Madras High Court
S. Thamil Arasan, President Of Chennai ... vs R. Narayanan And The District Registrar ... on 31 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)CTC399, (2005)2MLJ102
Author: Markandey Katju
Bench: Markandey Katju, D. Murugesan
ORDER Markandey Katju, C.J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the District Registrar of Societies, Chennai Central. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned order and we are of the opinion that it was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. It appears that an election for the office bearers of the society known as Chennai Vyasarpadi Nadar Progressive Association was held on 26.10.2003 and that election had been set aside by the District Registrar by the impugned order.
3. When Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent was asked as to under which provision the impugned order was passed, he has stated that the impugned order was passed under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Section 36(1) of the said Act states that, "the Registrar may, of his own motion or on the application of a majority of the members of the committee of a registered society or on the application of not less than one-third of the members of that registered society, or, if so moved by the District Collector hold or direct some person authorised by the Registrar by order in writing in this behalf to hold, an enquiry, into the constitution, working and financial condition of that registered society."
4. A perusal of the said provision shows that this provision does not permit any one to challenge the validity of an election held for the office bearers of the society, but only permits the Registrar to inquire into the constitution, working and financial condition of the society. In our opinion, since there is no specific provision permitting the challenge of an election to the society, the only remedy for challenging such election is by means of a civil suit.
5. Hence, it is obvious that the impugned order was wholly illegal and it is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No. 45724 of 2003 is closed.