CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2005) 01 MAD CK 0016

S. Thamil Arasan, President of Chennai Vyasarpadi Nadar Progressive Association vs R. Narayanan and The District Registrar of Societies

Madras High Court · Decided on 31 January 2005 · Citation: (2005) 1 CTC 399 : (2005) 1 LW 793 : (2005) 2 MLJ 102 : (2005) WritLR 171

HON’BLE JUDGES
Markandey Katju, C.J · D. Murugesan, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 37647 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 337 words

Markandey Katju, C.J.—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 u/s 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.