AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 04.10.2007 vide which, a decision has been taken not to initiate proceedings u/s 48 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, against Respondent No. 3.
The Petitioner made a representation against the conduct of business of Madurai Ramnad Diocesan Management Association. The Petitioner thereafter approached this Court, by filing W.P.(md). No. 4336 of 2006. this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 31st May 2006, by directing the first Respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the Petitioner, in exercise of powers u/s 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 reads as under:
36:Power of Registrar to inquire into the affairs of registered society -(1):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 inquiry, into the constitution, working and financial condition of that registered society.
The reading of Section 36 of the TamilNadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 shows that representation filed by the Petitioner, was not at all competent, as it could be moved only by the majority or at least 1/3rd of the members of the society, therefore the representation should have been dismissed as not competent, on consideration under the orders of thi s Court.
The Registrar, in view of the order passed by this Court, exercised his suo moto power to hold an enquiry into the allegation. The Petitioner thereafter filed another representation against the third Respondent alleging that the third Respondent had given wrong information regarding the address of the society, thus, was liable to be prosecuted u/s 48 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
A notice was issued to the third Respondent, Secretary to furnish reply within 15 days, as to why proceedings u/s 48 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 be not initiated against him.
The case of the Petitioner is that no reply was filed within 15 days. The Sub-Registrar passed impugned order dropping the proceedings against the Secretary, on the ground, that in reply, it was pointed out that the address of the Association had changed and that the society was functioning in Door. No. 162, East Veli Street, Madurai-1, but this could not be conveyed at the time of enquiry, as the Secretary and other Office bearers were out of station.
The fact that the society is functioning is not even disputed by the Petitioner.
The only grievance of the Petitioner is that the subsequent order has been passed by taking into considering the explanation, submitted after the period fixed for the reply, had expired.
The Petitioner also contended, that statement of the Petitioner was not recorded, therefore the impugned order dated 04.10.2007, in dropping proposed proceedings against the Secretary is against the principles of natural justice.
On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Firstly, the Petitioner had no locus standi to file representation u/s 36 of the the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and otherwise, also it is for the authority to see whether there was any material mis-statements of facts during the enquiry.
The action u/s 48 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 can only be taken, if there is positive evidence to prove the allegation. Once it is not disputed by the Petitioner who is ex-employee of the society, that the Society is functioning. Merely, because the address of the registered society, is changed and not informed, it does not call for any action u/s 48 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition cannot be said to be bonafide, as it is filed with ulterior motive of vengeance as the Petitioner stands dismissed from service and the order of dismissal is under challenge before the appropriate authority.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Connected M.P.1 of 2007 is also dismissed. No costs.