AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Heard both sides.
Victoria Edward Hall, Madurai, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and was established in the year 1905 and is one of the premier associations in the city of Madurai. The elite people of Madurai are the members of the said society and is governed by the managing committee consisting of a President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and 10 other managing committee members. Doctor Mr. I. Ismail, the 4th respondent, in W.P. (MD) No.6968 of 2009 has been selected unanimously for two terms and was selected after hot contest in an one occasion to the post of Secretary of the Society. The affairs of the said society came into lime light not for laudable reasons in the last general body meeting held on 24.03.2008 and criminal complaints were made by the Secretary of the society against Mr. R. Ramasamy and others, on the basis of the complaint given by the Secretary of the society and also on the basis of the complaint given by Mr. R. Ramasamy, the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No.6972 of 2009. On the complaint given by the Secretary of the Society against Mr. R. Ramasamy and others, a case registered by the Tilakar Thidal Police station in Crime No. 443 of 2008 for offence under Sections 147, 323, 324, 294 and 506(1) I.P.C. As per the complaint given by the Secretary, non members came to the meeting and caused damages to the properties of the society and also assaulted the members of the society and sought for police protection.
In respect of the same incident, Mr. R. Ramasamy, also gave complaint before the same police station, which was also registered as crime in Crime No. 442 of 2008 for offence u/s 147, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(II) IPC and in that complaint, the said Mr. R. Ramasamy, accused Mr. A.M. Karuppiah and the Secretary of the society of having committed offence against him and he has also stated that the Secretary of the society has brought the non members into the meeting hall and with the help of those persons, he was beaten and he also sustained injuries. Thereafter, some members of the society also filed a suit originally in the Courts in Madurai against the society and the office bearers and those suits were transferred to Trichy Courts and are pending. The election for the society was also held two months earlier and it is admitted by the petitioner and the 4th respondent in W.P. (MD) No.6968 of 2009 than an observer was appointed by the civil Court to conduct the election and the observer with the assistance of the police conducted the election and it is also admitted that the election was held peacefully without un-towards incidents. Now the annual general body meeting of the society has been called for on 04.07.2009 to be held on 31.07.2009 and the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 6968 of 2009, who is also the life member of the society apprehends that the annual general body meeting may not be conducted in a fair manner by the 4th respondent viz. the Secretary of the society and the members of the society will not be allowed to raise questions regarding the accounts, which are to be scrutinised in that meeting. Therefore, having regard to the past year incident, the petitioner apprehended threat to his life and also about the functioning of the annual general body meeting. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent will not allow the annual general body meeting to be conducted in a democratic manner and to permit the members to raise the questions and therefore, sent a representation on 24.07.2009 to the 2nd respondent along with the eight other members, requesting the 2nd respondent to appoint an observer u/s 26(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and also directed the 1st respondent to provide adequate police protection during the conduct of the Annual General Body meeting to be held on 31.07.2009.
W.P. (MD) No. 6972 of 2009 was filed by Mr. R. Ramasamy, who is also a practising Advocate and he also has the same apprehension about the Annual General Body meeting and also sought for police protection for him to attend the Annual General Body meeting to be held on 31.07.2009.
Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in W.P. (MD) No. 6968 of 2009 vehemently opposed to the grant of police protection and also questioned the locus standi of the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 6972 of 2009 to file the writ petition.
According to the learned Counsel, Mr. R. Ramasamy was already removed from the membership of the society on 23.01.2008 and Form No. VII was also duly filed with the District Registrar of Societies on 10.04.2008 and therefore, Mr. R. Ramasamy, is no longer member of the society and hence, he has no locus stanti to file the writ petition and he s no right to participate in the meeting to be held on 31.07.2009.
The learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in W.P. (MD) No. 6968 of 2009 also produced the original Form No. VII filed before the Register of Societies to prove the removal of Mr. R. Ramasamy and others on the ground they have not paid subscriptions for more than 3 months and the managing committee held on 31.03.2008, and those persons were removed from the member ship and Form No. VII was also filed on 24.07.2008.
Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, further contended that in the last year general body meeting, Mr. R. Ramasamy, attempted to participate along with outsiders and as he was not the member of the society, he was prevented from participating in the meeting and at his instance, non-members came into the meeting hall and created problems in the meeting hall by causing injuries to the 4th respondent and others and also damaged the properties of the society and hence, the 4th respondent gave a complaint against Mr. R. Ramasamy and others, which was registered as crime No. 443 of 2008. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Counsel, Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, that except that incident, there was no other problem in the conduct of the last years'' meeting and therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 6968 of 2009 is only imaginary and has no basis and therefore, it cannot be entertained.
Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent also relied upon the judgment reported in P.R. Murlidharan and Others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others, and Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews II and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, and submitted that seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the writ petitioner under Article 21 cannot be entertained in the absence of a Civil Court decree, and it cannot be made a forum for adjudicating the civil rights and as Mr. R. Ramasamy is no longer a member of the Society, he is not entitled to seek police protection to attend the meeting and he has to approach the civil Court to establish his right as member and after proving his right he can approach this Court.
He further submitted that in the writ petition (MD)No.6968 of 2009, the petitioner has not stated anything about his personal knowledge and it has been stated in the affidavit "he is only stated" "that it appears or ''it is stated" "it is learned" and therefore, on the basis of such allegations, which are very vague in nature, no relief can be granted.
Mr. R. Ramasamy, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.6972 of 2009 challenged the contention of the 4th respondent viz., Mr. Ismail, that he is not a member of the society and filed some documents in the additional typed set of papers to prove that in the Form VII submitted for the year 2006-2007, his name was found a place and in the Register of member, till date his name continues to be found in the register of members maintained by the Registrar of Societies and therefore, he has got every right to maintain this writ petition. He further brought to my notice the various clauses in the bye-laws and submitted that before removing him from membership, on the ground of non payment of subscription, he must be heard and in this case the society did not follow that and hence, his removal is not legal.
As stated supra, Victoria Edward Hall, is one of the premier Institution in the city of Madurai and admittedly, there are 1731 members in that society and more than 400 advocates practising in Madurai Courts are members of the society. It is unfortunate that though more than 400 advocates are members in the society, there is apprehension about the conduct of the general meeting to be held on 31.07.2009 and they are also of the opinion that police protection is necessary for conducting the meeting in a democratic manner and according to them, the police protection is justified, having regard to the incident that took place in the last year.
Therefore, it is to be decided whether the relief prayed for in W.P. (MD) No. 6869 of 2009 can be granted and whether, Mr. R. Ramasamy has locus standi to maintain and the writ.
I shall take the 2nd issue viz. locus standi of the petitioner Mr. R. Ramasamy to file the writ petition. It is stated by the 4th respondent that Mr. R. Ramasamy was removed from the member of the society by the managing committee in the meeting held on 23.01.2008 and that was also registered with the Registrar of Societies, by filing Form VII on 10.04.2008. The 4th respondent also produced necessary proof for the same.
It is further seen from the complaint given by the 4th respondent that the incident took place in the previous year when the said Mr. R. Ramasamy attempted to participate in the meeting and as he was not the member of the society, he was prevented. Therefore, it is a disputed question whether Mr. R. Ramasamy continues to be the member of the society or not and as rightly pointed out, by the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Mr. G.R.Swaminathan, such a disputed question cannot be agitated in the writ and under the guise of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person will not be allowed to establish his right and the Court cannot be made a forum for agitating the civil rights. Therefore, without going into the question, whether Mr. R. Ramasamy, is a member of the society or not, as his right is disputed and it was also made known Mr. R. Ramasamy that he has no longer a member, I do not want to entertain the writ petition filed by Mr. R. Ramasamy and it is open to Mr. R. Ramasamy to establish his right in a proper forum and then, agitate his constitutional right in this writ petition. Hence, the writ filed by the Mr. R. Ramasamy, is dismissed.
The writ petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 6968 of 2009 has asked for police protection, for the general body meeting to be held on 31.07.2009 and that is opposed by the 4th respondent.
Before going into the legality of the prayer, whether the petitioner is entitled to seek police protection or not, we will have to see the admitted facts for considering the same. It is an admitted fact that in the last year meeting, outsiders participated and created chaos and confusions that led to filing of two criminal cases. In both the complaints, it was alleged that the outsiders without any restrictions were able to attend the meeting and create problems.
Mr. D. Gandhi Raj, the learned Government Advocate, for the respondents 1 and 2 filed counter and explained the steps taken by the 1st respondent in respect of the investigation conducted by the police and also stated that the 1st respondent is also prepared to give adequate protection to the members. Further, it is also admitted that in the election held 2 months earlier, an observer was appointed by the civil Court, where suits are pending and the said observer sought for the police help and in the presence of police and observer the election was held peacefully. The petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 6968 of 2009 also has made specific allegations in the writ petition in para 7 that he and other members fear physical assault and threat to life during the general body meeting. The prior incident on the attack of Mr. R. Ramasamy, and the 4th respondent amply justifies the apprehensions. He has also stated that the 4th respondent admits expulsion of members and his activities created a sense of fear among the members and they apprehend that they would be expelled,if they try to question his activities and the members who dare to question the acts of the Secretary or the administration are manhandled and physically assaulted. Therefore, he has made specific allegations about his apprehension on the basis of the past incident and it cannot be stated that there is no basis for the same. It has been held in the judgments reported in P.R. Murlidharan and Others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and Others, that in a given case, the person may be entitled to have police protection, having regard to the threat perception and it is further held in that judgment that the jurisdiction of the writ Court is wide while granting relief to the citizens of India so as to protect his life and liberty as admitted in Article 21 of the Constitution and while doing so, it could not correlatively go into the disputed questions.
Therefore, having regard to the past incident and the specific allegations made by the petitioner about his apprehension to life and having regard to the fact that the police protection was given at the instance of observer for holding the elections, in my opinion, the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 6968 of 2009 is justified in approaching the Court for the relief of police protection and for the appointing of an observer.
Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent, contended that the petitioner has sent representation to the 2nd respondent only on 24.07.2009 and to the 1st respondent on only 26.07.2009 and immediately thereafter approached this Court and the conduct of the petitioner should not be encouraged. According to him, the petitioner having known that the meeting has been called for on 04.07.2009 did not raise his fingers for all those days, and has rushed to this Court at the eleventh hour and such type of litigation should be discouraged. He also relied upon the reported judgment reported in Periyar Self-Respect Propaganda Institution, Trichy and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, wherein it has been held "Section 26(4) of Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975 states that the Registrar may nominate an officer subordinate to him to be present at any of the general meetings of the society. The nominee comes there only as an observer. He is only an observer. He is not given the right to participate in the proceedings. He is not given the right to vote. He is not given the right to interfere with the proceedings for the meeting; or the right to call for any particular." and therefore, contended that if the observer is appointed, he can only watch the proceedings and he cannot interfere with the affairs of the society.
In my opinion, the above passage, strengthens, the case of the petitioner that by appointing an observer, useful purpose will be achieved and unless a competent person is appointed to supervise the proceedings in the general body meeting, it would not be possible to hold the general body meeting in a peaceful atmosphere. Further, more than 400 advocates are members of the society and it is a duty of the police to give adequate protection to the members of the society to take part in the proceedings and when specific allegations are made about the possible threat, that may be caused to the members of the society, while participating in the meeting, this Court is justified in ordering police protection.
As a matter of fact, in the case reported in The Music Academy Vs. Inspector General of Registration, District Registrar of Audit and Enquiry Officer, Chennai Central and R. Parthasarathy, this Court has appointed a retired judge of this High Court to supervise the election.
Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to provide adequate police protection to the members of the society to take part in the general body meeting to be held on 31.07.2009 and also appoint Mr. R. Vijayakumar, an advocate of this Honourable Court to be an observer to supervise the general body meeting and the observer is entitled to seek the aid of the police to maintain the law and order problem within the meeting hall and the police are also directed to act as per the instructions of the observer. The 3rd respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/-[Rupees fifteen thousand only] to the observer Mr. R. Vijayakumar towards initial remuneration and the observer is also directed to submit a report within a week from the date of the meeting to this Court.
I hope that the members of the society, who are all educated and elite people in the city of Madurai would allow the meeting to be conducted peacefully without giving room for any complaint.
In the result, the W.P. (MD) No. 6968 of 2009 is ordered as stated supra and the W.P. (MD) No. 6972 of 2009 is dismissed. No costs.