the elected members of the Society, one person is nominated as Secretary-cum-Correspondent and the Educational Agency not only nominates the Secretary of the College, but also nominates members to be part of the "College Committee", which is required to be constituted under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. But unfortunately, the office bearers of the society appear to have enrolled members both for the society and for the college, leading to utter chaos and confusion.
(vii) Overlooking the above distinction, the Director of Collegiate Education passed an order on 22.1.2004 approving the election of C.Narayanan as the temporary Secretary of the College till elections are conducted.
(viii) Challenging the said order of the Director of Collegiate Education, one A.Ramasamy who was earlier nominated by the Executive Committee of the Society as the Secretary of the College, filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 2489 of 2004 on the file of this Court. In the said writ petition, an interim order was passed on 30.3.2004, directing both the rival claimants viz., A. Ramasamy and C.Narayanan to carry on the day-to-day administration and affairs together.
(ix) But during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner A.Ramasamy was nominated to the Tamil Nadu Higher Education Council by the Government and hence he resigned his position as Secretary on 29.1.2007. In the meantime, the tenure of Mr.C.Narayanan also came to an end on 21.1.2007.
(x) Therefore, the Executive Committee of the Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi passed a resolution on 29.1.2007 nominating A.R.Chandran as the Secretary and one Mr.Solai Malai as the Chairman of the College. These persons appear to have filed Forms VI and VII with the District Registrar of Societies, who in turn, appear to have accepted those Forms on 17.4.2007. Consequently, the Director of Collegiate Education passed an order on 25.4.2007, granting approval for the nomination of A.R.Chandran as the Secretary of the College in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976.
(xi) But the said order of the Director of Collegiate Education became the subject matter of a writ petition in W.P.No.4723 of 2007, filed by the aforesaid C.Narayanan. His primary contention was that he was appointed by an interim order passed by this Court on 30.3.2004 in a writ petition filed by A.Ramasamy in W.P.No.2489 of 2004 and that since that writ petition had not been disposed of, the interim order passed therein was still in force and that therefore, the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 25.4.2007 amounted to an interference with the administration of justice.
(xii) Thereafter an emergency meeting of the Executive Committee was purportedly convened on 19.9.2007 and a Resolution is said to have been passed therein, removing Mr.A.R.Chandran from the post of Secretary. Challenging the Resolution so passed, A.R.Chandran filed a civil suit in O.S. No.445 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, praying for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining one Mr.N.Kannan, who was the author of the Resolution, dated 19.9.2007, from interfering with his day-to-day functioning as Secretary of the College. Pending suit, A.R.Chandran also obtained an interim order of injunction in I.A.No.738 of 2007.
(xiii) On 30.7.2008, the Sub Court dismissed the application for injunction I.A.No.738 of 2007, holding that there was no impediment for the Director of Collegiate Education to pass orders on the Resolution dated 19.9.2007.
(xiv) Therefore, the Director of Collegiate Education passed an order on 4.9.2008, approving the Resolution dated 19.9.2007, removing A.R. Chandran from the post of Secretary and also directing the Executive Committee to nominate a new Secretary and to send fresh proposals.
(xv) But one Mr.S.Santhanakrishnan sent a representation dated 16.9.2008 to the Director of Collegiate Education, pointing out that the suit O.S.No.445 of 2007 was still pending and that an injunction granted in another application in I.A.No.191 of 2008 was still in force. Upon receipt of such a representation, the Director of Collegiate Education passed another order dated 17.9.2008, cancelling her earlier order dated 4.9.2008 and directing the parties to maintain the status-quo that prevailed before 4.9.2008.
(xvi) But the proceedings dated 17.9.2008 issued by the Director of Collegiate Education (ordering status-quo) became the subject matter of a writ petition in W.P.No.8735 of 2008, at the instance of one Mr.N.Kannan, describing himself as the General Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi. It was his contention that immediately after the first order of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 4.9.2008, approving the removal of A. R.Chandran, the Executive Committee met on 7.9.2008 and nominated another person by name Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan.
(xvii) But all the above proceedings were resolved at one stroke by providence, when A.R.Chandran died on 24.12.2008. Thereafter, a meeting of the General Body was purportedly held on 28.12.2008 and a person was elected as the Secretary. I do not know how a General Body Meeting could have been convened within 4 days of the death of A.R.Chandran, since any meeting of the General Body, whether ordinary or extraordinary, could have been convened only after issuing a notice of a particular duration, which could not be just 4 days. There is one more difficulty about this meeting. Similar to the meeting held on 14.12.2003, this meeting held on 28.12.2008 was also not that of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi, but that of the College. There could not have been any General Body for the College, as the College is not the Society registered under the Act.
(xviii) However, on the basis of the General Body so convened on 28.12.2008 (within 4 days of the death of A.R.Chandran and without any notice of the convening of the meeting) Form 6 was filed with the Director of Collegiate Education.
(xix) Interestingly, on the basis of the meeting held on 28.12.2008, 5 persons staked conflicting claims to Secretaryship. They are (i) Dr.C. Gopalakrishnan (ii) T.Solaimalai (iii) S.Santhanakrishnan and K.Santhana Karuppasamy together (iv) K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan.
(xx) Out of the above, the claim made by Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan, appears to have been received first, by the Director of Collegiate Education and hence by the proceedings dated 31.12.2008, the Director of Collegiate Education granted approval for the nomination of Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan as the Secretary of the College. But upon being informed by the Regional Joint Director that there were other claimants, the Director of Collegiate Education passed a fresh order dated 9.1.2009, approving the appointment of Mr.K.P. Navaneetha Krishnan.
(xxi) By the said order dated 9.1.2009, the Director of Collegiate Education accepted the claim of K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan and rejected the claims of the others, for certain reasons. The claim of T.Solaimalai was rejected by the Director on the simple ground that his claim was not based upon any election. The claims of S.Santhanakrishnan and K.Santhana Karuppasamy were rejected, since their claim was based only upon a Scheme suit filed by them in O.S.No.587 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing a Scheme for the administration of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi. The claim of Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan was rejected on the ground that in the Resolution dated 28.12.2008 relied upon by him, only 8 persons had signed, in contrast to the Resolution produced by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, that contained the signatures of 256 persons.
(xxii) The said order of the Director dated 9.1.2009 became the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition W.P.No.359 of 2009, filed by Dr. C.Gopalakrishnan. Pending writ petition, an interim stay was granted on 21.1.2009, which was later modified on 29.1.2009 into one of status-quo as on 20.1.2009.
(xxiii) The order of the Director dated 9.1.2009 was challenged in one more writ petition viz., W.P.No.1194 of 2009, by 2 persons by name S. Santhanakrishnan and K.Santhana Karuppasamy (who had filed a Scheme suit under Section 92).
(xxiv) But in the meantime, K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan issued a newspaper advertisement on 13.1.2009, convening a meeting of the General Body on 4.2.2009. Again the meeting was supposed to be that of the General Body of the "Yadhava College" and not that of the Society "Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi".
(xxv) Immediately, a person by name T.Gopi, claiming to be a member of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi, filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 808 of 2009, assailing the meeting proposed to be convened on 4.2.2009 and seeking directions to the Registrar of Societies as well as the Director of Collegiate Education, not to act upon any Resolutions allegedly passed on 28.12.2008 or to be passed on 4.2.2009.
(xxvi) But it appears that K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, who had issued the newspaper advertisement on 13.1.2009, convening a meeting of the General Body (of the College and not of the Society) on 4.2.2009, went ahead with the meeting. He also filed Form No.VII with the Registrar of Societies, under Rule 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978, claiming that in the meeting held on 4.2.2009, Dr. C.Gopalakrishnan, T.Solaimalai, N.Kannan, A.Kesavan and M.P.Chinna Murugan as well as 6 others were removed respectively from the posts of President, Vice-President, General Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Committee Members. He also claimed that in the same meeting, A. Thangavelu, S.P.Sivarama Krishnan, K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, A. Krishnasamy, M.Pandy and 6 others were elected respectively as President, Vice-President, General Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Committee Members.
(xxvii) When K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan filed necessary Forms on the basis of the aforesaid meeting dated 4.2.2009, one N.Kannan, describing himself as the General Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2181 of 2009, seeking a Mandamus to direct the Registrar of Societies not to take on file, any Minutes, documents or resolutions filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan and his group.
(xxviii) But the said writ petition W.P.No.2181 of 2009 was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court on 15.10.2009, on the sole ground that the filing of Form Nos.VII and their acceptance by the Registrar, would not tantamount to a decision on the validity of the elections and that these are election disputes, liable to be thrashed out in civil proceedings.
(xxix) Thereafter, the Registrar of Societies appear to have accepted Form No.VII on 24.11.2009 and filed the same in his records. It appears that the address of the Office of the Society was also changed on 27.11.2009 and Form No.V filed in this regard was also accepted by the Registrar.
(xxx) Thereafter, the 2 writ petitions, one in W.P.No.359 of 2009 filed by Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan and another in W.P.No.1194 of 2009 filed by S.Santhanakrishnan and K.Santhana Karuppusamy came up for hearing. It may be recalled that these two writ petitions were filed challenging the order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 9.1.2009, approving the appointment of K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as Secretary of the College.
(xxxi) By an order dated 2.11.2010, both writ petitions were allowed and Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan, the petitioner in W.P.No.359 of 2009 was directed to continue as the Secretary of the Yadhava Educational Agency. However, it was made subject to the outcome of the Scheme suit O.S.No.587 of 2008. At the same time, the claim of the petitioners in W.P.No.1194 of 2009 to be the members of the Governing Council, was rejected.
(xxxii) However, the order of the learned Judge dated 2.11.2010 was stayed by a Division Bench in 2 writ appeals filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan in W.A.(MD) Nos.737 and 738 of 2010, on 8.11.2010. By the same order, the Division Bench allowed K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan to continue as the Secretary.
(xxxiii) Eventually, the writ appeals W.A.(MD) Nos.737 and 738 of 2010 were disposed of by a common order dated 27.1.2011, by the Division Bench. By the said order, the Division Bench upheld the conclusion reached by the learned single Judge that the order dated 9.1.2009 of the Director of Collegiate Education adversely affecting Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan, was liable to be set aside, on the ground of violation of natural justice, especially since his appointment as Secretary was approved by a previous order dated 31.12.2008. But the Division Bench held that once the order of the Director dated 9.1.2009 was set aside for violation of natural justice, the matter should go back to him for a fresh consideration. Therefore, the Division Bench directed the Director of Collegiate Education to reconsider the matter, hear all parties and then pass fresh orders, before the end of February 2011. At the same time, the Division Bench allowed the continuance of K.P. Navaneetha Krishnan as the Secretary, since by virtue of the status-quo order, he was admittedly continuing from 9.1.2009 as Secretary.
(xxxiv) In pursuance of the order of the Division Bench, the Director of Collegiate Education issued notices to all parties, held an enquiry and then passed a fresh order dated 28.2.2011. By the said order, the Director of Collegiate Education approved the appointment of K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as Secretary on the sole ground that the statutory forms filed by him on the basis of the Resolutions allegedly passed in the General Body Meeting held on 4.2.2009 had been accepted by the Registrar of Societies on 25.11.2009 and that the said action of the Registrar was not stayed, though challenged by Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan, in a writ petition W.P.No.1304 of 2011.
(xxxv) It appears that the order of the Division Bench in the writ appeals W.A.(MD) Nos.737 and 738 of 2010 dated 27.1.2011, was challenged by Dr.C.Gopalakrishnan in Special Leave Petition SLP(Civil) No. 6473 of 2011. But by the time the special leave petition came up for hearing on 1.4.2011, the Director of Collegiate Education had already passed orders on 28.2.2011, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench. Therefore, the Supreme Court permitted C.Gopalakrishnan to withdraw the special leave petition, to enable him to challenge the fresh order of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 28.2.2011. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court also expressed the view that the order of the Division Bench did not call for any interference.
(xxxvi) Thereafter, K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan issued a newspaper advertisement on 8.4.2011, calling for a meeting of the General Body on 30.4.2011. This time, the meeting was called in the name of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi.
(xxxvii) One of the items in the Agenda for the meeting was to elect a new Executive Committee for the Triennium 2011-2014. As a matter of fact, the Committee that claimed to be in Office at that time, was elected only in a meeting held on 4.2.2009 and hence in April 2011, the Committee including K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan had completed only a term of 2 years.
(xxxviii) However, it was claimed that in the meeting held on 30.4.2011, a new Committee was elected with A.Thangavelu as the President, S.P. Sivaramakrishnan as Vice President, K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as General Secretary, A.Krishnasamy as Joint Secretary, M.Pandy as Treasurer and 8 others as Executive Committee Members. It was claimed that they were elected for a period of 3 years.
(xxxix) Based upon the said election, the Educational Agency nominated K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the College and submitted necessary form for the approval of the Director of Collegiate Education. While filing Form 6 with the Director of Collegiate Education, it was claimed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan that an election was held on 30.4.2011 even before the completion of tenure of 3 years for the existing Committee, on account of the fact that as per the bye-laws, it was not possible to convene the General Body and hold an election in December 2011 (the date of expiry of 3 years from 28.12.2008 when the previous General Body was held).
(xl) Thereafter, a complaint was lodged by one N.Kannan describing himself as the General Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi. The complaint was lodged with the District Registrar of Societies and the Inspector General of Registration, alleging that K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan was indulging in illegal activities. On the said complaint, the District Registrar of Societies appears to have forwarded a report on 23.6.2011.
(xli) But in the meantime, the Director of Collegiate Education, by her proceeding dated 21.7.2011, demanded an explanation as to why a General Body was convened on 30.4.2011 when the existing Committee was still left with a tenure of nearly a year.
(xlii) Simultaneously, the Inspector General of Registration started calling for information about several issues pertaining to the Society, its meetings, the filing of statutory returns etc. Therefore, the District Registrar and the Deputy Inspector General of Registration conducted inspections and also submitted reports.
(xliii) Apart from the complaint lodged by N.Kannan on 24.5.2011, 2 other persons by name M.Mei Yadav and L.Nandagopal Yadav also lodged complaints on 16.7.2011 and 14.10.2011 with the Inspector General of Registration, alleging several irregularities against K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan and his group. On those complaints, the Inspector General of Registration issued a notice of enquiry on 8.11.2011. By a letter dated 16.11.2011, K.P. Navaneetha Krishnan requested for copies of the complaints and also requested for postponement of the enquiry till the copies of the complaints are furnished.
(xliv) After furnishing copies of the complaints, the Inspector General of Registration issued a fresh notice dated 22.11.2011, postponing the enquiry to 29.11.2011.
(xlv) Challenging the notices of enquiry dated 8.11.2011 and 22.11.2011, K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan filed a writ petition in W.P.No.13579 of 2011. It was filed by him, as the General Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi.
(xlvi) When the said writ petition came up for admission before me on 28.11.2011, I admitted the writ petition and passed a limited interim order prohibiting the Inspector General of Registration from holding any enquiry, in respect of the elections held 2009 or in respect of Forms VI and VII alone.
(xlvii) Since the interim order granted by me was limited only to two things viz., the holding of elections and the validity of Forms VI and VII, the Inspector General of Registration issued a fresh notice dated 13.12.2011, fixing the date of enquiry as 21.12.2011, in so far as the other aspects, except elections and Forms VI and VII.
(xlviii) Again K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan came up with a fresh writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.14504 of 2011, challenging the notice dated 13.12.2011 issued by the Inspector General of Registration, for proceeding with the enquiry, in respect of matters other than election and Forms VI and VII.
(xlix) When W.P.(MD) No.14504 of 2011 came up for admission on 22.12.2011, I gave a few suggestions and directed the other writ petition viz., W.P.(MD) Nos.13579 of 2011 also to be posted on 23.12.2011 for exploring the possibility of a permanent solution. But no solution was in sight and hence I passed an interim order in both the writ petitions on 23.12.2011. The said order can be usefully extracted as follows:-
"On 22.12.2011, when the case came up for hearing, I took note of the litigation pending before various Courts among the members of the Association. Therefore, to put an end to the acrimony and to the various litigations, I made the following suggestions to Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Chella Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel and Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent:
(i) that a retired Judge could be appointed to conduct elections after scrutinising the electoral rolls; and
(ii) that in the meantime, the Inspector General of Registration could proceed with the enquiry under Section 36 alone, but submit a report into Court in a sealed cover.
2. Though the suggestions were agreeable to Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, the other parties had some reservations. Therefore, I could not pass final orders.
3. In view of the above, the writ petitions are adjourned by 3 weeks. In the meantime, the Inspector General of Registration shall conduct an enquiry and the petitioner shall participate in the enquiry. But the report of the enquiry shall be submitted by the Inspector General of Registration in a sealed cover into Court. Until the Court passes any order, the Inspector General of Registration shall not take any action on the basis of his conclusion in the report.
4. Post after 3 weeks.
(l) In pursuance of the above order, the Inspector General of Registration proceeded with the enquiry under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and filed a Confidential Report in a sealed cover by the end of March 2012.
(li) In the meantime, the Director of Collegiate Education passed an order dated 27.2.2012, rejecting all proposals for approval of Secretaries and directing the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education to make necessary arrangements for the disbursement of salary directly to the teaching and non-teaching staff from February 2012 onwards. This order was passed in exercise of the power conferred by the Government under G.O. Ms.No.1021, Education Department, dated 2.9.1985 and it was declared that the said order would be in force till the conclusion of all the disputes between the warring groups.
(liii) In pursuance of the said order of the Director of Collegiate Education, dated 27.2.2012, the Regional Joint Director issued a communication dated 28.2.2012 to Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, informing him that she had taken over charge of the College with effect from the Afternoon of 28.2.2012.
(liv) Challenging the said order of the Director and Joint Director of Collegiate Education dated 27.2.2012 and 28.2.2012, K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, representing himself as the Secretary of the Society filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.2582 of 2012. Pending the said writ petition, the writ petitioner sought an interim stay of the impugned orders in M.P.No.2 of 2012.
(lv) On 2.3.2012, when the writ petition came up for admission, it was informed to the Court by the Additional Advocate General that the impugned orders had already been implemented. Therefore, the Court recorded that the question of stay did not arise. However, the Court directed status-quo as on 28.2.2012 to be maintained in the meantime.
(lvi) Thereafter, K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan filed yet another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.5948 of 2012, seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Director of Collegiate Education to consider and pass orders on the proposals filed by him on 30.4.2011, for the approval of himself as the Secretary of the College for a period of 3 years. When this writ petition came up for admission on 26.4.2012, this Court merely directed the same to be tagged along with the previous writ petition W.P.(MD) No.2582 of 2012 and posted in June 2012 after summer recess.
(lvii) But on 18.6.2012, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education passed yet another order, directing K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan to hand over the records relating to the Self-Financing Division of the College as well as the records relating to the Hostels, on or before 20.6.2012, failing which criminal proceedings would be initiated. By the same order, the Regional Joint Director cautioned K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan not to interfere in their administration, in view of the fact that his tenure had also come to an end on 28.2.2012 (after 3 years of the date of approval of the election held on 4.2.2009).
(lviii) The said order dated 18.6.2012 of the Regional Joint Director became the subject matter of another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.8451 of 2012, filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, representing himself as the Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi. The said writ petition was admitted on 25.6.2012.
(lix) All the above writ petitions viz., W.P.(MD) Nos.13579 and 14504 of 2011, 2582, 5948 and 8451 of 2012 got grouped together and came to be listed on various occasions before various learned Judges. Eventually, all of them came back before me, as things would happen in a vicious cycle, on 19.11.2012. At that time, it was pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that in pursuance of the order passed by me on 23.12.2011, in M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 in W.P.(MD) Nos.13579 and 14504 of 2011, the Inspector General of Registration had already completed an enquiry under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and that his Confidential Report submitted in the last week of March 2012, was lying in a sealed cover.
(lx) Therefore, in open Court, in the presence of all the learned counsel representing various groups as well as a few individuals appearing as parties in person, I opened the sealed cover on 19.11.2012 and made the Report public. I also passed an order permitting all parties to take copies of the Report and to file objections if necessary.
(lxi) After taking the certified copy of the Report dated 28.3.2012 of the Inspector General of Registration, K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan has come up with a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.15398 of 2012 challenging the same. Simultaneously, he also filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.15403 of 2012, seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the Registrar of Societies to take on file, Form VII submitted on 28.7.2011, in pursuance of the elections held on 30.4.2011, in terms of Rule 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978.
(lxii) Thereafter, W.P.No.13579 of 2011 and W.P.No.15398 of 2012 alone were listed and I heard arguments in these writ petitions and reserved orders on 4-12-2012. But while going through the papers I found that those 2 writ petitions can be disposed of together with the connected writ petitions. Hence I directed the Registry to post the other writ petitions viz., W.P.(MD) Nos.2582, 5948, 8451 and 15403 of 2012 also for hearing. In those writ petitions, I heard arguments and reserved orders on 7.1.2013.
(lxiii) But subsequently, another batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD) Nos.16595 to 16599 of 2012 came to be filed by the Superintendent, the Honorary Director of Physical Education, the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director of the Self Financing Division of the Yadhava College as well as the Principal of the Yadhava College of Education, challenging 2 orders of the Joint Director of Collegiate Education dated 29.6.2012 and 16.11.2012. By the order dated 29.6.2012, the Regional Joint Director relieved these persons from their respective posts in the Self Financing Division of the College and asking them not to enter into the College premises, on the ground that a criminal complaint had been registered in Crime No.95/2012, on 16.6.2012 for alleged offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. By the second order dated 16.11.2012, the Regional Joint Director informed the petitioners that they had illegally started signing the attendance register from 15.11.2012 despite the earlier order dated 29.6.2012. In these writ petitions, I ordered notice of motion on 19.12.2012, returnable by 11.1.2013 and heard the learned counsel as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and reserved orders on 11.1.2013, so that they could be conveniently disposed of along with the 2 batches in which orders were reserved on 4-12-2012 and 7.1.2013.
(lxiv) In the meantime, the Principal in-charge of the College came up with a fresh writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.1124 of 2013, challenging an order of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education dated 30.11.2012, by which she relieved the writ petitioner from the post of Principal in-charge and directed him to hand over charge to the Head of the Department of History. The writ petitioner was directed to continue in his substantive post namely, the post of the Head of the Department of Commerce.
(lxv) This writ petition came up for admission on 22.1.2013. Since the issues raised in this writ petition are also identical to the issues raised in the earlier writ petitions, I directed the learned Additional Advocate General to take notice and heard both sides and reserved orders on 29.1.2013.
(lxvi) Thus, 4 batches of writ petitions forming part of the same group of cases are disposed of by this order. The first batch of cases are in W.P.(MD) Nos. 13579 of 2011 and 15398 of 2012. The second batch of writ petitions are in W.P.(MD) Nos. 2582, 5948, 8541 and 15403 of 2012. The third batch of writ petitions are in W.P.(MD) Nos.16595 to 16599 of 2012 and the fourth is a single writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.1124 of 2013.
3. I have heard Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mr.K.Chella Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents, Mr.Marappan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.C.Gopalakrishnan, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing both for the former General Secretary of the Society N.Kannan and Mr.Mei Yadav, Ms.Jessie Jeeva Priya, learned counsel appearing for one of the impleaded parties viz., T.Gopi, Mr.S.Louis, learned counsel appearing for Mr.L.Nandagopal Yadav as well as 2 persons appearing as parties-in-person viz., L.Nandagopal Yadav and S.Santhanakrishnan. Before proceeding further, I should also record the fact that Mr.S.Nandagopal Yadav not only appeared as party-in-person, but also argued through his counsel, on the specious plea that there are several writ petitions and that he engaged a counsel in one and chose to argue the others by himself.
4. There are now 12 writ petitions on hand. But all of them fall under 4 categories and hence they can be grouped under these categories so that they can be disposed of category-wise, without dealing with each writ petitions separately. The categories are:
CATEGORY-1:
(i) W.P.No.13579 of 2011 filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi challenging the notices issued by the Inspector General of Registration on 8.11.2011 and 22.11.2011 for an enquiry into the affairs of the Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
(ii) W.P.No.15398 of 2012 filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi challenging the Report of the Inspector General of Registration dated 28.3.2012, after the conclusion of the enquiry.
(iii) W.P.No.15403 of 2012 filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi seeking a Mandamus to direct the Registrar of Societies to register Form VII submitted on 28.7.2011 on the basis of the elections held on 30.4.2011.
CATEGORY-2:
(i) W.P.No.2582 of 2012 filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi challenging an order dated 27.2.2012 passed by the Director of Collegiate Education and an order dated 28.2.2012 passed by the Regional Joint Director, for direct payment of grant and also taking over charge of the affairs of the College.
(ii) W.P.No.5948 of 2012 filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi seeking a Mandamus to direct the Director of Collegiate Education to approve the election of the Secretary in the elections held on 30.4.2011.
(iii) W.P.No.8451 of 2012 filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as Secretary of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi challenging the proceedings of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education dated 18.6.2012, directing the petitioner to hand over all documents relating to the Hostel in the College and also to handover the Self Financing Section of the College.
CATEGORY-3:
W.P.Nos.16595 to 16599 of 2012 filed by the staff working in the Self Financing Section of the College as well as the Principal of the College of Education, challenging the proceedings of the Regional Joint Director, dated 29.6.2012, relieving all of them and directing them not to enter into the College, in view of the registration of a criminal complaint.
CATEGORY-4:
W.P.No.1124 of 2013 filed by the Principal in-charge of the College, challenging his reversion as the Head of the Department of Commerce and the direction issued to him to handover the charge to the Head of the Department of History.
Now let me take up these cases category-wise.
CATEGORY-1:
5. As pointed out earlier, there are 3 cases in this category. They are W.P.Nos.13579 of 2011 and 15398 and 15403 of 2012. Out of these 3 cases, the first one challenges the notices of enquiry dated 8.11.2011 and 22.11.2011 issued by the Inspector General of Registration. The challenge to the notices was made primarily on the ground of jurisdiction of the Inspector General of Registration to go into election disputes. But upon finding that the notices of enquiry did not confine themselves to election disputes, I passed an interim order on 23.12.2011, prohibiting the Inspector General of Registration from going into the election disputes and disputes relating to Form VII, but permitting him to proceed with the enquiry under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act.
6. In pursuance of the said interim order, the Inspector General of Registration completed the enquiry and submitted a report in a sealed cover on 28.3.2012. The sealed cover was opened by me in Court on 19.11.2012 and certified copies were issued to all parties. Thereafter, the petitioner in W.P.No.13579 of 2011 has come up with the writ petition W.P.No.15398 of 2012, challenging the Report dated 28.3.2012.
7. Therefore, W.P.No.13579 of 2011 has virtually become infructuous, in view of the fact that the notices of enquiry impugned therein, have already outlived their purpose. These notices have actually resulted in a final report and the report is under challenge in another writ petition W.P.No.15398 of 2012. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction as well as all other questions raised in W.P.No.13579 of 2011 can be considered in the next writ petition. Hence, W.P.No.13579 of 2011 is dismissed as infructuous.
8. Now let me take up the grounds of challenge raised in W.P.No. 15398 of 2012, to the report of the Inspector General of Registration dated 28.3.2012. The grounds on which the very initiation of enquiry, as well as the final report are challenged, are:-
(i) that an enquiry under Section 36 cannot be conducted on the basis of individual representations or complaints, but can be initiated only on a representation of the majority of the members of the Committee or on a complaint lodged by one third of the members of the Society;
(ii) that as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in C.M.S. Evangelical David Memorial Secondary School case {2005 (2) MLJ 335}, the Registrar of Societies cannot conduct an enquiry into the validity of elections or the validity of Form VII submitted by one party;
(iii) that the election held on 4.2.2009 is already the subject matter of a civil suit in O.S.No.113 of 2011 and hence, the Registrar of Societies should have taken his hands off;
(iv) that despite the Act stipulating the invocation of Section 37 as the only consequence of an enquiry under Section 36, the respondent has recommended the invocation of Section 34-A for superseding the management;
(v) that the findings in the report regarding the number of members of the Society and the validity of the meetings held on 28.12.2008 and 4.2.2009, are completely perverse and without jurisdiction as the Civil Court was already seized of the matter;
(vi) that the membership of more than about 1,000 persons has been declared in the impugned report to be invalid, without even a notice to any of those members and hence, the report is also violative of the principles of natural justice.
9. In so far as the first ground is concerned, which relates to the circumstances under which an enquiry under Section 36 can be initiated, it is seen that the power conferred upon the Registrar under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, can be invoked under 4 contingencies. They are:- (i) of the Registrar's own motion or (ii) on an application of a majority of the members of the Committee of a Registered Society or (iii) on the application of not less than one third of the members of the Society or (iv) upon being moved by the District Collector.
10. In the case on hand, the notices of enquiry dated 8.11.2011 and 22.11.2011 contain references to the individual complaints lodged by 3 persons by name N.Kannan, M.Mei Yadav and L.Nandagopal Yadav. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that none of the above 4 contingencies prescribed in Section 36 is satisfied.
11. But a careful reading of the final report of the Inspector General of Registration dated 28.3.2012 would show that though the complaints lodged by the above named 3 individuals formed the catalysts that triggered an enquiry under Section 36, it was nevertheless a suo-motu enquiry. There are thousands of Societies in the Register of the Registrar of Societies and it is impossible for the Registrar to initiate an enquiry on his own motion under Section 36, by choosing Societies in a random manner. Just as the Income Tax Department selects cases for review in a random manner, the Registrar of Societies cannot initiate suo-motu enquiry under Section 36 at random.
12. If upon complaints made against a Society, the Registrar is satisfied, after looking into the track record of the Society, that an enquiry is to be initiated, he can always invoke his suo-motu jurisdiction under Section 36. If viewed in this manner, it could be seen that the complaints given by Kannan, Mei Yadav and Nandagopal Yadav merely acted like spark plugs, providing sparks for the ignition of an enquiry under Section 36. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the enquiry under Section 36 was solely on the complaint of these 3 individuals.
13. I have already indicated the entire history of litigation, for over a decade from the year 2000. In every litigation, the acceptance or non-acceptance of Form VII by the Registrar, became a contentious issue. When there were civil cases as well as writ petitions, in which the target of attack by all rival groups was primarily the Registrar of Societies, he had no alternative except to initiate an enquiry under Section 36 at the appropriate time. Due to the perennial litigation between rival groups, the heat was already increasing and the surcharged atmosphere required only a small spark in the form of some complaints, to catch fire. This is what has actually happened in this case and hence the enquiry now held, has to be treated only as a suo-motu enquiry and not as an enquiry in violation of the provisions of Section 36.
14. The report of the Inspector General dated 28.3.2012 also fortifies the above conclusion. Under Section 36, the Registrar is obliged to conduct an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered Society. In the report, the Registrar has gone into the entire constitution of the Society, taken note of the amendments made from time to time but omitted to be filed with the Registrar, analysed the membership history as well as the history of filing of returns by the Society, the litigations involving the rival groups and the financial conditions. Thus the Inspector General of Registration has gone into every aspect that he is required to go into, under Section 36. Therefore, the enquiry conducted was actually a suo-motu enquiry, which is permitted by Section 36. The complaints lodged by 3 individuals merely acted as catalysts. Therefore, the first ground of attack is rejected.
15. The second and third grounds of attack are that as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the Registrar cannot go into election disputes and that there is already a civil suit pending. This argument is actually well founded and there can be no quarrel about it. But a careful perusal of the report of the Inspector General of Registration shows that he has not actually gone into the election dispute between the parties. The report of the Inspector General of Registration is divided into several parts. They are (i) the bye-laws, the amendments effected from time to time, the effect of those amendments and the non-filing of the same (ii) the different types of members of the Society, the history of membership from 1963-1964 onwards upto 2008-2009, (iii) the history of filing of statutory returns by the Society, the orders condoning the delay in filing returns etc. (iv) the confusion prevailing in the minds of many, about the Society viz., Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi and the Constitution of the College viz., Yadhava College run by the Society, which has no independent legal existence (v) the annual accounts statements (vi) the disputes in the Society from 2003 onwards (vii) the allegations of financial impropriety made against the present set of office bearers, the reply of the office bearers and the findings of the Inspector General (viii) the amendments required to be made to the bye-laws, to make them come in tune with the Act and the Rules and (ix) the conclusions reached.
16. Thus, it is seen from the report that the Inspector General has gone into several aspects, under 9 different headings, none of which relate to the elections and the disputes relating to elections. Nevertheless, he has found out that the General Body Meetings allegedly held on 28.12.2008 and 4.2.2009 were not in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Sections 26 and 28 of the Act and Rules 25 and 27. This finding is arrived at not on the basis of numbers, but on the basis of the non-compliance with the statutory requirements. Unfortunately for the writ petitioner, the Inspector General of Registration had to do this limited exercise, since one of the writ petitions filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.15403 of 2012 is for a Mandamus to direct the Registrar to accept Form VII filed on the basis of a General Body Meeting held on 30.4.2011. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the Inspector General of Registration has decided an election dispute in violation of the law laid down by the Full Bench.
17. As I have pointed out in the preceding paragraph, the report of the Inspector General of Registration is divided into 9 parts. In the first part, he has found out that the Society was formed in 1962 and started a College in 1968. Therefore, a first amendment to the bye-laws was made in 1968, followed by amendments in 1970, 2007 and 2010. The last amendment is under consideration by the Registrar.
18. The second part of the report deals with membership history from 1963-1964 to 2008-2009. The details of members upto the period 2001-2002, recorded in the second part of the report, are based upon the returns filed after condonation of delay under G.O.RT.No.393 dated 25.8.2003.
19. In the next part of the report, the Inspector General of Registration has highlighted as to how a confusion prevailed, by admitting some persons as members of the Society and by admitting others as members of the General Body of the College. But the College is not a legal entity and hence the Inspector General of Registration has given a tabular column indicating the distinction.
20. In the next few parts of his report, the Inspector General of Registration has referred to the annual accounts, the disputes in the Society and the complaints lodged with him. After analysing all the above, the Inspector General of Registration came to the conclusion that the meetings held on 28.12.2008 and 4.2.2009 are in violation of statutory prescriptions. But this conclusion is based either upon admitted facts or upon obvious facts. These facts are as follows:-
(i) Admittedly, Mr.A.R.Chandran was the Secretary of the College when he died on 24.12.2008. Admittedly, an Extraordinary General Body Meeting was convened on 28.12.2008 in which K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan was elected. Therefore, the members would have had only a notice of 3 days duration. Such a meeting is obviously invalid.
(ii) Even the meeting held on 4.2.2009 suffered from similar illegalities. For the General Body Meeting convened on 4.2.2009, K.P. Navaneetha Krishnan issued a notice through newspapers on 14.1.2009. Let me assume that individual notices were also sent. But the notice was not for convening the General Body of the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi, it was for convening the meeting of the General Body of the College. As I have pointed out earlier, the College was not a registered Body Corporate, but was only an institution run by the Society. Therefore, the meeting convened on 4.2.2009 by issuing notices in the newspapers on 14.1.2009 could not be construed as a meeting of the Society.
(iii) Moreover, under Rule 27(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978, a notice of Extraordinary General Body Meeting convened in terms of Section 28 of the Act, shall be of a duration of 21 days. Between the date of paper publication (14.1.2009) and the date of the meeting (4.2.2009), there were only 20 days, if both days are excluded.
(iv) In any case, the notices did not contain any Agenda for the meeting, as required by Section 26(3) read with Section 28(3) of the Act. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Inspector General of Registration about the validity of the meetings dated 28.12.2008 and 4.2.2009 cannot be said to tantamount to a decision on an election dispute. Hence, the second and third objections to the enquiry as well as the enquiry report under Section 36 cannot be sustained.
21. The next ground of attack to the enquiry report dated 28.3.2012 is that an enquiry under Section 36 can only lead to an order under Section 37 and not to the invocation of Section 34-A. In his report dated 28.3.2012, the Inspector General of Registration has recommended to the Government, the invocation of Section 34-A and the appointment of a Special Officer. The concluding portion of the impugned report reads as follows:-
"Conclusion:
From the findings regarding allegation Nos.1,2,3 and 4 and other irregularities noted in conduct of the affairs of the Society and the College, it is concluded that the supposed EGM conducted by Thiru K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan on 28.12.2008 is found to be bogus and there is no proof that the same was conducted. Further, the Extra Ordinary General Body Meeting claimed to have been conducted by Thiru K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan on 4.2.2009 did not meet the statutory requirements as per Section 26 and Section 28 of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules 25 and 27 of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules. Hence, the present Committee is holding office without any legal sanctity.
Therefore, it is recommended that the present Executive Committee should be superseded and a Special Officer under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 should be appointed with the following mandate:
(i) to identify and incorporate true and deserving members from the General Bodies of both Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi and Yadhava College to create a true list of General Body members of the Society.
(ii) to conduct Extra Ordinary General Body Meeting to the Society based upon the above membership to bring out necessary amendments to the bye-laws of the Society after wide consultations in respect of procedures to induct new members, delineation of Constituencies for electing Executive Committee members of the Society, Constitution of the nominated Managing Committee for the College and its powers, functions and accountability to the General Body and Executive Committee of the Society, Mode of Election of the office bearers of the Society etc.
(iii) to conduct election to choose Executive Committee members and office bearers of the Society who in turn shall nominate a Managing Committee for the College."
22. Since the Inspector General of Registration has recommended the appointment of a Special Officer, it is contended by the petitioner that the same is violative of Section 37. But this contention is misconceived. Section 37 enables the Registrar himself to take action for cancellation of registration, if after enquiry under Section 36, he is satisfied about certain things specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 37. But Section 37 does not state anywhere that the only destination for an enquiry under Section 36 is Section 37 and that the enquiry cannot land anywhere else.
23. Section 34-A empowers the Government to supersede the Committee of management and to appoint a Special Officer. The contingencies for invoking this power are mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 34-A. There is nothing in Section 34-A that limits the power of the Government. Equally there is nothing in Section 36 that restricts the power of the Registrar to take recourse to any provision other than Section 37. Therefore, this ground of attack should also fail.
24. The last ground of attack to the report of the Inspector General of Registration dated 28.3.2012 is that the membership of more than about one thousand persons has been set aside, without any notice to them. Therefore, it is claimed that the report is bad for violation of natural justice.
25. Again the aforesaid contention is also misconceived. I have extracted the concluding portion of the impugned report of the Inspector General of Registration in one of the preceding paragraphs. It may be seen from the same that the Inspector General of Registration did not set aside the membership of any person. All that he has done is, to request the Government to appoint a Special Officer under Section 34-A, with a mandate to identify and incorporate true and deserving members and to create a true list of General Body Members of the Society. The Inspector General of Registration has not by himself determined whether 'A' or 'B' is or is not a member. Therefore, the question of violation of natural justice does not arise.
26. One last ground of attack to the impugned report is that the enquiry under Section 36 had been undertaken on complaints which had no nexus to the prescriptions contained in Section 36(1). But this is factually not correct. I have already pointed out that the enquiry report comprises of 9 parts. They deal with (i) the Constitution (ii) the working and (iii) financial condition of the Society. These are the 3 parameters fixed in Section 36(1). Therefore, this ground of attack should also fail.
27. Therefore, in the result, W.P.(MD) No.15398 of 2012 is dismissed as devoid of merits.
28. Coming to W.P.(MD) No.15403 of 2012, it is seen from the affidavit in support of the writ petition that the petitioner filed Form VII on 28.7.2011 under Rule 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978, on the basis of a General Body Meeting held on 30.4.2011. Since no orders have been passed on the Form so filed, the petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the Registrar of Societies to file Form VII and register it.
29. But even admittedly, the General Body Meeting convened on 30.4.2011 is the subject matter of a civil suit in O.S.No.113 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur. Though the application for an interim order of injunction filed in I.A.No.417 of 2011 was dismissed, the suit is nevertheless pending. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party, had already held in R.Muralidharan vs. District Registrar {2008 (2) L.W. 75} that the acceptance or non-acceptance of Form VII, cannot be the subject matter of a writ petition. The said decision was also followed by three other Division Benches viz., (i) V.Sobana Kumar vs. District Registrar {2008 (4) L.W. 760} (ii) P.V.Kadiravan vs. Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam {2008 (4) L.W. 748} and (iii) Tirunelveli C.M.S. Evangelical Church vs. The District Registrar {2008 Writ L.R. 575}. Though in C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee vs. District Registrar {2008 (4) L.W. 1080} another Division Bench of this Court held the decision in R.Muralidharan to be per incurium, the cloud so created by the said Division Bench was cleared by the next Division Bench in C.Dharmalingam vs. District Registrar {W.A.No.715 of 2009 decided on 11.2.2010}. Therefore, the issue is no longer res integra. Hence, the third writ petition in this first category of cases viz., W.P.(MD) No.15403 of 2012 is also liable to be dismissed.
CATEGORY-2:
30. The second category of cases, forming part of this batch are in W.P.(MD) Nos.2582, 5948 and 8451 of 2012. All these 3 writ petitions challenge the actions of the Director and Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education. In the first case, what is challenged is the order of the Director for direct payment of the grant and the order of the Joint Director taking over charge of the College. In the second writ petition, a Mandamus is sought to direct the Director of Collegiate Education to approve the proposal for the nomination of Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan as the Secretary of the College, on the basis of the election held on 30-4-2011. In the third writ petition, an order of the Regional Joint Director, directing the writ petitioner to handover the Self Financing Section of the College as well as the Hostel, is under challenge.
31. In the first and third writ petitions, viz., W.P.(MD) Nos.2582 and 8451 of 2012, 3 orders are under challenge. The first is the order of the Director dated 27.2.2012. The second is the order of the Regional Joint Director dated 28.2.2012. The third is the order of the Regional Joint Director dated 18.6.2012.
32. In the first order dated 27.2.2012, the Director of Collegiate Education took note of the enquiry initiated by the Inspector General of Registration under Section 36 and also took note of the interim order passed by me on 23.12.2011, permitting the enquiry to go on. In view of these, the Director rejected the proposals submitted by various persons for the approval of Secretaryship and came to the conclusion in the penultimate paragraph of his order that there is no sound and proper management in place for the effective administration of the College. Therefore, the Director opined that the Department has to take action in the interest of the teaching and non-teaching staff and also safeguard the funds released by the Government in the form of grant.
33. After thus taking note of the situation prevailing, the Director of Collegiate Education passed the order dated 27.2.2012, whose operative portion is as follows:-
"Hence as per the power delicated to Director of Collegiate Education in Tamil Nadu Private College (Regulation) Act, 1976, G.O.Ms.No.1021, Education, dated 2.9.1985 is invoked with immediate effect. Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai has to make necessary arrangements regarding disbursement of salary to the Teaching and Non-teaching staff member of the Yadhava College from February 2012 onwards. All other conditions stipulated in the said G.O.Ms.No.1021 shall hold good, till the approval of Lawful Secretary of the College is accorded after settling the disputes prevailing in the Yadhava College (Co-Education), Madurai."
34. Therefore, it is clear that by the order dated 27.2.2012 impugned in W.P.(MD) No.2582 of 2012, the Director of Collegiate Education did two things viz., (i) to invoke G.O.Ms.No.1021, Education, dated 2.9.1985 and (ii) to direct the Regional Joint Director to make arrangements for disbursement of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff.
35. The Government Order G.O.Ms.No.1021, Education dated 2.9.1985, was issued by the Government, permitting the Director of Collegiate Education to authorise the Regional Deputy Directors to attend to certain items of work of Aided Colleges, in the absence of the Secretary, due to disputes in managements or disputes over Secretaryship. In order to appreciate the nature of this order, it is necessary to extract this Government Order in entirety. Hence, it is extracted as follows:-
"GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Aided Colleges - Dispute in the management of Aided Colleges authorising the Regional Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education to attend to certain items of work relating to the matters of teachers - orders - issued.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.1021 Dated 2.9.1985 From the Director of Collegiate Education, Madras Lr.R.C.No.:132456/No7/85, dt.7.1.1985. ORDER:
The Government had examined the question of permitting the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to attend to certain items of work relating to service matters of teachers of Aided Colleges, which are incidental to payment of salary of the teachers, whenever there is dispute in the management of Aided Colleges and they permit the Director of Collegiate Education to authorise the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education concerned to attend the following items of work of Aided Colleges considered in the absence of the Secretary of the College due to disputes in managements/ where there is dispute over the Secretaryship of the Aided Colleges.
1) To draw and disburse the salary of the staff of Aided Colleges when there is dispute in the management.
2) To sanction leave and increment to the employees.
3) To sign papers relating to provident fund (Admission, Transfer, Advance and Closure).
4) To sign pension papers relating to reemployment upto the end of the Academic year concerned.
5) To sign the papers relating to fixation of pay and selection grade.
6) To sign the papers relating to the loans and advances admissible as per rules (including disbursement) T.P.F. advance other loans and advances if any admissible as per rules.
7) To relieve the employees consequent on the resignation and retirement as per rules.
8) To relieve the employees who go on leave/deputed to higher studies etc.
9) To sign papers relating to the deputation of teachers under F.I.P of University Grants Commissions scheme and to correspondent with the UGC in connection with the salary of the substitutes appointed against the vacancies caused to the deputation of the teachers to the higher studies under the abovesaid schemes.
10) To make entries in the Service Books.
11) To correspond with the University to get the approval of the appointment of the teachers appointed by the Legal Secretary of the College before the dispute.
12) To assess grant in respect of the teachers appointed by the Legal Secretary of the dispute, without awaiting the formal proposal from the Secretary of the College for the approval of the appointment by the Department provided to the appointments have been approved by the University concerned.
13) To appoint substitutes in the approved vacant posts (i.e., new posts, leave vacancies, retirement and resignation vacancy etc.) purely on temporary basis. The continuance of such employees may be decided by the management about the dispute is settled and the direct payment system is revoked.
14) To send proposals to Director of Collegiate Education for up-gradation of as per rules.
2) The Regional Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education should hand over the Lawful Secretary of the Colleges after the dispute is settled with proper acknowledgement all the records relating to the above items of work which were attended to by him during the period in which the direct payment of salary was made to the employees of the College by the Regional Deputy Director of Collegiate Education.
(By order of the Governor) T.D.SUNDARRAJ Commissioner & Secretary to Government."
36. According to the petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, contemplates only two types of actions viz., (i) appointment of Special Officer under Section 14-A and (ii) taking over of the management under Section 30(1), if in the opinion of the Government, the suspension of the management under Section 14-A is insufficient. There is no provision, according to the petitioner, either in the Act or in the Rules, for the assumption to the Government, of the exclusive functions of the College Committee. Therefore, it is contended that neither G.O.Ms.No.1021, Education dated 2.9.1985 nor the order of the Director dated 27.2.2012, is legally valid.
37. In order to test the above contention, it is necessary to look into the Scheme of the Act and the Rules. Sections 3 to 7 of the Act, deals with the requirement to take the permission of the Government for establishing any Private College. Section 8 exempts a religious or linguistic minority from the necessity of obtaining permission for establishing a College.
38. Section 10 of the Act deals with payment of grant. Sub-section (1) of Section 10 enables the Government to pay grant at such rate and for such purposes as may be prescribed, to a Private College. Sub-section (2) empowers the Government to withhold either permanently or for a temporary period, the whole or any part of the grant, if there is any contravention of the provisions of the Act, the Rules or directions or even the conditions subject to which the grant is made. But the grant cannot be withheld, unless the Educational Agency is given an opportunity of hearing. This is by virtue of sub-section (3).
39. Sections 11 to 14 deal with the Constitution, Meetings and functions of the College Committee. Under Section 14(1), the functions of the College Committee are enlisted as follows:-
(i) To carry on the general administration excluding the properties and funds.
(ii) To appoint teachers and other persons, fix their salaries, define their duties and conditions of service.
(iii) To take disciplinary action against the teachers and other persons.
Interestingly, section 14 (1) speaks about appointment of persons, fixation of salary and defining the conditions of service. But it does not speak about payment or mode of salary. This important aspect has to be kept in mind.
40. Section 14-A confers two important powers upon the Government. They are (i) to suspend the management of the Private College and appoint a Special Officer in its place, for a period not exceeding one year or till the reconstitution of the management, whichever is latter and (ii) to direct the management to take action against the Manager, if the Government is satisfied that the Manager alone is responsible for the lapses or irregularities in the College.
41. A careful reading of Section 14-A would show that sub-section (1) confers the two types of powers, which I have indicated in the preceding paragraph. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) empowers the Government to suspend the management and appoint a Special Officer in its place. Clause (b) indicates the result that flows out of the suspension of the management of a Private College and the duties to be performed by the Special Officer. Clause (c) speaks about the power of the Government to direct the management to take action against the Manager, when the Manager alone is found to be responsible for the lapses or irregularities.
42. Thus Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14-A confers the power of suspension of management and the appointment of a Special Officer in the place of the whole management. Clause (c) thereof empowers the Government to allow the management to continue, but at the same time to take action against the Manager alone, who is responsible for the lapses and irregularities.
43. In other words, one is a power of suspension of the management and another is the power to direct the management to take action against the Manager alone without suspending the management.
44. Apart from the above two powers traceable respectively to Clauses (a) and (c), there is yet another power. It is found in sub-section (2) of Section 14-A. This is the power conferred upon the Government to declare a person to be unfit to be the Manager of a Private College. In other words, the Government has two options, for keeping the Manager alone out of participation in the management. The first is under Clause (c) of Section 14-A(1) to direct the management itself to take action against the Manager. The second option is under Section 14-A(2) to give an opportunity of hearing to the Manager and to remove him, after a mere intimation to the management.
45. The Explanation under Section 14-A defines a Manager under Clause (b) to include the Secretary or any person holding office as President, Manager or Correspondent of a Private College, who is managing or administering the affairs of such private colleges. Sub-section (3) of Section 14-A, makes it clear that any failure on the part of the management either to take action against the Manager after a direction is issued under Section 14-A(1)(c) or to replace him in terms of a direction issued under Section 14-A (2), would constitute maladministration.
46. Sections 15 to 18 of the Act deal with the qualifications, method of recruitment, conditions of service and the Code of Conduct for teaching and non-teaching staff employed in a Private College. Section 19 deals with disciplinary action and Section 20 deals with appeals. Section 24 confers overriding effect for Chapter-IV upon any other law. Section 25 deals with closure, Section 26 deals with the obligation of the Educational Agency to send a list of properties, Section 27 restricts the power of the Educational Agency to alienate its properties, Section 28 deals with fees and other charges and Section 29 deals with the manner in which the funds and property of the College could be utilised.
47. Section 30 empowers the Government to take over the management of the College, if it is satisfied that the suspension of the management under Section 14-A will not be sufficient. But in the first instance, the period of take over cannot exceed 2 years. After the expiry of the 2 years, it can be extended from time to time for periods not exceeding one year at a time, subject however to a maximum of 10 years in the aggregate, as per sub-section (3) and the proviso thereunder, of Section 30. But under certain extreme contingencies, the take over can continue beyond the maximum period, by virtue of Section 30-A. One of the contingencies contemplated under Section 30-A (i), for continuance of the take over is when there is a dispute about the Constitution of the Educational Agency, pending in a Civil Court.
48. Section 47 (i) empowers the Government to authorise any Authority or Officer to exercise any of the powers vested in them, by or under the Act, except the power to make rules. Therefore it is clear that the power of the Government can be delegated.
49. In the Scheme of the Act, in so far as it is necessary for the disposal of the cases on hand, we have seen 3 types of powers for the Government. They are (i) to suspend the management and appoint a Special Officer in its place (ii) to direct the management to take action against the Manager or straight away take action against the Manager under intimation to the management and (iii) to take over the management of the College. All these powers can also be delegated under Section 47, subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed in the order of the delegation.
50. There is yet another important provision in the Act. It is in Section 23. It reads as follows:-
"23. Pay and allowances of teachers and other person employed in private college to be paid in the prescribed manner.--The pay and allowances of any teacher or other person employed in any private college shall be paid on or before such day of every month, at such rate and in such manner and by or through such authority, officer or person, as may be prescribed."
This power is found in Chapter IV and we have already seen that Section 24 confers overriding effect for Chapter-IV upon any other law.
51. Therefore, it is clear that the Government can determine, not only the rate at which the pay and allowances of teachers and other persons employed in a Private College have to be paid, but also the manner in which it is to be paid and the Officer, person or Authority through whom they are to be paid. Keeping this provision in mind, let us go to the Rules.
52. Rule 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, states that every College may be paid grants, as listed in sub-rule (2), subject to the orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time. Rule 7 (1) reads as follows:-
"7. Payment of grant.---(1) Subject to the orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time, every college may be paid grants specified in sub-rule (2). No grant shall be paid to any college, the affiliation/approval of which has been withdrawn by the University concerned, for the period of such withdrawal of affiliation, approval."
Sub-rule (2) speaks of different types of grants such as grants for the purpose of teaching, construction of building, purchase of building site, play ground, furniture, books and appliances etc.
53. Therefore, it is clear that the payment of grant is subject to the orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time. But Rule 7 does not name the authority or person through whom the pay and allowances are to be paid, so as to have correlation to Section 23. However, Rule 15 stipulates that the Secretary of the Committee is responsible for making payments, by cheque or by demand draft, of pay and allowances of teachers and other persons. In the absence of the Secretary, any person duly authorised by the Educational Agency should make such payment.
54. A combined reading of Section 23 with Rules 7(1), 7(2) and 15, shows that there are two payments or at least two stages of payment viz., (i) payment of grant by the Government to the College and (ii) payment of pay and allowances, by the College, to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College. Though payment of grant under Section 10(1) is always to the College, payment of pay and allowances to teaching and non-teaching staff can be, by virtue of Section 23, through such authority, officer or person, as may be prescribed. The officer so prescribed, is the Secretary and in his absence, any other person named by the Educational Agency under Rule 15.
55. Therefore, it appears prima facie, that payment of the grant by the Government should be to the College, unless it is withheld under Section 10 (2) and payment of the salaries to the teaching and non-teaching staff is through the Secretary of the College. But Section 7(1) makes payment of grants, by the Government to the Private College, "subject to the orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time". Therefore, Rule 7(1) makes every payment of grant by the Government to the College, subject to the orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time.
56. It is in the above background that the Government Order G.O.Ms. No.1021, Education, dated 2.9.1985, has to be looked into. I have already extracted the said Government Order in a previous paragraph. In brief, the said Government Order permits the Director of Collegiate Education to authorise the Regional Deputy Directors to attend to certain items of work of Aided Colleges, in the absence of the Secretary due to disputes in management or disputes over Secretaryship. The items of work listed in G.O. Ms.No.1021, merely relate to (i) disbursement of salary (ii) sanctioning of leave and increment (iii) signing of papers relating to provident fund (iv) signing of papers relating to reemployment till the end of the academic year (v) fixation of pay and selection grade (vi) loans and advances (vii) resignation and retirement (viii) relieving upon leave or deputation (ix) making entries in service books (x) getting approval of appointment of teachers from the University (xi) appointment of substitutes in vacant posts and (xii) sending proposals for up-gradation.
57. Primarily, the above Government Order is intended to fill up a vacuum in the management, when there is either no Secretary or the Secretaryship is in dispute. Section 23 enables the Government to pay the pay and allowances by or through such authority, officer or person, as may be prescribed. Though Rule 15 prescribes the Secretary as the Authority, Rule 7(1) enables the Government to pay the grant subject to the orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time. It is by virtue of this general power under Rule 7(1) that G.O.Ms.No.1021 had been issued, to take care of the contingencies when there is a stalemate due to serious disputes.
58. As a matter of fact, G.O.Ms.No.1021 was challenged by the very same writ petitioner in a separate writ petition W.P.(MD) No.9145 of 2012. If cases are taken up in the chronological order, the present writ petition W.P.(MD)No.2582 of 2012 should have been taken up first. Alternatively, W.P.(MD)No.9145 of 2012 should have atleast been tagged along with this W.P.(MD) No.2582 of 2012. This is for the reason that W.P.(MD)No.9145 of 2012 challenged G.O.Ms.No.1021 dated 2.9.1985. But W.P.(MD)No.2582 of 2012 challenges the orders passed by the Director and Regional Joint Director, in exercise of the power conferred by G.O.Ms.No.1021.
59. But unfortunately, the writ petitions W.P.(MD)Nos.2582 and 9145 of 2012 did not get tagged together. Therefore, it appears that W.P.(MD)No.9145 of 2012 got posted before my predecessor on 1.10.2012. On that date, the learned Government Pleader appears to have sought time to file counter. The learned Judge granted time, after imposing costs. On the next date of hearing viz., 5.10.2012, the learned Judge recorded that the Government failed to pay costs as per the previous order dated 1.10.2012 and consequently the learned Judge struck off the defence of the Government in the writ petition W.P.(MD)No.9145 of 2012. Thereafter, the learned Judge proceeded to consider the writ petition on merits and allowed the same and quashed G.O.Ms.No.1021, Education, dated 2.9.1985, on the ground that it is ultra vires the Act. However, the Government had taken up the matter on appeal in W.A.(MD) No.863 of 2012. The said appeal seems to be pending before the Division Bench.
60. In the light of the fact that G.O.Ms.No.1021 dated 2.9.1985 had already been quashed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.9145 of 2012, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders dated 27.2.2012 and 28.2.2012 passed by the Director and Regional Joint Director respectively, should automatically go, as they were passed in exercise of the power conferred by the said Government Order.
61. But I do not think that I should decide the validity of the impugned orders, on the basis of the decision in W.P.(MD)No.9145 of 2012. The reasons are as follows:-
(i) The order of the learned Judge in W.P.(MD)No.9145 of 2012, quashing G.O.Ms.No.1021 dated 2.9.1985, was passed only on 5.10.2012. But the orders impugned in the present writ petition were passed in February 2012. The judgment of this Court is not intended to take retrospective effect. It cannot also. If it takes retrospective effect, all actions taken in pursuance of the said Government Order, for the past 27 years would become null and void. This is impermissible in law.
(ii) The order of the learned Judge has become the subject matter of a writ appeal, which has already been admitted and notice ordered on 30.11.2012. Therefore, I am entitled to consider the issue independently.
(iii) The Government Order was passed in 1985. The writ petitioner challenged it in the year 2012, in W.P.(MD)No.9145 of 2012. Despite the efflux of a long period of 27 years, the learned Judge gave 4 days time on 1.10.2012 to the Government to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-, for not filing a counter. Upon finding that costs were not paid by the Government, the learned Judge struck off the defence of the Government, on 5.10.2012 and proceeded to consider the issue on merits. Therefore, the order is like an ex parte order, which may only be of persuasive value and which may at the most operate as res judicata against the Government. But the order is on appeal. Therefore, I am entitled to consider whether the Government Order is in tune with statutory provisions, for the limited purpose of finding out whether the impugned orders dated 27.2.2012 and 28.2.2012 are valid or not.
62. As I have pointed out earlier, the instructions contained in G.O.Ms. No.1021 could be traced to Section 23 which has over riding effect on any other law, by virtue of section 24 and also to Rule 7(1). The power of delegation could be traced to Section 47(1). Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be found fault with, especially in view of the serious disputes into which the College has plunged, in the past over a decade.
63. At this juncture, I should take note of one interesting feature. In so far as the Aided Private Schools are concerned, the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, contain a stipulation in Rule 19, which states that the procedure for payment of pay and allowances to teachers and other persons employed in Private Schools shall be as in Annexure-III. The wording of Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, is distinct from the wording of Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. Annexure III to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 contains a prescription in paragraph II that under special circumstances the District Educational Officer concerned may make direct payment to the Headmaster of a School or to the Teachers of a School. This Annexure contains a detailed procedure for claiming the grant from the Government. No such detailed procedure is prescribed in the Rules relating to Aided Colleges. Therefore, the responsibility for making payment of salary is fixed primarily upon the Secretary of the Committee under Rule 15. Consequently, no payment is possible when there is no Secretary or when the Office of Secretaryship is in dispute. It is only to avoid this disastrous consequence that the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No.1021 to fill up the vacuum or gap. The Government cannot simply throw its hands off and stop the payment of salaries altogether, by saying that the payment shall be made either by the Secretary or no one else, if there is no Secretary.
64. As pointed out earlier, the Society Yadhava Kalvi Nidhi was established only in 1962 and the College was established in 1969. Ever since 2000, the disputes have started. The College receives grant-in-aid from the Government. After making payment of grant, in the fond hope, that the College will fulfil the aspirations of the student Community, all that the Government got back in return, were only Court notices and never ending litigation in civil, criminal and writ Courts. In such circumstances, the impugned orders, apart from being in conformity with the statutory provisions, are also justified on facts. Therefore, W.P.(MD) No.2582 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed.
65. The second writ petition in Category-2 of cases is W.P.(MD) No.5948 of 2012. The prayer therein is to direct the Director of Collegiate Education to approve the proposal filed on 30.4.2011 for the appointment of K.P. Navaneetha Krishnan as the Secretary of the College. I have already indicated in the narration of the history of this litigation that K.P. Navaneetha Krishnan claimed to have been elected first in the General Body Meeting convened on 28.12.2008 and next in the General Body Meeting held on 4.2.2009. If the meeting dated 4.2.2009 had been convened validly, he must hold Office for a period of 3 years viz., upto 4.2.2012. But a meeting was convened by him on 30.4.2011 by issuing notices on 8.4.2011. There was no necessity to convene a meeting of the General Body to elect a new set of office bearers, within 2 years of the previous meeting. As a matter of fact, the Director of Collegiate Education had passed ordes only on 28.2.2011, approving the appointment of K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, solely on the ground that the statutory forms filed by him on the basis of the General Body Meeting held on 4.2.2009 had been accepted by the Registrar on 25.11.2009. However, he convened the meeting dated 30.4.2011 on the ground that as per the bye-laws, it was not possible to hold an election in December 2011.
66. But on the claim of Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan to have been elected on 30.4.2011, the Director of Collegiate Education issued a notice dated 21.7.2011, demanding an explanation. In the meantime, the Inspector General of Registration had initiated an enquiry by his notices dated 8.11.2011 and 22.11.2011. The notices became the subject matter of the first writ petition W.P.(MD) No.13579 of 2011. But the enquiry proceeded and the report submitted before this Court on 28.3.2012 became the subject matter of another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.15398 of 2012. But these writ petitions challenging the notices of enquiry and challenging the report of the Inspector General of Registration have been found by me to be liable to be dismissed. Therefore, as a corollary, the Mandamus sought in W.P.(MD) No.5948 of 2012 for a direction to the Director to accept the proposal dated 30.4.2011 cannot be granted. This is for the simple reason that the very foundation on which the writ petitioner sought to build an edifice, has crumbled in the other writ petitions. Therefore, W.P.(MD) No.5948 of 2012 is also liable to be dismissed.
67. But in so far as the third writ petition W.P.(MD) No.8451 of 2012, in the second category of cases is concerned, it stands on a slightly different footing than the other writ petitions. In this writ petition, an order dated 18.6.2012, directing the petitioner to hand over all documents relating to the Hostel in the College and also directing the handing over of the Self Financing Section of the College is under challenge.
68. In other words, by the order impugned in this writ petition, the Regional Joint Director seeks to take over the entire administration of the College. This is not permissible under the Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and the Rules issued thereunder, except by invoking Section 14-A or Section 30(1). As I have indicated earlier, Section 14-A confers 3 types of powers viz., (i) to suspend the management and appoint a Special Officer in terms of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 14-A (ii) to direct the management to take action against the Manager alone, if he alone is responsible for the lapses and irregularities, by invoking Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 14-A and (iii) to declare a person to be unfit to be the Manager, by invoking sub-section (2) of Section 14-A. Similarly, Section 30(1) empowers the Government to take over the management of the Private College. Other than these two provisions, there is no other provision in the Act or the Rules to take over the management and administration of a Private College.
69. While G.O.Ms.No.1021 confers certain powers upon the Government to empower the Director of Collegiate Education to authorise the Regional Deputy Director to carryout certain items of work, none of those items relate to the assumption of the general administration of the College. Additionally, the purpose of G.O.Ms.1021 is to ensure that the money paid by the Government by way of grant, is utilised for the purpose for which it is granted. This question does not arise in a Self Financing Section of a Private College. Therefore, the order dated 18.6.2012, calling upon the writ petitioner (i) to hand over the records relating to the Hostel and (ii) to hand over the Self Financing Section of the College, is illegal. Therefore, W.P.(MD) No.8451 of 2012 is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
CATEGORY-3:
70. There are 5 cases falling under this category. All these cases challenge the proceedings of the Regional Joint Director dated 29.6.2012, directing the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff of the College, not to enter the College.
71. The above order dated 29-6-2012 passed in the same proceeding number, has been set aside by K.Chandru,J., in W.P.(MD) Nos.8959 to 8961 of 2012 by an order dated 31-8-2012, at the instance of 3 others (the Principal, an Assistant in the office and the Superintendent) on the ground that the power to take disciplinary action continues to vest only with the College Committee under Section 14 (1)(c) of the Act. Directing a Teaching or Non-Teaching Staff not to enter the College, is one method of disengaging their services. It is permissible only by suspension of the employee or by terminating his services. Both cannot be done by the Regional Joint Director, since they are the functions of the College Committee under Section 14(1)(c). The impugned order dated 29.6.2012 and the consequential order passed on 16.11.2012, directing the writ petitioners not to sign the Attendance Register, cannot even be approved on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.1021 dated 2.9.1985. The items of work that could be entrusted to the Regional Joint Director, as per the said Government Order do not include assumption of administration or assumption of power to take disciplinary action. Therefore, these writ petitions W.P.(MD)Nos.16595 to 16599 of 2012 are liable to be allowed. Accordingly, they are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.
CATEGORY-4:
72. Now we are left with only one writ petition viz., W.P.(MD) No.1124 of 2013, which falls under a separate category. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.11.2012 by which the Regional Joint Director has relieved the Principal in-charge from the in-charge arrangement and directed him to hand over charge of the post of Principal to one K.Jayabalan, who is the Head of the Department of History. No reasons are stated in this order.
73. Though in normal circumstances, an in-charge arrangement made in a higher post, does not confer an absolute right upon an employee to continue to hold charge of the higher post, the case on hand is of a different variety. In this case, the petitioner is not sought to be replaced by a regular incumbent. He is sought to be replaced by another person, who is also placed only in-charge. No reasons are also stated as to why the respondent seeks to alter the status-quo.
74. In any case, the order dated 30.11.2012 appears to be highhanded and a mala fide exercise of power. This can be seen from the following sequence of events:-
(i) By the proceedings dated 29.6.2012, the Regional Joint Director placed the writ petitioner K.Alagu Sundaram, Principal in-charge under suspension, on the ground that a criminal complaint for alleged offences under Sections 409 and 420 IPC had been lodged against him. By the same proceedings, the Regional Joint Director also relieved the writ petitioner from the post of Principal in-charge. The petitioner challenged the said order in W.P.(MD) No.8959 of 2012. In the said writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay on 6.7.2012.
(ii) Alleging that the stay order was wilfully disobeyed, by Dr.K. Jayabalan by breaking open the lock of the Principal's room and occupying the same, the writ petitioner filed a contempt petition in Contempt Petition (MD) No.478 of 2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to continue from 19.7.2012. Consequently, the contempt petition was closed.
(iii) By two fresh proceedings dated 3.8.2012, the Regional Joint Director (a) placed the writ petitioner again under suspension and (b) directed him to hand over charge to K.Jayabalan, on the ground that the stay granted on 6.7.2012 was for 4 weeks and that it had expired. Therefore, the writ petitioner moved a second contempt petition in Contempt Petition (MD) No.544 of 2012.
(iv) When the second contempt petition was pending, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.8959 of 2012 itself was allowed on 31.8.2012. Therefore, the second contempt petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in pursuance of the final order passed in the writ petition.
(v) When the petitioner was not restored to his position as Principal in-charge, consequent upon his writ petition being allowed, he gave a letter dated 16.11.2012 to the Regional Joint Director. Immediately, the Regional Joint Director had issued 4 proceedings, 3 of which are charge memos dated 28.11.2012, 29.11.2012 and 30.11.2012 and the fourth, a letter relieving the petitioner from the post of Principal in-charge and asking him to hand over charge to Dr.K.Jayabalan.
75. Thus the order dated 30.11.2012 is nothing but the old syrup in a new bottle. There appears to be repeated attempts on the part of the Regional Joint Director to keep the writ petitioner out of office, either in total or at least from the post of Principal in-charge. This demonstrates an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the Regional Joint Director. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
76. Thus the writ petitions filed by K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, either challenging various actions of the Inspector General of Registration or seeking certain directions to the Director of Collegiate Education, are liable to be dismissed. But one of his writ petitions challenging an order of the Regional Joint Director to hand over the Self Financing Section and the records relating to the Hostel namely, W.P.(MD) No.8451 of 2012 is liable to be allowed. Similarly, all the writ petitions filed by the Teaching and Non-Teaching staff of the College, including the Principal in-charge, are liable to be allowed.
77. Apart from dismissing or allowing the above writ petitions, certain directions are also necessary to be issued. In his report dated 28.3.2012, the Inspector General of Registration has recommended the supersession of the Committee and the appointment of a Special Officer under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Since the report was filed into Court in a sealed cover and it was opened only on 16.11.2012, there was no occasion for the Government to consider the said report and take action. Similarly, K.Chandru, J., has indicated in his order dated 31.8.2012 in W.P.(MD) Nos.8959 to 8961 of 2012 that there will be no bar for the State to take action in terms of Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 for suspending the management and appointing a Special Officer. It is now high time that the Government take action under the provisions of both the enactments.
78. The above actions are necessary, not only to enforce some discipline in the College, but also to put the warring groups in their proper places. Some of the parties to this litigation, have exhibited a kind of cantankerousness, that deserves to be condemned. One of the parties to this litigation viz., Mr.M.Mei Yadav, who claims to be a member of the Society and who is also one of the respondents in some of these writ petitions, has been in the habit of writing letters in his own name to the Hon'ble Judges and to the Registry, in a manner intimidating everyone. The parties are also resorting to the tactics of writing pseudonymous letters, in fictitious names of the students of the College. One of the parties to this litigation by name S.Santhanakrishnan, who has been appearing in person and arguing not only his case, but also arguing on behalf of two other respondents without any authority, is not only a member of the Society, but also the husband of a staff of the Subordinate Court. Another person who is a party to the litigation viz., Mr.L.Nandagopal Yadav, chose to argue a few writ petitions as party-in-person, even while allowing a counsel to argue a few other writ petitions. The anonymous and pseudonymous letters written by the parties to this litigation, unfortunately resulted in some of my predecessors recusing themselves from these cases. These letters did not spare any Department including the Office of the Registrar of Societies, the Office of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, the Police Department as well as the Registry of this Court. Interestingly, the pseudonymous letters written in the names of the students of the College, contain enormous information that could not have been accessed by the students, without the assistance of parties appearing in person in these writ petitions.
79. Interestingly, all the anonymous and pseudonymous letters disclose a particular pattern. They are not only aimed at the officials of the Registration Department and the Department of Collegiate Education, but they are also aimed at intimidating the statutory authorities as well as the Hon'ble Judges and also making scurrilous attacks on K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan. This appears to have been done with the deliberate intention of prejudicing the mind of the authorities as well as this Court. The letters sent by Mr.M.Mei Yadav in his own name and the letters sent in the names of students appear to follow the same pattern, with same type of headings, same type of para phrasing, usage of same kind of terminology and same types of allegations against all statutory authorities as well as against K.P. Navaneetha Krishnan. There has been a complete lack of fairness in the approach adopted especially by parties appearing in person in this litigation. Therefore, it is not only necessary that steps are taken by the Government to initiate action under Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, but also necessary that an investigation is ordered about the conduct of the parties to this litigation, in writing intimidatory letters, either in their own name or in an anonymous or pseudonymous manner.
80. In the result -
(i) W.P.(MD) No.13579 of 2011, 2582, 5948, 15398 and 15403 of 2012 are dismissed.
(ii) W.P.(MD)No.8451, 16595 to 16599 of 2012 and 1124 of 2013 are allowed.
(iii) The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, who is the first respondent in W.P.(MD) Nos.2582, 5948 and 8451 of 2012, shall take steps at the earliest for action under Section 14-A of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. The Secretary to Government shall take action accordingly, after following due process of law, within two months of receipt of a copy of this order. Similarly, the Inspector General of Registration shall forward his report dated 28.3.2012 to the concerned Secretary to Government, to take action in terms of Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, which shall also be completed within a period of two months, after following due process of law. But these actions shall be subject to the outcome of the civil litigation especially the Scheme suit. However, while taking action under the above statutory provisions, the Government shall not be solely guided by my observations, but shall independently consider the issues. The Government shall also not be carried away by the scurrilous attacks made on individuals without any proof.
(iv) It is also made clear that the report of the Inspector General of Registration dated 28.3.2012 shall not be taken by the Civil Court, to constitute a final adjudication on the validity of the elections. The Civil Court has to deal with the issue independently.
There will be no order as to costs in any of these writ petitions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Svn To
1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Collegiate Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education (FAC), Madurai Region,Madurai 625 020.
4.The Inspector General of Registration.
120, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 028.
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Jawans Bhavan, II Floor, West Veli Street, Near Thanga Regal Theatre, Madurai-625 001.
6.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai Region, Madurai-625 020.
7.The Registrar of Societies, (Madurai North), Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002