Madras High Court
P.Gunasekaran vs Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi on 4 September, 2023
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD) Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
and
WMP(MD) Nos.11807 of 2022, 17741, 2182,
11077, 14250, 15660, 15745 of 2023
WP(MD) No.16340 of 2022:
P.Gunasekaran,
S/o Pitchandi Yadav,
Member of Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi,
Madurai – 14. Petitioner
Vs.
1.Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi,
A Registered Society, (Reg.No.85/1962),
running Yadhava College & Yadhava College of Education,
Represented through its Hon'ble Administrator,
Govindarajan Campus,
Tirupalai,
Madurai. - 625 014.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary,
Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/82
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome,
Chennai – 600 028.
4.The Registrar of Societies,
Madurai North,
Bibikulam,
Madurai – 2.
5.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City.
6.V.Soundarajan
7.R.Singaram
8.S.Kannan
9.P.S.Parthasarathy
10.M.Balakrishnan
11.A.Thirumalai Nambi
12.R.Ganesan
13.M.Rajkumar
14.C.Narayanan Respondents
(R5 to R14 are suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 01.08.2023 in
WP(MD) No.16340 of 2022 by BPJ)
WP(MD) No.18849 of 2023:
P.R.Ganapathy Petitioner
Vs
1.Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi,
A Registered Society, (Reg.No.85/1962),
running Yadhava College & Yadhava College of Education,
Represented through its Hon'ble Administrator,
Govindarajan Campus,
Tirupalai, Madurai - 625 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/82
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
2.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary,
Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
3.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome,
Chennai – 600 028.
4.The Registrar of Societies,
Madurai North,
Bibikulam,
Madurai – 2. Respondents
WP(MD) No.18939 of 2023
P.R.Ganapathy Petitioner
Vs
1.Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi,
A Registered Society, (Reg.No.85/1962),
running Yadhava College & Yadhava College of Education,
Represented through its Hon'ble Administrator,
Govindarajan Campus,
Tirupalai,
Madurai. - 625 014.
2.The Election Committee Administrator,
Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi and Yadhava College Election,
Govindarajan Campus,
Tirupalai,Madurai – 625 014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/82
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
3.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep by its Secretary,
The Registration Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
4.The Inspector General of Registration,
Santhome,
Chennai – 600 028.
5.The Registrar of Societies,
Madurai North,
Bibikulam,
Madurai – 2. Respondents
PRAYER in WP(MD) No.16340 of 2022: Writ Petition is filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the sole administrator of the first respondent Society
to delete 932 members out of 2874 total number of members finalized by
the Sole Administrator of the first respondent as eligible voters for the
upcoming election of the first respondent Society and also directing the
members list to conduct the election for the first respondent Society, by
considering the petitioner's representation, dated 28.05.2022 within a time
frame as framed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/82
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
PRAYER in WP(MD) No.18849 of 2023: Writ Petition is filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent from proceeding with election
process on 05.08.2023 to the first respondent Society without including the
name of the petitioner in the voters list.
PRAYER in WP(MD) No.18939 of 2023: Writ Petition is filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the respondents 1 & 2 vide
impugned notification dated 30.06.2023 in connection with conduct of
elections for the year 2023-2026 in respect of Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi and
Yadhava College Execute member's Election schedule to be conducted on
05.08.2023 and quash the same.
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Ponniah
For R1 :Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.S.Sivasubramanian
For R2 to R4 :Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/82
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
For R5 :Mr.P.Kottaichamy
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R6 to R11 :No appearance
For R12 :Mr.P.Selva Ganapathi
For R13 :Mr.K.Murali Sankar
For R14 :Mr.E.V.N.Siva
(in WP(MD) No.16340 of 2022)
*****
For Petitioner :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R1 :Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.S.Sivasubramanian
For R2 to R4 :Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh
Additional Government Pleader
(in WP(MD) No.18849 of 2023)
*****
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Sharkulhameed
For R1 & R2 :Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.S.Sivasubramanian
For R3 to R5 :Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
(in WP(MD) No.18939 of 2023)
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/82
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
The writ petition in WP(MD)No.16340 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner for a mandamus directing the first respondent / Hon'ble Administrator to delete 932 members out of the total number of members finalised by him as eligible voters in the election of the first respondent Society and also directing the Hon'ble Administrator to identify and incorporate true and deserving members of the Society.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, this Court refers the parties as per their rank in WP(MD)No.16340 of 2022.
3. The petitioner is a member of “Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi” which is a Society registered in the year 1962 under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1860. This Society started a college, namely, “Yadhava College” in the year 1969. The first respondent / Society and the Yadhava College are governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
4. The Society was subjected to numerous litigations for several years and finally, this Court in WP(MD) No.14362 of 2018 and batch cases, by order dated 31.03.2021, appointed Hon'ble (Retired) Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice S.Rajeswaran to take over the Society and the College, as the Administrator. The Hon'ble Administrator was requested to accord first priority for identification of the actual valid life members of the Society and the Management Committee of the College.
5. The case of the petitioner is that the Hon’ble Administrator, while preparing the list of life members of the Society, has included certain bogus members without verifying their genuineness. According to him, a list of 932 members were wrongly recorded as members through an interim management on 28.01.2004, as if they were enrolled in the months of August and September, 2003. This, according to him, is created by one Mr.C.Narayanan at the instance of one Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan and this petitioner has raised this issue with the first respondent by a representation dated 28.05.2022. However, the same has not been considered and a final list of eligible members for the Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 was published on 29.05.2022 and therefore, having no other option, he filed this writ petition.
6. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the petitioner's Counsel are as follows:-
6.1. All these disputed 932 members were enrolled in a particular month as follows:-
Date No. of Members 04.08.2003 412 29.08.2003 96 30.08.2003 403 06.09.2003 21 Total 932 6.2. These 932 receipts were forged by Mr.C.Narayanan on 28.01.2004, as if he ratified those members who were enrolled in the year 2003. According to him, till 30.11.2003, one Mr.A.R.Chandran was in-
charge of the Society as well as the College and he alone was the competent person to sign the receipts on the relevant dates and it is not known how these receipts prepared during the tenure of Mr.A.R.Chandran was signed by Mr.C.Narayanan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 6.3. Mr.C.Narayanan claims that as per the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 22.01.2004, he has acted as the Secretary of the College and ratified the receipts and this alleged appointment itself is false and not in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules.
6.4. Though it is claimed that the amount collected from these 932 members were deposited in the Bank, no amount was actually collected from any of these people and as such, the deposited amounts were not the actual subscription fees collected from the 932 members. Taking advantage of the overall deposits made in the Banks on certain particular dates, these 932 receipts were created on four different dates with balancing amounts to match the deposits to create an impression that subscriptions received from new members were deposited before the Bank.
6.5. As per the amended Bye-law dated 06.05.2007, application for including new members shall be placed before the Executive Committee within four months from the date of receipt. The Executive Committee is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 having the power either to accept or to reject the applications. Those applications which were accepted by the Executive Committee will be placed before the General Body for approval. Only after the approval of the General Body, the new members will legally be considered as the members of the Society.
6.6. From the general body resolution dated 25.07.2004, it is clear that no new members amounting to the 932 receipts dated 04.08.2003, 29.08.2003, 30.08.2003, and 06.09.2003 were inducted as members, excepting one new member P.Balasubramanian. If these 932 members were newly inducted, as claimed, it would have been placed before the Annual General Body Meeting of the year 2003-04 held on 25.07.2004, which is not the case.
6.7. Neither the original counter foils nor the books of accounts were produced before the Hon'ble Administrator. Therefore, the genuineness of the receipts was not verified. Further, more than 128 names of the members are repeated twice, as double entry and those names have to be deleted from the final list.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
7. In reply to these allegations, the learned Counsel appearing for the Hon'ble Administrator argued as follows:-
7.1. The petitioner's representation dated 28.05.2022 was duly considered by the first respondent and he was suggested to offer his remarks, if any, after the publication of the final list. The petitioner, instead of offering his remarks after the publication of the final list of members, has filed this writ petition. He further states that the list of members were finalized with the documents available with the Society and these receipts issued by Mr.C.Narayanan was available in the records and he was also in the administration for some time, pursuant to the orders of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 22.01.2004 and also functioned as one of the Committee members pursuant to the interim orders of this Court in WMP.No.2819 of 2004 in WP.No.2489 of 2004 dated 13.03.2004. This Court on a writ petition filed challenging the appointment of Mr.C.Narayanan by one Mr.A.Ramasamy has passed the above interim order as an interim arrangement by constituting a Committee of both Mr.A.Ramasamy and Mr.C.Narayanan to look after the administration and to disburse the salary to the staff, until further orders. By this order, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 Mr.C.Narayanan has also discharged his function as a committee member for some time and therefore, there is no reason to reject a receipt which has been signed by him. A combined reading of the order passed by this Court dated 13.03.2004 and the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education dated 22.01.2004 would mean and imply that Mr.C.Narayanan was already there in the Administration and Management in some capacity and doing some managerial works.
7.2. The receipts were issued in the year 2003. Almost twenty years have passed since the date of issuance of the receipts and as such, a roving enquiry could not be conducted as to the circumstances under which these receipts were issued. No proper audit was conducted and no books of account was produced. Therefore, given the long period, it is practically impossible to verify the genuineness of the receipts.
7.3. The petitioner cannot claim that the membership fee collected from the 932 members have not been credited in the bank account. The general body meeting of the Society for the year 2003-04 was conducted on 25.07.2004, in which, the petitioner herein was one among the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 participants. Three resolutions were passed in that meeting, of which, one was with regard to the accepting and approving of the income and expenditure statement and the audit report for the year 2003-04. This resolution was unanimously passed by all the members. Having attended the Annual General Body Meeting on 25.07.2004 and also unanimously accepted and approved the income and expenditure statement and the audit report for the year 2003-04, the petitioner cannot now claim that the membership fee collected from the 932 members were not accounted for in the bank account.
7.4. The contention of the petitioner that the General Body of the Society has not approved the admission of 932 new members would not hold much water, for the reason that there is no record at all either in the Society or in the College with regard to General Body Meetings accepting new members of the Society.
7.5. He further relied on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in CMP (MD)No.5668, 5669 of 2022 in WA.(MD)No.29, 30 of 2022, dated 29.08.2022, where it was held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 “There is no scope for rejecting the members who paid Rs. 100/- or more to the Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi and therefore, the Hon'ble Administrator is right in considering such persons as members as they are in possession of the receipts issued by Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi.” Hence, those persons who produced receipts were inducted as members of the Society and in view of the decision of the Division Bench, this issue is no more res integra. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
8. This writ petition was filed in the month of July, 2022 and taken up for hearing on 27.07.2022. This Court has entertained the writ petition by recording the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and ordered notice to the respondents returnable by 16.08.2022. Then it was adjourned to 29.08.2022 and thereafter, it was not listed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner mentioned before this Court for listing of this writ petition and also circulated a letter on 04.07.2023 that the first respondent has announced the date of election for the Society as 05.08.2023 and if this writ petition is not taken up for hearing, it would become infructuous.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
9. This Court was not inclined to take up the writ petition considering the past conduct of the members of the Society as observed in the earlier orders of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The members of the Society are agitating this issue of membership for the past twenty years and has also thrown allegations against each other and also as against the Court. Several Hon'ble Judges have recused to hear this writ petition and finally, it was decided by Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian [as His Lordship then was] in W.P.(MD)Nos.13579 of 2011 and etc., batch cases dated 05.03.2013 [2013 (2) CTC 241] and His Lordship had also observed as follows:-
“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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 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.”
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted this Court to take up this writ petition immediately, as the election date has been announced as 05.08.2023 and if not taken, the case would become infructuous. This Court, with an abundant caution, before entertaining this writ petition, has verified with all the parties concerned for their consent to proceed with this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 case. The petitioner has filed an affidavit reposing confidence in this Court. Similarly, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Hon'ble Administrator have also reposed confidence in this Court and requested to proceed with this case. After obtaining the concurrence from the parties, this Court proceeded to hear this writ petition.
11. After hearing the respective Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, this Court by order dated 19.07.2023, requested the first respondent to furnish the following documents:-
i. The General Body Resolution dated 14.12.2003, in and by which, Mr.C.Narayanan was appointed as Secretary of the College.
ii. The Audit report of the year 2003-2004, which was approved by the General Body on 25.07.2004.
iii. The 1st Volume containing the details of the members, which were deleted from the voters list.
iv. The Counter foils/receipts pertaining to 932 members, subject matter of the writ petition, which was signed by Mr.C.Narayanan.
v. The counter foils/receipts of the members, who were rejected on the ground that they were minors and belonging to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 other community/Religion and 6. The counter foils/receipts of the members who were rejected for the reason 'no such addressee' and 'insufficient address' from the Volume No.II.
12. In response to this order dated 19.07.2023, the first respondent has filed a memo dated 26.07.2023 stating that both the General Body Resolution dated 14.12.2003 approving Mr.C.Narayanan and the audit report of the year 2003-2004 approved in the General Body Resolution dated 25.07.2004 are not available in the files. However, the first respondent has traced and produced the bank statements for the year 2003- 2004.
13. In order to have a better understanding of the case, this Court has also directed the Registry to put up the files in the earlier rounds of litigations in WP(MD) No.13579 of 2011 batch; WP(MD) No.14362 of 2018 batch; and WP No.2489 of 2004.
14. By referring the election date, the petitioner's Counsel insisted for an early disposal of this writ petition, but this Court is not inclined to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 pass any final orders without ascertaining the relevant documents, such as, the General Body Resolution dated 14.12.2003 appointing Mr.C.Narayanan and the audit report of the year 2003-2004 approved in the General Body Resolution dated 25.07.2004 and also without providing any opportunity to the members in the disputed list, this Court passed an interim order on 01.08.2023 enabling the first respondent to proceed with the election as scheduled on 05.08.2023, however to have the polling for these disputed 932 members in a separate room and to keep their votes separately. This Court has also directed to maintain the votes casted in-tact in a sealed room, until further orders are passed.
15. For providing opportunity to the disputed voters, this Court has suo motu impleaded the first two members in each list of receipts dated 04.08.2003, 29.08.2003, 30.08.2003 and 06.09.2003, as respondents 6 to
13. This Court has also impleaded Mr.C.Narayanan, the then office bearer who signed those receipts and as against whom the allegations are made as respondent no.14 to this writ petition. This Court has also suggested the first respondent to publish the order dated 01.08.2023 in the notice board of the College, where the General Body Meeting was scheduled to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 conducted on 05.08.2023, prominently, so that the disputed members would aware of the litigation pending before this Court on their membership.
16. The first respondent has proceeded with the General Body Meeting, as per the orders of this Court dated 01.08.2023, conducted an election peacefully. The disputed members polled their votes in separate booths and they are preserved separately. The first respondent has also filed a report that 1956 members have participated and have exercised their franchise. Among this disputed 932, it is reported that already 248 were eliminated during the scrutinization itself and as per the final list published on 29.05.2022, 684 members were declared as eligible from this list. Among this 684, 537 have voted on 05.08.2023.
17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised further allegations that votes have been polled in the name of dead persons with bogus ID cards and submitted that he has made a request to the first respondent for the details about the voters who have polled their votes during the election, but the same has not been provided. This Court was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 not inclined to entertain this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as it is not within the scope of this writ petition.
18. On 23.08.2023, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents has produced the Yadhava Educational Fund income and expenditure account for the year ended on 31.03.2004, the crucial document which was not available earlier. This document has been produced by the Inspector General of Registration on the earlier directions of this Court dated 01.08.2023. This audited account for the year 2003-04 for the Yadhava Educational Fund Society was certified by a Charted Accountant, one Mr.Srikanth and as per this document, there was an opening balance of Rs.22,762/- in the accounts of the Society for the year 2003-04 and the membership fee received by the Society for the year 2003-04 was only Rs.6,800/-.
19. After the orders of this Court dated 01.08.2023, notices were sent to the newly impleaded respondents 6 to 14. The notice sent to the sixth respondent was returned with an endorsement ''vacated''. The seventh respondent, though received the notice, did not chose to appear before this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 Court. The notices sent to the respondents 8, 9 and 10 were returned as “no such person”, “insufficient address” and “deceased”, respectively.
20. The respondents 12 & 13 received notices and have entered appearance through Counsels and also filed their counter affidavits. Both these respondents have taken a uniform stand that they have paid a sum of Rs.500/- towards the membership fee in the year 2003, however, they have not been issued with any receipts.
21. Mr.C.Narayanan / the 14th respondent received notice and has entered appearance through a Counsel and also filed his counter affidavit on 31.08.2023. Mr.E.V.N.Siva, learned Counsel, by relying on the counter affidavit submitted that the 14th respondent functioned as Secretary / Correspondent of the Yadhava College Management Committee from 23.01.2004 to 06.04.2004 and as a committee member from 07.04.2004 to 29.04.2007 as per the order of this Court, dated 13.03.2004. During the above period, it was brought to the notice that the erstwhile committee have collected donations from various members along with membership form which was also remitted in the Central Bank of India of the college https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 account on 04.08.2003, 29.08.2003, 30.08.2003 and 05.09.2003. The 14th respondent found the receipts remained unsigned by the erstwhile Secretary / Correspondent, ascertained the remittance and endorsed the date on each receipts and also signed those receipts on 28.01.2004. He further claimed that the staff were asked to disburse those receipts after due verification. He also stated in the counter affidavit that as per the bye-law, Society is functioning at No.308A, North Masi Street, Madurai – 625 001 and the College is functioning at Thirupalai, Madurai – 625 014 and the Society is entitled to nominate three members to the Executive Council of the Yadhava College Management Committee and the said Committee alone can administer the College as per the bye-law.
22. In reply to this, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent has also confirmed the same that the Society was functioning from North Masi Street, Madurai and states that the Special Officer, Mrs.Vasuki took charge only from the Office of the Society at North Masi Street. He further stated that even at the time of assuming charge by the first respondent, the Society was functioning only from North Masi Street and only on the request of the Hon'ble Administrator, the Society which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 was functioning from North Masi Street was shifted to the College at Thirupalai, Madurai. The Administrative Officer of the Society has also filed a Form V before the Registrar of Societies for making necessary changes to the address of the Society. From the Form V, it appears that the Society which was originally established at North Masi Street was functioning at Door No.308A was changed to Govindarajan Campus, Thirupalai, Madurai on 23.07.2021.
23. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also produced a letter dated 13.12.2018, which is said to have been written by one Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, the then Secretary of the Society, to then Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Madurai, one Tmt.Vasuki, who was the then Special Officer for the Society. By the letter, Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan claimed that he is having certain original documents with regard to the memberships of the Society and that he was prepared to hand over the same to her. By referring this letter, the learned Counsel submitted that the said Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan was already expelled as a member from the Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi in the year 2004 and the same has been confirmed on 04.06.2006 in the General https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 Council Meeting. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, he is not a member of the Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi, however, he managed to get some favorable orders from the Director of Collegiate Education, functioned as a Secretary of the Society from the year 2009 to 2011.
24. In fact, the Inspector General of Registration, after an enquiry conducted by him under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, filed a report before this Court on 28.03.2012 that the alleged General Body Meeting conducted by Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan on 28.12.2008 is bogus and there is no proof for the same and this report has accepted by this Court in the earlier batch of writ petitions in WP(MD)Nos.13579 of 2011 (supra) and it became final. Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan was not a member in the year 2018 when he approached Tmt.Vasuki, the then Special Officer, however, he has retained the original documents of the Society including the membership list and the original counter foils of certain receipts. This original receipts, according to him, is the receipts of the disputed 932 members and the first respondent has finalized this list of 932 from the available list of members, which was available in the Society records. Adding to that, he also claimed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 that the 14th respondent / Mr.C.Narayanan was said to have been elected in an alleged General Body Meeting conducted on 14.12.2003 and this meeting was presided over by Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan within 13 days from the date of expiry of the previous elected body, ie., on 30.11.2003. The learned Counsel has also relied on the relevant paragraphs from the earlier order in WP(MD)No.13579 of 2011 supra.
25. This Court has noticed that several documents pertaining to the Society were not placed before the first respondent at the time of his reply and also subsequently and therefore, this Court has passed an order directing the Principal of the College to take an inventory on the missing documents and to lodge a complaint with the Central Crime Branch, Madurai. The first respondent, in his report, has stated that the complaint has already been lodged and the same has been registered in Crime No.8 of 2023 for the offence u/s.379 IPC on 09.08.2023. The Investigating Officer in the said case has filed a status report that he has examined the staff of the College and has also break open two Almirah and despite their best efforts, they could not find the missing records for the year 2003-04. He also stated that this resolution of General Body Meeting dated 25.07.2004 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 and the audited accounts for the year 2003-04 were also not traceable. This Court has also directed the Investigating Officer to investigate the letter dated 13.12.2018 produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. An additional report has been filed that they have examined Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan based on the letter dated 13.12.2018 and he has admitted the same, however he claims that he handed over the original counter foils with some officials of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration but not sure with whom he handed over the original documents and he has not received any acknowledgments from the concerned Officer.
26. The first respondent, in the report dated 23.11.2022 has stated as follows:-
“(a) With regard to calling upon Thiru.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan to submit the documents, we have done that already, when he came to meet me in person at the Society's Office. At the time, he told me that he had a list of members which would be submitted in due course of time. Later, he produced through his staff 3 volumes of containing the names of the members, which were received by me and after verification, I found that the same were already available in the office.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
27. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and also perused the materials placed on record.
28. The petitioner is a member of a registered society, namely Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi, Madurai. The Society is in the administration of a Hon'ble (Retired) Judge of this Court, who was appointed by this Court as Administrator in WP(MD) No. 14362 of 2018, etc., batch, dated 31.03.2021. By this common order, this Court set aside the appointment of the Special Officer made by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.96, Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department, dated 27.07.2018 and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.212 Higher Education (D2) Department, dated 05.09.2018, appointing the District Collector as Administrator of the College and appointed Mr. Justice S.Rajeswaran, Hon'ble (Retired) Judge of this Court, to take over the administration of the Society, the Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi and the College, Yadhava College run by the Society till the life members of the Society is properly identified and finalized, to conduct the election and to declare the results. The Hon'ble Administrator was requested to accord first priority for identification of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 actual valid life members of the Society. The first respondent, after scrutinizing the volume of papers placed before him, identified the true and genuine members of the Society as to 2902 members and published the list on 29.05.2022. The petitioner raised an objection with regard to a list of members who were enrolled in the year 2003 and ratified by the 14 th respondent / Mr.C.Narayanan, who was appointed as a temporary Secretary in the year 2004. The petitioner gave this representation to the first respondent on 28.05.2022 and not satisfied with the reply furnished by the first respondent, he filed this writ petition.
29. The necessity for appointing a Special Officer for the Society invoking Section 34A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, is pursuant to a direction of this Court in WP(MD) No. 13579 of 2011, etc., batch, dated 05.03.2013. This Court, accepting the report of the Inspector General of Registration on an enquiry under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, recommended for an action to replace the executive committee of the Society by a Special Officer under Section 34A of the Act. The Special Officer, thus appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.96, is now superseded by a Hon'ble (Retired) Judge of this Court on the subsequent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 orders passed in another batch of writ petitions in WP(MD) No.14362 of 2018, etc., batch, dated 31.03.2021.
30. From the report of the Inspector General of Registration dated 28.03.2012, the following salient observations about the Society could be culled out:-
● The Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi Society was founded in the year 1962 with the aim of imparting quality education for the benefit of Yadhava Community. The said Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, as No.85/1962 (Madurai North). In furtherance of the object, Yadhava College was started by the Society in the year 1969. Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi is recognized as Educational Agency of Yadhava College.
● The Government of Tamil Nadu gave 39.57 acres of land bearing S.Nos.6/17 and 6/13 in Thirupalai Village, Madurai North Taluk, free of land value and land revenue to the Secretary, Yadhava College Managing Council for the construction of college buildings vide G.O.(Ms)No.2350, Revenue Department, dated 24.07.1970. ● Any member who have donated Rs.100/- and above is conferred with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 Life membership and Members who have donated Rs.25/- or more, are eligible to vote and contest in the election. One of the legal heirs can become member of the Society after the death of a member. ● By the amendment of bye-laws in 2007, the application for new memberships shall be placed for consideration in the Governing Council as well as General Body of Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi. Further, the number of members of the Governing Council was also reduced to 11 from 41.
● In the amendment made in the year 2007, it was further resolved that for admission as members of the Society, entry fee of Rs.1000/- shall be paid and an annual subscription of Rs.200/- shall also be payable. ● As per the Bye-laws of the Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi, members are divided into two categories, Class I and Class II. Class I members are members who have paid donation of an amount of Rs.1000/- and above. Class II members are members who have paid donation of an amount below Rs.1000/-.
● The Annual Account Statements filed with the Registrar reveal that only meagre amounts in the range from Rs.10000/- to Rs.25000/- are collected as membership fee for Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi from the year https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 2001 to 2008.
● As per Rule 30 of the Bye-law, for an Extraordinary General Body Meeting to be conducted, an application should be presented to the President with the signature of minimum of 50 members. ● There is no authentic membership list for the Society. The General Body Meetings and Extraordinary General Body Meetings conducted in the Societies are not in accordance with Sections 26 & 28 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules 25 & 27 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules. It was also found that proper elections have not been conducted for the past 15 years.
31. This enquiry report was in fact challenged in W.P.(MD) No. 15398 of 2012, but the recommendation in the enquiry report was accepted by this Court vide common order dated 05.03.2013 in WP(MD) No. 13579 of 2011, etc batch. The writ appeals filed against this order in WA(MD) No. 381 to 385 of 2013 were also dismissed on 03.04.2018 as withdrawn and thereafter, the Government invoking Section 34A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act has appointed Tmt.Vasuki, Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Madurai as Special Officer to manage the affairs https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 of the Society for a period of one year with effect from 27.07.2018, with a mandate to take speedy action to set right the mismanagement noticed in the Society and to hand over the Society to the proper committee members by conducting election within a year. Similar order was passed by the Higher Education Department by invoking Section 14A of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976 and the District Collector, Madurai, was appointed as an Administrator for the College vide G.O.Ms No.212, Higher Education (D2) Department dated 05.09.2018. Both these Government Orders were challenged in WP(MD) Nos.17982, 20242 of 2018, respectively.
32. While disposing these writ petitions along with other connected petitions, Hon'ble Mr.Justice V. Parthiban has appointed the Hon'ble (Retired) Judge of this Court as Administrator for both Society and to the College by his common order dated 31.03.2021. The Hon'ble Administrator has taken charge of the administration from the then Special Officer, Tmt.Vasuki and she handed over 49 volumes of documents relating to the Society to the Hon'ble Administrator on 12.07.2021. From these volumes of documents, 23 volumes of the list of members were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 sorted out and made into three volumes. Volume I contains 4234 members, Volume II contains 5308 members and Volume III contains 53 members.
33. After processing all these three volumes, the first respondent felt that the available list of members did not reflect the true and genuine members belonging to Yadhava community. As per the bye-laws of the Society, only persons from Yadhava community can be the members of the Society. However, people belonging to various other communities were also found as members of the Society and therefore, he decided to go for fresh membership drive, inviting Tamil Nadu Yadhava community people residing in Tamil Nadu as well as residing and working in other States of India to become members of the Society, filed an application before this Court in WMP(MD) No. 18282 of 2021 in WP(MD) No. 14362 of 2018.
34. Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.V. Karthikeyan has considered this concern of the first respondent as genuine, since the name itself signifies that the Society was established for the welfare of the Yadhava community people and held that it cannot be allowed to be encroached by third parties and allowed the application by order dated 22.12.2021. The Court, while https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 allowing the said writ petition, has accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Administrator on the list of members from the Volume I that they can be eliminated, as they neither have a receipt number nor any document to prove their community. With regard to the list of 5308 numbers from the Volume II, the Court felt that they may be provided with an opportunity to produce their community certificates, since they are having a membership number and a receipt. Having stated so, the Court has also stated that these members have to obtain community certificate from the concerned jurisdictional Thasildhar and suggested the first respondent to address this issue to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management to issue a circular to all the District Collectors impressing upon them to deal with the application for grant of community certificates for Yadhava community people cautiously with care and if any false certificate is issued, they would be accountable. The last batch of 53 members in Volume III were permitted to pay the subscription since they have a membership number and community certificate.
35. One Mr.N.Kannan has filed a writ appeal against this interim order dated 22.12.2021 in WA(MD) Nos. 29 & 30 of 2022. The Division https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and set aside this interim order of the Court permitting the first respondent to go for a fresh membership drive, holding that it would disturb the democratic process and take away the supremacy of the general body. The Division Bench, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Kerala v. T.A.Kuttappan [(2000) 6 SCC 127] and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in K.Nithiyanantham v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [(2006) 1 CTC 1], held that being an adhoc appointee, the powers of an Administrator are restricted under Section 34A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and what is superseded is the Management Committee and not the General Body. The supremacy of the General Body continues to operate, even after the supersession of the Managing Committee.
36. Mr.N.Kannan has also filed an application in CMP.No.5668 of 2022 to finalise the voters list of the Society with the 58 members whose names were found in the register and duly registered in Form VI. This application was dismissed by the Division Bench with a cost of Rs.50,000/-. While dismissing this application, the Division Bench has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 discussed the issue with regard to the membership in the name of the Society and the College and has held that there is no scope for rejecting the members who have paid Rs.100/- or more to the Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi. This observation has been made by the Division Bench based on the statement of the Hon'ble Administrator in his report that members from Volume II are having receipts issued by Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi and also in the name of the College. They were considered as members of the Society and decision of the Hon'ble Administrator in accepting the members having receipts was accepted by the Division Bench.
37. The basic problem in the membership of Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi is that only 58 persons were registered as members of the Society and others were enrolled as members of the College. Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi alone is the Society duly registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, but the members enrolled in the name of Yadhava College, either unknowingly or intentionally, issued with receipts in the name of the College. Supplementary bye-laws were framed as Yadhava College Rules and any Yadhava who donates Rs.250/- will become a life member of the Yadhava College General Council. These members need not be members of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 39/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 the parent Society, ie., Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi. Those who have paid donations to the College were selected for executive council.
38. In fact, before Tmt.Vasuki, the then Special Officer was appointed by the Government, around 40 members of the Society and the College have appeared and submitted a list of eligible members. The same is available in the typedset of papers filed in WP(MD)No.21218 of 2019 and the same would be relevant and therefore, extracted as under:-
S.No Date Name of the Name of the No. of
Applicant Society / Institution Person
1 13.08.2018 T.R.Nagarajan Yadhava College 40
S/o.T.Ragavan
Yadhav
2 13.08.2018 M.Radhakrishnan Yadhava College 15
3 13.08.2018 K.Jeyakumar Yadhava College 40
4 13.08.2018 K.Pandi Yadhava College 70
5 14.08.2018 G.Palaniyappan Yadhava College 50
6 14.08.2018 M.Kumar Yadhava College 68
7 14.08.2018 G.Annadurai Yadhava College 45
8 20.08.2018 S.Kumar Yadhava College 34
9 20.08.2018 S.Sundara Yadhava College 118
Muniswaran
10 21.08.2018 V.Munisamy Yadhava College 36
S/o.Velu
11 21.08.2018 S.Dinakaran Yadhava College 61
S/o.Sethuraman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
40/82
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
12 21.08.2018 R.Vadamalai Yadhava College 63
13 21.08.2018 C.Ramu Yadhava College 56
S/o.Chinnakkon
14 21.08.2018 Kottaichamy and Yadhava College 50
Others
Ramanathapuram
15 21.08.2018 Murugesan and Yadhava College 30
Others
Thiruvadanai
16 27.08.2018 R.Ramachandran Yadhava College 77
S/o.Ramakrishnan
17 27.08.2018 R.Thangam Yadhava College 59
S/o.Rathinam
18 30.08.2018 M.Rengan Yadhav Yadhava College 109
S/o.Muthaiah
19 03.09.2018 V.T.Maheswaran Yadhava College 50
S/o.S.V.Thanan
Konar
20 20.09.2018 C.M.Murugesan Yadhava College 87
21 01.10.2018 Yadhavar Kalloori Yadhava College 2536
Munnal Manavar
Mandram as per
1994
22 03.12.2018 Krishanan Yadhava College 2536
23 04.12.2018 M.Mayakkannan Yadhava College 23
24 04.12.2018 C.Chellamurugan Yadhava College 30
25 05.12.2018 K.Murugesan Yadhava College 50
Yadhav
26 07.12.2018 K.Ayyanar Yadhava College 20
27 07.12.2018 Balakrishnan Yadhava College 29
28 07.12.2018 Sethu Dinakaran Yadhavar Kalvi 61
Nithi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
41/82
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
29 10.12.2018 G.Subbiah Yadhava College 40
30 12.12.2018 Subbiah Yadhav Yadhava College 126
31 12.12.2018 P.Gunasekaran Yadhava College 4243
32 13.12.2018 K.P.Navaneetha Yadhavar Kalvi 2888
Krishnan Nithi
33 14.12.2018 R.Veerabathiran Yadhavar Kalvi 54
Nithi
34 14.12.2018 G.Arumugam Yadhavar Kalvi 44
Nithi
35 14.12.2018 V.Muthukrishnan Yadhavar Kalvi 38
Nithi
36 14.12.2018 K.Muthiah Yadhav Yadhavar Kalvi 14
Nithi
37 14.12.2018 U.Subbiah Yadhavar Kalvi 118
Nithi
38 14.12.2018 S.Sathiya Yadhavar Kalvi 39
Nithi
39 14.12.2018 R.Kannan Yadhavar Kalvi 42
Nithi
40 2007-2008 Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi (Regn.No.85/1962) 58
Society in the financial year 2007-2008
(Last filing and accepted List) Members
List filed before the District Registrar
(North), Madurai
Total 14147
39. Tmt.Vasuki rejected all these members since there are no valid documents to show that they are the members of the Society. The disputed receipts signed by Mr.C.Narayanan [Receipt Nos.4345 to 5282] were also https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 42/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 produced during that period by Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan. The Special Officer has verified the original receipts with the receipts relied by Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan. This writ petitioner, Gunasekaran, has also produced a list of 4323 members on 12.12.2018. One Mr.Kandhavel, Secretary of Alumni of Yadhava College and one Mr.Krishnan have produced a list of 4130 members on 01.10.2018 and 03.12.2018 respectively. Mr.Kannan has produced 58 members on 24.11.2018 and Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan has produced a list of 5282 members. He also produced the xerox copies of 44 receipt books which were later compared with the originals.
40. Around 17559 list of members were produced before the then Special Officer by the above said persons as true and eligible members. The Special Officer has accepted the 58 members list produced by Mr.N.Kannan as eligible and rejected the others stating that there is no valid document to recognize them as true and eligible members of the Society. Though Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan produced 5282 list of members along with receipts, the same was rejected that they are members of College and not the members of the Society, Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 43/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 only registered Society. With this 58 members, she also proceeded with the election.
41. The proceedings of the Special Officer, Tmt.Vasuki in Na.Ka.No. 5678/2018/E3 dated 23.03.2019, notifying the election date for the Society was challenged by one Mr.G. Veluchamy in W.P.(MD) No.8773 of 2019. In that batch of writ petitions, the Special Officer was superseded by appointing the Hon'ble (Retired) Judge of this Court as Administrator, by the orders of this Court dated 31.03.2021.
42. In order to give a solution to the issue which is in the Court for more than 20 years, this Court has appointed a Hon'ble Retired High Court Judge as an Administrator to identify the members of the Society and to conduct the election. This Society has not witnessed any election for the past two decades and the Hon'ble Administrator has successfully achieved this task by conducting the election for the Society on 05.08.2023 peacefully, however, the results are not declared in view of the pendency of this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 44/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
43. The concept of Society evolved 2000 years back with Tamil Sangam. A collective growth was achieved through the Sangams. This object of Sangam is totally shattered now. One drop of poison can spoil the entire tank of water. Similarly, one greedy member in any Society can spoil the entire Society. These greedy members are encouraged by some corrupt officials in the Departments. The existing provisions enable these corrupt people to commit mistakes and therefore, the relevant Act and Rules dealing with the affairs of the Society has to be revisited and a foolproof system has to be evolved.
44. Democracy is the basic structure of our constitution. It is the lifeline of this Country. The Will and Wish of the members can be achieved only through a democratic process. The basic requirements of any democracy are active participation, periodical elections, free, fair and without any malpractice or manipulation. Our basic structure is now questioned by some miscreants with malpractices and that needs to be weeded out at the threshold. In order to ensure free and fair elections, the Societies are also spending huge amount of the Society for these Advocate Commissioners or any Observers appointed for this purpose. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 45/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
45. From the report of the Hon'ble Administrator, it could be seen that the Yadhava College established through the Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi had some glory with a 'A' Grade accreditation from NAAC and also autonomous status. Due to the mismanagement in the past, both these recognitions given to the Yadhava College were withdrawn. The Hon'ble Administrator, apart from identifying the true and eligible members of the Society as an Administrator of the Society, has also rendered a remarkable service by regaining these two recognitions to the College, as an Administrator of the College.
46. It is found that more than 3000 students are studying in this College run by the Society. The very object of establishing this Society itself is to impart quality education to a sect of people who are not having adequate education facilities at that relevant period of time. The Government has also recognized the object of the Society by providing 40 acres of land, free of cost and tax and also government aid for the teaching and non-teaching staff. In view of the infighting among the members, vacancies were not filled up and there are 61 vacancies as of now. It is not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 46/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 known what best the existing faculty can do for the Students with shortage in faculties and lack of other required infrastructures. It is the Hon'ble Administrator who has done valuable service in the past two years by arranging computers and other materials for the laboratories. However, he has not filled up the vacancies, since he is an interim Administrator of the College and it appears, the filling up of the 61 aided post may be one of the reasons for this ongoing fight.
47. The Government is providing aid to these private institutions run by the Societies to encourage education, but the members of the Societies who are running these aided institutions are fighting amongst themselves for taking control of the administration, without any concern on the education intended to be provided in these institutions. It is not an issue in this Society alone, it is a common affair in almost all the Societies having aided institutions.
48. The District Registrars of Societies, who are expected to discharge their duties in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act, are in fact encouraging these disputes by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 47/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 registering the documents without ascertaining whether the meetings were duly conducted as contemplated under the Act and Rules.
49. Every Society is expected to conduct at least one general body meeting for the registered Society in every financial year, as per Section 26 of the Societies Registration Act. Notice of every such general body meeting shall be given by the registered Society to its members and this notice shall specify the date, hour, place and the object of the meeting. In case any amendment to the bye-law of a Society is intended to be proceeded, it shall also be mentioned.
50. Rule 25 prescribes the mode of such notices as contemplated under Sub Section 2 of Section 26 and the same is extracted as follows:-
“25. Notice of annual general meeting to members.— ( 1) Notice of general meeting of the society under sub—section (2) of Section 26 shall be given to the members at least twenty- one days before the day appointed for such meeting (2) The notice shall be sent to the members by one or more of the following modes,namely:——
(a) by local delivery; or
(b) by post; or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 48/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
(c) by circulation among the members; or
(d) by publication through Press.
(3) The notice shall also be affixed to the notice board of the society.”
51. The notice shall be issued to all the parties by giving at least 21 days time from the date of expiry of the last elected body. Unfortunately, these meetings are not conducted in accordance with the statute. The Officers, in connivance with some members, are also creating records as if the meetings were conducted. Sub Section 4 of Section 26 provides that the Registrar has to appoint an Officer subordinate to him to be present at any such general body meeting. Unfortunately, it is not followed, since there is no mandate in the provision. Even in case if any observers are nominated, they are mute spectators and are taking sides with some groups in view of the money involved in the administration of these educational institutions. In fact, this is the basic reason as to why several litigations are filed and are pending. Nowadays, the Courts are also appointing Advocate Commissioners and Retired District Judges to ensure that the elections are conducted in a free and fair manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 49/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
52. Section 26(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act needs to be amended with a mandate that a representative of the Registration Department shall be present in the general body meeting and he shall also ensure that all the parties have been duly intimated about the general body meeting. In this regard, certain amendments are also required under Rule 25(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules to ensure that all the parties were properly intimated for the general body meeting. If the general body meetings are conducted in a proper manner with some accountability, then these litigations can be reduced to some extent, so that the valuable time of Courts can also be preserved for other pending matters.
53. The Secretary to Government, Registration Department, shall also fix some responsibility and accountability on the Officers who are handling with the registration of documents, if any, filed by the Societies so that wrong registration of Form 7 can be prevented.
54. In this case also, it is evident that general body meetings were conducted without adhering to the conditions stipulated under Sections 25, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 50/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 26 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and Rules 26, 27 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules. However, the officials have issued orders in favour of some individuals, which was later found to be bogus and were set aside. But, in the meantime, enough damage has been caused to the Society as well as to the College run by this Society. Therefore, this Court expects the Special Government Pleader to address this issue along with the copy of the order to the Secretaries to Government, Registration Department; Higher Education Department; and School Education Department, through the Additional Advocate General. The respective Secretaries shall take initiatives to carry out amendments in the relevant procedures to ensure that the elections are conducted in a proper and transparent manner.
55. The issue in this writ petition is with regard to the receipts issued by Mr.C.Narayanan, who was appointed temporarily by the Director of Collegiate Education by proceedings dated 22.01.2004. Mr.C.Narayanan is said to have been nominated in an alleged general body meeting conducted on 14.12.2003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 51/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
56. The previous elected body approved by the Registrar of Societies headed by Mr.A.R.Chandran was in administration of the Society till 30.11.2003. As per the bye-law, the Secretary of the Society has to convene any general body meeting. This meeting dated 14.12.2003 was convened by Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan, who was not an office bearer of the Society at that relevant point of time. Moreover, this general body meeting was convened within 13 days from the period of expiry of the earlier body. As discussed above, a clear 21 days notice is required for any general body meeting or an extra ordinary general body meeting. That statutory requirement has not been complied in the so called meeting conducted on 14.12.2003. Not only in this meeting, but in the subsequent meeting wherein, Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan was elected was also convened without following the provisions under Rules 26, 27 of the Registration Rules. Therefore, the Inspector General of Registration in his enquiry report has held that these meetings are bogus and the same was accepted by this Court that this meetings were bogus and invalid.
57. The Director of Collegiate Education has approved the appointment of Mr.C.Narayanan based on this general body meeting dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 52/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 14.12.2003. But, the resolution of this general body meeting was not placed before the District Registrar and was not registered, as required under Rule 17(2) of the Registration Rules. The educational agency shall nominate any of its members as Secretary of the College and only with the prior approval of the Director, he can act so. It is not known how the Director of Collegiate Education has identified this nomination of Mr.C.Narayanan as a representation of the Educational Agency of Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi, without the same being approved by the District Registrar of Societies.
58. In this case, the disputed members were said to have paid donations to the Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi in the months of August and September, 2003. Receipts have been prepared on the respective dates of their payments, however, it was not signed on that date and it was signed by the 14th respondent only on 28.01.2004. Further, during the months of August and September 2003, an elected body headed by Mr.A.R.Chandran was in existence, however, none of these receipts have been signed by the then elected Secretary of the Society and there is no valid explanation available as to why the Office Bearers of the Society have failed to sign https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 53/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 and issue the receipts then and there. These receipts were signed and ratified after 177 days from the date of payment and none of the disputed members have demanded these receipts.
59. The main contention of the petitioner is that Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan with the help of his man, Mr.C.Narayanan i.e., the 14th respondent, who was inducted as a temporary Secretary of the College, has created these bogus receipts with the available accounts in the college account. These members have never paid any money towards the membership fee and they are bogus members.
60. On this contention of the petitioner and also on the prima facie doubt of signing the receipts after four months, this Court requested the first respondent to produce the bank statements of the Society and also the audited accounts of the Society for the year 2003-04. The first respondent, after perusing the documents, has produced the bank statements of the college and there are relevant entries of Rs.2,69,000/- on 04.08.2003, wherein, 398 of the disputed members recognized by Mr.C.Narayanan are said to have paid Rs.500/- each as membership fee and 14 persons has paid https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 54/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 Rs.5000/-. All together, it comes around Rs.269000/-. Similarly, the other members said to have paid on 29.08.2003, 30.08.2003 and 06.09.2003 were also tallying with the college accounts.
61. The Hon'ble Administrator has expressed his difficulty in tracing and placing the audited account of the Society and therefore, this Court directed the Special Government Pleader to find the same from the Office of Inspector General of Registration. The Special Government Pleader has produced the audited account statement approved by the general body meeting. The society's accounts for the Financial Year 2003-04 were audited by a Charted Accountant and were placed in the general body meeting held on 25.07.2004 and the same was also approved by the general body. As per the audited statement, as approved by the general body, only Rs.6800/- was remitted towards membership fee, whereas, the available receipts and the bank statement comes around Rs.5,31,500/- as membership fee.
62. As per Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, every Society shall maintain the account books as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 55/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 “18. Accounts to be maintained by the society.— Every society shall keep and maintain the following books of accounts:
(a) Cash book showing daily receipt and expenditure, and the balance at the end of each day;
(b) Receipt book, containing forms in duplicate, one of each set to be issued with details for money received by the society and other to serve as counterfoil;
(c) Vouchers file, containing all vouchers for contingent and other expenditure incurred by the society, numbered serially and filed chronologically;
(d) Ledger showing consolidated and separate account of all items of receipts and expenditure, member-wise as well as item-wise;
(e) Monthly register of receipts and disbursements.”
63. Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act mandates an audit of the accounts of the society by a Charted Accountant for each financial year. In the Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi, the statement of accounts for the financial year 2003-04 were duly audited through a Charted Accountant and were also placed before the general body meeting and filed before the District Registrar of Societies. However, the cash book and other records for the year 2003-04 are not available in the Society. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 56/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
64. Apart from the missing ledgers, curiously, the general body resolution dated 14.12.2003 through which the 14th respondent was nominated is also found missing with the Society and with the College. It is also not available with the District Registrar of Societies and with the Director of Collegiate Education. Having found that some of the crucial documents are missing, this Court has suggested the Principal of the College to take an inventory of the missing documents and to lodge a complaint before the police for recovering the same. The Principal of the College has also traced for the documents, found that these account books are missing in the College, lodged a complaint before the Central Crime Branch, Madurai. A case has been registered in Cr.No.8 of 2023 on 09.08.2023. The investigating officer, who is conducting the case in Cr.No. 8 of 2023, has filed a status report before this Court that despite their best efforts, they could not find the documents pertaining to the year 2003-04.
65. If any amount has been received as claimed, it ought to have been recorded in some Registers like Day Book or in the Cash Book. In this case, the documents pertaining to the year 2003-2004 are not available in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 57/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 the Office of the Society. The Principal of the College has also confirmed the same and lodged a complaint before the Central Crime Branch, Madurai. The investigation officer who is also conducting the investigation filed a report that despite their best efforts, the documents pertaining to the year 2003-2004 is not traceable till date. However certain documents are available with an expelled secretary of the society, particularly the original counter foils of the disputed members and the same has been produced by him before the then Special Officer in the year 2018.
66. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced a letter dated 13.12.2018 addressed by Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan to the then Special Officer, Tmt.Vasuki and submitted that the entire original documents have been taken by Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan and these crucial documents are also with him only. He further submitted that the 14th respondent was inducted by Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan through the alleged general body meeting dated 14.12.2003 and the 14th respondent has created these receipts at the instance of Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan. The investigating officer has also confirmed the same in his status report that Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 58/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 has admitted with regard to this letter dated 13.12.2018. This letter is also extracted as under:-
“nkw;fz;lMa[l;fhy cWg;gpdh;fs; midtUk; ahjth; fy;tpepjpf;F cWg;gpdh; fl;lzkhf ahjth; fy;Yhhp tq;fp fzf;fpy; brYj;jp Ma[l;fhy cWg;gpdh;fshf cs;shh;fs;. fl;lzk; bgw;wjw;fhd mof;fl;il rhd;W (Counter Foil) kw;Wk; mry; (Original) jhq;fs; cWg;gpdh; gl;oay; rhpghh;fF ; k; nghJ my;yJ jhq;fs; nfhUk; nghJ rkh;g;gpf;f jahuhf cs;nshk;. nkYk; ahjth; fy;tp epjpahy; btspaplg;gl;l cWg;gpdh; gl;oay; g[j;jfk; mrYk; jhq;fs; gl;oay; rhpghh;fF; k; nghnjh my;yJ jhq;fs; nfhUk; nghnjh rkh;g;gpf;f jahuhf cs;nshk;. mof;fl;ilia (Counter Foil) gphpj;J efy; vLj;jhy; mjd; cz;ik jd;ikia ,He;J tpLk; vd;gjhy; efy; ,izf;fg;gltpy;iy. vdnt ePjpkd;w cj;jutpd;go 2888 Ma[l;fhy cWg;gpdh;fs; gl;oay; ,j;Jld;
rkh;gg; pf;fg;gLfpwJ. cWg;gpdh; gl;oay; rhpghh;gg; pd; nghJ nkw;fz;l Mtzq;fis nehpy; M$uhfp jhf;fy; bra;a chpa fhy mtfhrk; vdf;F tHq;fp> mjd; gpd;g[ cWg;gpdh; gl;oaiy rhpghh;f;Fk;go gzpt[ld; ntz;of; bfhs;fpnwd;.”
67. This Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan has filed a writ petition before this Court in WP(MD) No.8772 of 2019 challenging the election notification dated 23.03.2019, wherein, he has taken a similar stand in his affidavit that he visited the office of the then Special Officer, Tmt.Vasuki for handing over of the original documents and the Special Officer https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 59/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 demanded to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- for each life members. Further it was also stated that the then Special Officer called over phone for the original receipts in his possession and the same was submitted by him by letter dated 06.03.2019.
68. From the available records in the earlier round of litigations, this Court finds that certain original receipts were with Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan even during the year 2018 and were handed over by him to one Mr.Senthil Kumar on 06.03.2019. The acknowledgment of Mr.Senthil Kumar for receiving 9 books from Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan is available in WP(MD).No.21218 of 2019.
69. The disputed members ratified by Mr.C.Narayanan are the members having receipt numbers from 4345 to 5282. The original counter foils for these receipts were with Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan in the year 2019 and it was handed over by him to an Assistant of the Inspector General of Registration on 06.03.2019. These documents which were in possession of the Special Officer were handed over to the first respondent at the time of handing over the charges on 12.07.2021. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 60/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
70. The first respondent has segregated the volume of papers into three volumes, scrutinized the same and deleted the entire list of 4234 members from Volume I, as they do not have any membership number as well as receipt number. This decision of the Hon'ble Administrator was also discussed and accepted by this Court in the earlier proceedings in WMP(MD)No.18282 of 2021 (supra). This disputed members comes under the category Volume II of 5308 and for all of them, as suggested by this Court, notices were sent calling upon them to produce their community certificates that they belong to Yadhava Community. Based on the acknowledgment received, 2284 members were rejected on the following reasons:-
S.No. Details of returned notices Nos 1. No such addressee 854 2. Deceased 618 3. Insufficient address 307 4. Left without instruction 156 5. Not available/ not known/ (door locked) 182 6. Address changed 95 7. Redirected to addressee 7 8. No reason accorded for return 65 Total 2284 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 61/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
71. Further, from the disputed 932 members, 242 members were already excluded by the 1st respondent at the time of their scrutinizing. From the remaining 684 members, only 226 members have responded with community certificates and 31 members have responded with transfer certificates and one has referred the PAN card for proof of community. However, these 684 members have been taken as eligible and genuine voters based on the acknowledgments received and the certificates produced. From these 684 members, only 38 members have appeared in person before the first respondent in response to the notices issued and 226 members have sent their community certificates by post.
72. This Court, in order to provide an opportunity to these members, has also caused notice through the notice board about the interim order of this Court dated 01.08.2023 to those disputed members during the General Body Meeting. None of the members from the disputed 932 members has come forward to contest this writ petition except the persons impleaded by this Court suo moto. From the impleaded respondents also, only two have responded and even they claim that they were not provided with any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 62/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 receipts for their payment. It appears none of these members have any receipts in their hand. What is available with the first respondent is the xerox copies of the counter foils, which were also produced before the Special Officer by Mr.K.P.Navaneetha Krishnan.
73. The Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi is having a registered office at No. 308A, North Masi Street, Madurai – 625 001. The documents pertaining to the Society is not in the registered office nor in the College, however, it is available with an expelled member. Nothing is proper in the administration of the Society and that is why, the Inspector General of Registration has recommended for appointment of Special Officer under Section 34A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the same was accepted by this Court. The process of identifying the true and genuine members is only pursuant to the orders of this Court and therefore, this Court entertained this writ petition and heard the parties.
74. These members were inducted by the 14th Respondent, who was nominated only as a Secretary of the College as a temporary measure for the disbursement of salary to the employees of the College. The Secretary https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 63/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 of the College, even if approved by the Director of Collegiate Education cannot take the powers of the Secretary of the Society in ratifying the membership of the Society.
75. It is relevant to extract the orders of the Director of Collegiate Education, in Na.Ka.No38898/G4/2003 dated 22.01.2004 in and by which the appointment of Mr.C.Narayanan as Temporary Secretary of the college was approved, as follows:-
“vdnt gzpahsh;fspd; eyid fUj;jpy; bfhz;L> fy;Yhhp bghJf;FGthy; epakpf;fg;gl;Ls;s jpU.rp.ehuhazd; vd;ghiu njh;jy; elj;jp g[jpa brayhsh; gzp Vw;Fk; tiu fy;Yhhp brayhsuhf jw;fhypfkhf mq;fPfhpj;J Miz tHq;fg;gLfpwJ. tpjpfspd;go njh;jiy tpiutpy; elj;j jf;f eltof;if vLf;FkhW mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ.”
76. A Secretary in a private college has limited functions and he has to act on the basis of the resolutions of the College Committee. As per Sub Section 1 of Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, the Secretary shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be prescribed. The main function of the Secretary is to make payments and allowance to the Teachers and other employees employed in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 64/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 the College as per Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Rules, 1976. Mr.C.Narayanan was inducted on a temporary basis for the purpose of drawing and disbursing the salary for the Teachers and other employees of the college till the election is concluded in the Society. However, Mr.C.Narayanan has dealt with the affairs of the Society, ratified certain members by signing and issuing receipts for membership.
77. These disputed 932 members are said to have paid Rs.500/- and Rs.5000/- each to the Society in the month of August and in the first week of September 2003. During that relevant period, an elected Body headed by one Mr.A.R.Chandran was in existence and his tenure was over only on 30.11.2003. Whereas, the 14th respondent claimed that he was selected in the General Body dated 14.12.2003 and was appointed by the Director of the Collegiate Education, as the Secretary of the College on 22.01.2004. He further claimed that he found certain receipts unsigned and after verifying with the accounts, he signed those receipts on 28.01.2004 and therefore, there is no illegality in signing those receipts. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 65/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
78. This resolution dated 14.12.2003 is not traceable from the Society and also from the Directorate of Collegiate Education. However, this General Body Meeting was discussed in the earlier round of litigation by this Court in WP(MD) No.13579 of 2011, etc, batch and it is usefully extracted as under:-
“(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 Yadhavar 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 66/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 67/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 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.”
79. On 04.08.2003, around 400 persons are said to have paid the membership fee. A sum of Rs.2,69,000/- is in the College account on that day. The petitioner claims that based on the balancing amounts available in the college's accounts, these receipts were created. During that relevant point of time, the banking hours of any nationalized bank was up to 01.00 pm or 02.00 pm. It is humanly not possibly to collect this much of amount and to prepare the receipts and remitting it on the same day, at that point of time. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner also appears to have some logic.
80. This Court has also noticed certain discrepancies in some of the receipts of the disputed members. The petitioner by producing certain receipts demonstrated that these receipts were signed originally on 26.01.2004 and in order to suit the accounts and also after knowing that it was a public holiday, it was corrected as 28.01.2004. In the receipt issued in favour of one Gopal, the receipt is dated as 30.08.2003 and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 68/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 14th respondent signed it on 26.01.2004. However, in the counter foils produced, it is mentioned as 04.08.2003 and signed on 28.01.2004. A similar discrepancy is also pointed out to another member, Govindarajalu. The petitioner claims that he found these discrepancies in the following receipts bearing Nos.4391, 4380, 4384, 4470, 4722, 4741, 4966, 4977, 4980, 4981, 5002, 5009, 5080, 5119 and etc.
81. During the course of hearing, the general body resolution dated 25.07.2004 was produced on behalf of the first respondent that the petitioner, as a member of the Society, has approved the audited account of the Society along with other members and therefore, he is not supposed to question that this membership amount has not been accounted for. In this general body meeting, apart from accepting of the audited account, the general body has also accepted the resolution for removing eight members and adding one member, Mr.P.Balasubramanian, as a new member. Though the bye-law does not require an approval for membership from the General Body Meeting, at that relevant point of time, the removal of eight members of the Society and induction of a new member was placed and approved by this General Body Meeting dated 25.07.2004. Therefore, the practice of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 69/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 placing the inclusion of new member before the General Body Meeting was prevalent at that time. This practice of placing the admission and deletion of members in the general body meetings can also be found in various general body meeting resolutions dated 08.05.2002, 25.07.2004 and 24.07.2005 in the files produced by the Hon'ble Administrator. While so, it is not known as to how these 932 members, as alleged to have been enrolled as members in the month of August, September, 2003, were not placed in the general body dated 25.07.2004, when the general body has also discussed about the enrolment of a new member.
82. The relevant portion of the resolution dated 25.07.2004 is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience:-
“bghUs; 3 : cWg;gpdh;fs; nrh;f;if kw;Wk; ePf;fk; Fwpj;J jPh;khdk; : ekJ mikg;gpd; bfsutj; jiyth; lhf;lh; jpU/nf/nfhghy; MBBS.,T.D.D., F.C.G.F., mth;fs;
jdJ taJ Kjph;tpd; fhuzkhf ekJ mikg;gpd;
bray;ghLfspy; KGikahf <LglKoatpy;iybad
bjhptpj;Js;sgoahy; mtuJ bgah;. jpUR.neUuhrd;
mth;fs; 15/07/2004 ,y; ,aw;ifbaa;J tpl;ljhy; mtuJ bgah;. ekJ mikg;gpd; rl;l tpjpfs; gphpt[ 9d; go 2004? 2005 Mk; Mz;ow;fhd cWg;gpdh; fl;lzj;ij 20/06/2004 Mk; ehSf;Fs; brYj;jhj jpUthsh;fs; S.Re;juuhrd; (1) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 70/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 V.S.fpU!;zd; (2) K.P.etePjfpU!;zd; (3) T.uhn$e;jpud; (4) A.j';fntY (5) T.bt';flhrygjp (6) CAT.mg;gh; rhkp (7) N.kzptz;zd; (8) Mfpnahh;fis cWg;gpdh;
gl;oaypypUe;J ePf;fk; bra;at[k; kw;Wk; cWg;gpduhf nru tpUg;gk; bjhptpj;Js;s jpU/ ghyRg;gpukzpad; mth;fis g[jpa cWg;gpduhf nrh;j;Jf;fbfhs;st[k;
jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;lJ/”
83. It is a settled position of law that an Administrator or a Committee appointed on a temporary basis cannot have the power to enrol new members. Based on this settled proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.A.Kuttappan's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that the first respondent, Hon'ble Administrator, superseding the elected body cannot enrol new members. Applying this ratio, Mr.C.Narayanan's capacity for enrolling new members cannot be valid. The relevant paragraphs form the order of the Division Bench is extracted hereunder as follows, “27. A careful perusal of Section 88(3) indicates that the administrator appointed shall have all the powers of the board. However Section 89-A was introduced in Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act by way of amendment to the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act under which powers were conferred https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 71/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 upon the administrator to induct new members during his adhocism . The validity of the said provision was challenged before this Court. A Full Bench of our High Court in a judgment reported in 2006 1 CTC Page 1 while declaring that Section 89-A of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act as unconstitutional has held as follows in “69.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the Co-operative Societies are constituted to function through the democratic management by the General Body through its elected board which alone is empowered to enrol the new members. If the power of enrolment of new members is conferred on the Special Officer who is appointed for a limited period with limited power to manage the affairs of the society till the constitution of newly elected board, it would amount to conferring powers on the Special Officer for alteration of the composition of the society itself which affects not only the democratic set up and management of the society but also the scheme of the Act itself”
28.The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a similar provision under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969 in Paragraph No.7 of the judgment reported in (2000) 6 SCC 127) has held as follows:
“7. ... What is necessary to bear in mind is that nature https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 72/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 of function or power exercised and not the manner in which it is done. Indeed this Court, while considering the provisions of Section 30-A of the Karnataka Act, which enabled a Special Officer appointed to exercise and perform all the powers and functions of the Committee of Management or any officer of the Co-operative society (and not merely functions), took the view that the administrator or a Special Officer canexercise powers and functions only as may be required in the interests of the cooperative society. In that context, it was stated that he should conduct elections as enjoined under law, that is, he is to conduct elections with the members as on the rolls and by necessary implication, he is not vested with power to enrol new members of the society. We may add that a cooperative society is expected to function in a democratic manner through an elected committee of Management and that Committee of Management is empowered to enrol new members. Enrolment of new members would involve alteration of the composition of the society itself and such a power should be exercised by an elected committee rather than by an administrator or a committee appointed by the Registrar while the Committee of Management is under supersession. ...”” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 73/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
84. In this case, these members said to have paid the membership fee on 04.08.2003, 29.08.2003, 30.08.2003, 06.09.2003 and there is a corresponding entry available in the college bank account. However, there are no registers available to ascertain whether these amounts available are pertaining to the membership for any of the disputed members. The specific case of the petitioner is that these receipts have been created based on the available accounts. This contention of the petitioner also appears to be correct, in view of the audited statement as approved in the general body meeting dated 25.07.2004. Only Rs.6800/- was collected towards membership for the year 2003-04.
85. The enquiry report under Section 36 of the Societies Registration Act in the year 2012 discussed above also reveals as follows:-
“From 2001 onwards, the Annual Account Statements filed with the Registrar reveal only about the Yadhavar Kalvi Nidhi membership fee collection account. The membership fee of the year 2001 to 2008 are only meagre amounts in the range of Rs. 10000/- to Rs.25000/-.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 74/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
86. The basic appointment of Mr.C.Narayanan itself appears to be bogus, since the so called meeting was conducted within 13 days from the date of expiry of the previous elected body and the same was convened without following the statutory requirements as provided under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the Rules and therefore, it is ex-facie illegal. The alleged extra ordinary general body meeting is in violation of the provisions under Sections 26, 28 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and Rules 25, 27 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules, 1978. As per 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. However, from the expiry of last tenure on 30.11.2003, within just 13 days, the meeting was convened on 14.12.2003. Based on this resolution dated 14.12.2003, the Directorate of Collegiate Education has also approved Mr.C.Narayanan as a temporary Secretary of the College for the purpose of drawing salary for the employees of the College.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 75/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
87. As discussed above, the disputed members inducted by the 14th respondent whose appointment itself appears to be dubious and even assuming that he was recognized by the Director of Collegiate Education, that order is ex-facie illegal, passed without ascertaining the relevant provisions of law. Even by this order, he was appointed only as a Secretary of the College for the purpose of disbursement of salary to the college staff and he cannot function as a Secretary of the Society by recognizing the members' receipts. It is also a settled position of law that an interim management as an Administrator cannot supersede the general body by inducting new members. The available general body meetings disclose a practice of placing the new membership in the general body during that relevant period and this 932 disputed members were not found in the general body meeting dated 25.07.2004. Therefore, this Court without any hesitation comes to a conclusion that the disputed members are not true life members of the Society.
88. For the foregoing reasonings and discussions, the writ petition in WP(MD) No.16340 of 2022 is allowed. The first respondent shall proceed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 76/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 further with the election conducted on 05.08.2023 and declare the results by counting the votes polled, after expunging the votes polled by the voters and the contestants who have contested in the election under the impugned 932 (684) members which are kept separately.
89. The three impleading petitions filed in WMP(MD) No.2182 of 2023, WMP(MD) No.1107 of 2023 and WMP(MD) No.14250 of 2023 by the petitioners Mr.M.Sundaraj, Mr.L.Kesavan and Mr.M.Sundaraj respectively. All these impleading petitions were filed stating they are the life members of Yadhavar Kalvi Nithi Society and they want to bring out real facts before this Court to proper adjudication of this writ petition. Further, after election, one Mr.T.N.Subbiah filed an impleading petition in WMP.No.17741 of 2023, who is also a contestant in the election and he is not from the disputed 932 members. These impleading petitioners, who are not from the disputed 932 members, either support the writ petition or oppose the writ petition and the orders which are going to be passed in this writ petition are no way adverse to them. The case of the petitioner and the case of the respondents were already argued elaborately and were discussed. Therefore, these impleading petitioners are not necessary for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 77/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 adjudication of the dispute in this petition. Hence, the impleading petitions are dismissed.
90. Moreover, two days before the election, two writ petitions were filed regarding the same election in WP(MD) No.18849 of 2023 and WP(MD) No.18939 of 2023. These writ petitions were taken up along with the main writ petition. The writ petitions in WP(MD) No.18849 of 2023 and WP(MD) No.18939 of 2023 were filed by one Mr.P.R.Ganapathy and by one Mr.N.Kannuchamy, respectively and both claim to be a life members of the society. Their grievance is that in the final voters list published by the Hon’ble Administrator on 30.06.2023, their names were left out. Hence, they approached this Court for a writ of mandamus forbearing the Hon’ble Administrator from proceeding with the election on 05.08.2023.
91. With the elections scheduled to be conducted on 05.08.2023, these writ petitions were filed in the nick of time to stop the election stating that they were not included in the voters list. The Hon'ble Administrator has finalized 2874 members from Volume II and Volume III https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 78/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 as the true members of the Society and the final list of members was also published in the notice boards of the College as early as 29.05.2022. When the final list of members was published by the Hon’ble Administrator more than a year ago, these writ petitioners who are now waxing eloquent, have remained silent and inactive all these days. The election process could not be interfered for the sake of carelessness of these petitioners. Now that the elections have taken place and the votes have been polled separately, the reliefs prayed in these writ petitions have become infructuous. Hence, they are also dismissed.
92. Though the main writ petition WP(MD) No.16340 of 2022 is allowed, this Court suggests the newly elected body to enroll all these disputed members on their applications, if any, in the coming years. The Society shall also ensure that new representations are provided to all the eligible members.
93. The Hon'ble Administrator has contributed a lot to this Institution by spending his valuable time of more than two years. It is on his efforts, the College has regained its glory. The Hon'ble Administrator shall form https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 79/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 part in the Selection Committee for the appointment of vacancies in the College to ensure that these appointments are made in a fair, proper and transparent manner and that only deserving and eligible persons are appointed.
94. In the result,
- WP(MD)No.16340 of 2022 is allowed in the above terms;
- WP(MD)Nos.18849, 18939 of 2023 are dismissed;
- WMP(MD)Nos.2182, 1107, 14250, 17741 of 2023 are dismissed;
- There shall be no order as to costs. Other connected miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
NCC : Yes/No 04.09.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
80/82
W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023
Note to Registry:
1) Issue order copy by 08.09.2023
2) Upload order copy in the official website immediately
3) Mark a copy of this order to The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
The Additional Advocate General No.III, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
To
1.The Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.
2.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai – 600 028.
3.The Registrar of Societies, Madurai North, Bibikulam, Madurai – 2.
4.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 81/82 W.P(MD)Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 B.PUGALENDHI, J gk Common Order made in W.P(MD) Nos.16340 of 2022, 18849 & 18939 of 2023 and WMP(MD) Nos.11807 of 2022, 17741, 2182, 11077 & 14250 of 2023 in WP(MD) No.16340 of 2022, WMP(MD) No.15660 of 2023 in WP(MD) No.18849 of 2023 WMP(MD) No.15745 of 2023 in WP(MD) No.18939 of 2023 04.09.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 82/82