AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandra Baabu, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the third respondent comprised in Na.Ka. No.
7024/A2/2011 dated 28.11.2011 and consequently, sought for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner
or the School run by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Registered Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies
Registration Act. The petitioner''s Society constitutes an Educational Agency which manages a School known as ""Kamaraj Middle School"". The
School was started in the year 1945 and became a Middle School in the year 1964. The petitioner Society is having a set of office bearers who
are elected periodically by the General Body of its members in the ""Maha Sabhai"". The elections to the Society were regularly held as per the bye-
laws and the last one was held on 1.11.2009. The deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition viz., S. Anandaraja, was elected as
President of the Society apart from the other executive committee members. A rival group comprising of few persons acted against the interest of
the petitioner society and brought ''No Confidence Motion'' against the office bearers who were elected on 1.11.2009, in a special extraordinary
general body meeting alleged to have been held on 5.12.2010 and claimed to have passed a ''No Confidence Resolution''. In fact, no such meeting
was held on 5.12.2010 nor any such meeting was convened in the manner known to law. In order to prevent illegal attempt to obstruct the
peaceful functioning of the petitioner Society, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No. 173 of 2010 on the file of the sub-Court,
Valliyoor, seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, agents, servants from convening any annual general body meeting
or extraordinary general body meeting either on 5.12.2010 or any other subsequent dates. The petitioner had also filed an application for interim
injunction in I.A. No. 266 of 2011 in O.S. No. 173 of 2010 and the same is also pending.
It is further stated by the petitioner that the Tahsildar, Radhapuram, Tirunelveli District, convened a peace meeting on 2.6.2011 between the
elected committee and the rival group. The Tahsildar, thereafter, passed a proceedings on 16.6.2011, that the parties should not trespass until the
civil Court passes an order in O.S. No. 173 of 2010.
On the other hand, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelvlei District, passed an order on 8.7.2011 directing that the
administration of the Society to be handed over to the fifth respondent. The above said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi,
was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 7845 of 2011 and an interim stay was granted in the said writ petition on 14.7.2011, by this
Court. While the said interim order was in force, the District Collector, Tirunelveli, convened a peace meeting on 22.7.2011, wherein, the fifth
respondent and the other rival group members gave an undertaking that they would not interfere with the peaceful functioning of the Society.
Following such undertaking given, the annual festival of the Church was conducted peacefully. Thereafter, by an order dated 29.9.2011, the writ
petition in W.P. (MD) No. 7845 of 2011 was disposed of by setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 8.7.2011. As per the
said order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 7845 of 2011, the petitioner is entitled to administer the Society along with other elected office
bearers as the legality of the extraordinary general body meeting conducted on 5.12.2010 is sub judice in O.S. No. 173 of 2010. While that being
so, the fifth respondent informed the third respondent that they got the charge of administration of the Society in pursuant to the General Body
Meeting held on 5.12.2010 and consequently, the third respondent passed the impugned order, whereby the election of fifth respondent as the
President of the Society was recorded and the earlier recording of the petitioner as the President of the said Society was cancelled.
Aggrieved against the said order passed by the third respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.
While ordering notice to the respondents on 13.12.2011, this Court has granted an interim order of stay.
On notice the respondents entered appearance and the third respondent filed a counter affidavit on behalf of all the respondents.
It is stated by the respondents 1 to 4 that as per Form VII which was taken on record by the Registrar of Societies, Tirunelveli on 16.5.2011,
the petitioner S. Ananda Raja has been removed from the office of the President of the Petitioner Society as per ''No Confidence Motion''
resolved at the special meeting held on 5.12.2010 and the fifth respondent was elected as President of the said Society with effect from
5.12.2010. It is further stated by the respondents 1 to 4 that the petitioner was originally selected as President for the period of three years from
1.11.2009 and the same was approved by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 4.7.2011. However, the petitioner was removed from
the post of President in pursuant to ''No Confidence Motion'' passed in a Special General Body Meeting held on 5.12.2010 and consequently, the
Form VII also carried the said change on the record of the Registrar of Societies, Tirunelveli, on 16.5.2011. The petitioner is no longer the
President of the said Society and Correspondent of the said School unless and until the said Meeting held on 5.12.2010 was declared as null and
void by the competent civil Court.
It is further stated by the respondents 1 to 4 that the petitioner has filed O.S. No. 173 of 2010 before the Sub-Court, Valliyoor against the
resolution passed on 5.12.2010. When the same was pending, the petitioner cannot file this writ petition as the impugned order came to be passed
by the third respondent only by relying the Form VII carrying the changes taken place in the office of the said Society as per the resolution passed
at the meeting held on 5.12.2010. Since the issue raised before the civil Court in O.S. No. 173 of 2010 and in this writ petition are one and the
same, the present writ petition cannot be maintained.
The fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit. It is contended by the fifth respondent that the office bearers and committee members of the said
Society would be appointed by the Society once in three years pursuant to an election. In the General Body Meeting held on 1.11.2009, the
petitioner S. Anandharaja was elected as a President for a period of three years. However, owing to certain complaints of maladministration, the
members of the Society demanded to convene an Extraordinary General Body Meeting which was declined by the then office bearers. Therefore,
the members published a notice in the newspaper ""Dina Malar"" on 11.11.2010 and consequently, the Extraordinary General Body Meeting was
conducted on 5.12.2010. Immediately, the said S. Anandharaja, filed a suit in O.S. No. 173 of 2010, on the file of sub-Court, Valliyoor,
Tirunelveli District, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from convening any Annual General Body Meeting or
Extraordinary General Body Meeting either on 5.12.2010 or on any other subsequent dates on the basis of the paper publication. He also filed
I.A. No. 577 of 2010 seeking for an interim injunction to the same effect. But, no interim injunction was granted by the trial Court. A Meeting was
held on 5.12.2010 and resolutions were passed expressing no confidence on the petitioner and other office bearers and consequently, they were
removed from the respective posts and new office bearers were elected and appointed on the same day, wherein and whereby the fifth respondent
was elected as President along with other Executive Committee Members. Immediately, the petitioner filed another I.A. No. 174 of 2010 for
amending the prayer in O.S. No. 173 of 2010 and the same was allowed. Now the relief sought for in the said suit is for a declaration to declare
the Meeting convened on 5.12.2010, as illegal and non est in the eye of law and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from implementing the resolution passed on 5.12.2010 and further for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from administering the
Society. In pursuant to the change of composition of the Committee, this respondent submitted Form VII to the District Registrar on 7.12.2010
and the same was registered on 16.5.2011. As the petitioner attempted to stall the functioning of the Society, a Peace Committee Meeting was
convened on 2.6.2011 and the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the petitioner to hand over all the charges to the respondent on 8.7.2011.
Though the petitioner filed I.A. No. 266 of 2011 in O.S. No. 173 of 2010 seeking for an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents
therein from in any manner interfering with the functioning of the petitioner, no interim order was granted by the trial Court. Therefore, the fifth
respondent submitted a proposal to the third respondent on 19.5.2011, requesting him to give approval as the Correspondent of the School.
Though the fifth respondent submitted the said proposal to the fourth respondent as the proper channel the fourth respondent did not forward the
proposal and instead, he wrongly recommended for the approval of the petitioner as the correspondent based on the earlier elections conducted
on 1.11.2009 followed by Form VII registration done by the Sub-Registrar on the very same day, namely on 16.5.2011. On the basis of the said
wrong recommendation made by the fourth respondent, the fifth respondent gave an approval in favour of the petitioner though the proceedings
dated 4.7.2011. As soon as it is brought to the knowledge of the fifth respondent, he made a representation to the third respondent on 27.8.2011
and requested for approval in his favour and the third respondent immediately sought for explanation from the fourth respondent who in turn
submitted a report on 18.11.2011, wherein the fourth respondent has categorically recommended for cancellation of the approval already granted
in favour of the petitioner and consequently, recommended to give the same in favour of this respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order came to
be passed cancelling the approval given to the petitioner and consequently, granting the approval in favour of the respondent as the Correspondent
of Kamaraj Middle School, T. Kallikulam, with effect from 5.12.2010.
Mr. Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the order of the third respondent originally approving
the Correspondent ship of the petitioner was for a period of three years. The said order granting approval to the petitioner on 4.7.2011 sought to
be cancelled by the impugned order in total violation of principles of natural justice and admittedly, no opportunity or no show-cause notice was
given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the learned senior counsel argued that the impugned order is liable to be set
aside as it violates the principles of natural justice.
The second submission of the learned senior counsel is that the impugned order was passed based on recording of Form VII on 16.5.2011,
wherein the fifth respondent''s name was found as President. It is argued by the learned senior counsel that recording of Form VII is purely a
ministerial act which has got nothing to do with deciding the status of the parties and it is only the educational authority who is entitled to decide the
same. He further argued that in case of any dispute over the management, the educational authorities should direct the parties to go before the
competent civil Court as contemplated u/s 53 of the Tamil Nadu Private School Regulation Act and not to decide the status based on Form VII.
The learned senior counsel has further argued that the Form VII is not adjudicating the status. He further argued that the petitioner, in fact,
made a representation before the third respondent on 23.11.2011 and without considering the same, the impugned order came to be passed by
the third respondent on 28.11.2011, admittedly, after receiving the representation from the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned senior
counsel, the order impugned is in total violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied upon
the following decisions:
(a) C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal Vs. The District Registrar and Others, .
(b) R. Muralidaran and Others Vs. The District Registrar and Sidharth Heights Apartments Owners Association,
(c) C. Dharmalingam v. The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Madurai South Palace road, Madurai and Others 2010 (3) CTC
390 : LNIND 2010 Bmm 95 : (2011) 4 MLJ 755.
Therefore, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that when the civil Court is seized of the matter with regard to the
status of the respective parties, the third respondent is not justified in passing the impugned order, that too, in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
Per contra, Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent argued and raised a preliminary objections with regard to
maintainability of writ petition in view of the fact that the very same petitioner already approached the civil Court by filing a suit in O.S. No. 173 of
2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Valliyoor, seeking for declaration of election conducted on 5.12.2010 as null and void and for permanent
injunction restraining those respondents 5 and Others from functioning as the office bearers. He further argued that though the petitioner had filed
several interim applications to restrain the respondents and other officer bearers from functioning, the same was not granted by the trial Court and
only the suit is pending for trial. The learned counsel further argued that the fifth respondent has got elected as a President in the General Body
Meeting held on 5.12.2010 and submitted the Form VII on 7.12.2010, before the Registrar and the same was registered by the Registrar on
16.5.2011.
On the other hand, though the petitioner was originally elected on 1.11.2009 he had submitted his Form VII application before the Registrar of
Societies only on 16.5.2011 and the same was registered with the Serial No. 21/11 dated 20.6.2011. Therefore, according to the learned counsel
for the fifth respondent, the Registrar of Societies has only recorded both the proceedings one in respect of election of the petitioner on 1.11.2009
and the other in respect of the election of the fifth respondent on 5.12.2010. As the Form VII was registered in respect of the election of the fifth
respondent by the Registrar on 16.5.2011, the impugned order was rightly passed by the third respondent as the petitioner was subsequently
removed from the post of President at the meeting held on 5.12.2010 and as the same was also recorded by the Registrar in Form VII on
16.5.2011.
Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the fifth respondent the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the admitted position that the
entire issue has already seized of by the competent civil Court in a suit filed by the very same petitioner. Insofar as the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to violation of principles of natural justice, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent argued that
there is no violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order as the same was made as a corrective measure to correct the
wrong order passed earlier. Moreover, the learned counsel also contended that the principles of natural justice would come into play only when the
order passed affects the other person by civil consequences.
In this case, the observations of the principles of natural justice could be a mere formality as the Registrar of Societies have registered the Form
VII electing the respondents as the President of the Society and consequently, the third respondent has to necessarily pass the impugned order and
he has got no other go. It is further argued by the learned counsel that if the impugned order is set aside, even on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice, an illegal order will have to be revived.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the order passed by the third respondent by stating
that the same was passed pursuant to Form VII issued by the competent of Registration of Societies. He further argued that the petitioner already
had gone before the civil Court by filing O.S. No. 173 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor and unless and until he establishes
his right and status as the President of the Society, he has no to right to canvass the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the third
respondent.
Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
In this writ petition, the order under challenge is the one passed by the third respondent wherein and whereby the Correspondent ship of the
Kamaraj Middle School was recognized and recorded in the name of the fifth respondent after removing the name of the said S. Anandaraja.
Admittedly, the School is run by an Educational agency called South Kallikulam Catholic Christian Nadar Mahamai Sangam. It is also admitted by
both sides that the election to the said Society is being conducted periodically, once in three years and an election was conducted to the said
Society on 1.11.2009, wherein the said S. Anandaraja was elected as President of the Society along with other Executive Committee Members.
However, it is claimed by the fifth respondent that by convening a Special Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 5.12.2010, ''No Confidence
Resolution'' was passed against the said S. Anandaraja and other office bearers of the Society and consequently, the fifth respondent and other
office bearers were elected and appointed as President and Committee Members respectively.
It is also an admitted fact that the said S. Anandaraja, filed a suit in O.S. No. 173 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Court, Valliyoor, seeking for a
permanent injunction restraining the fifth respondent herein and Others from convening any Annual General Body Meeting or Extraordinary
General Body Meeting either on 5.12.2010 or on any other subsequent dates. He also filed I.A. No. 577 of 2010 seeking for an interim order of
injunction to the same effect. It appears that no interim order was granted by the trial Court. However, an Extraordinary General Body Meeting
was conducted on 5.12.2010, wherein, the said S. Anandaraja was removed from the post of President and the fifth respondent was appointed as
the President along with the other office bearers.
Consequent upon such appointment of the fifth respondent, the said S. Anandaraja filed I.A. No. 174 of 2010 seeking for amending the prayer
in O.S. No. 173 of 2010 and thereby seeking for a relief of declaration to declare the Extraordinary General Body Meeting conducted on
5.12.2010 as illegal and non est and consequently for a permanent injunction restraining the implementation of the resolution said to have been
passed in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting and also seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from administration until
the next election is held. After filing the said amendment petition, the said S. Anandaraja also filed I.A. No. 266 of 2011 seeking for an interim
order of injunction restraining the fifth respondent herein and his men and agents from any manner interfering his functioning in the Society till the
disposal of the suit.
It appears that no interim order was granted in the said I.A. by the trial Court. From the above said admitted position of facts and
circumstances, it is clear that the entire issue with regard to the election of office bearers to the said Society as well as the removal of the said S.
Anandaraja and other Committee Members who got elected earlier on 1.11.2009, is seized of by the competent Civil Court in O.S. No. 173 of
2010 and the same is pending. Though the said S. Anandaraja has filed the said suit and sought for interim relief by filing an applications in I.A.
Nos. 577 of 2010 and 266 of 2011, the trial Court did not grant any such relief. When the said suit itself is filed challenging the Extraordinary
General Body Meeting held on 5.12.2010 and consequential removal of the said S. Anandaraja as President and appointment of the fifth
respondent as President and the parties have also rightly gone before the competent Civil Court, it is for the said Civil Court to go into the dispute
and adjudicate the matter based on the respective pleadings, evidence and materials placed before it by the respective parties. Till such time, the
respondents 1 to 4 being the educational authorities, have to take note of the election recently conducted and recorded by the Registration
Department under Form-VII for granting approval of Correspondent ship in the mean time for the purpose of allowing the Society as well as
educational institution to function in the interregnum.
In this case, the fifth respondent was elected on 5.12.2010 in an Extraordinary General Body Meeting, wherein it is stated that the said S.
Anandaraja was removed and the fifth respondent was appointed as President. No doubt, that the said election is challenged by the said S.
Anandaraja in O.S. No. 173 of 2010. In the absence of any interim order by the competent civil Court and especially when the said election was
recorded in Form-VII by the Registration Department on 16.5.2011, there is nothing wrong on the part of the third respondent in recording the
Correspondent ship of the School in the name of the fifth respondent by removing the earlier entry made, whereby the said S. Anandaraja was
recorded as Correspondent.
No doubt, the Form-VII recording was also made by the Registrar of Societies on 20.6.2011, in respect of the election conducted on
1.11.2009 quoting the S. Anandaraja as President. However, the very same official also recorded the election of the fifth respondent as President
of the Society pursuant to the election conducted on 5.12.2010 through his proceedings dated 16.5.2011. It is seen that both Form VII
applications were filed by the said S. Anandaraja and the fifth respondent on the same day i.e. 16.5.2011. However, the recording of the same by
the said authority took place on two different dates. The very action of the Registrar of Societies, Tirunelveli, in recording both the events in Form-
VII only shows that it is purely a ministerial act. Therefore, from the perusal of both the proceedings of Registrar of Societies, it is clear that the
said S. Anandaraja was elected as President pursuant to the election conducted on 1.11.2009 and the fifth respondent was elected to the post of
President pursuant to the Meeting held on 5.12.2010. When admittedly, the recent election was held on 5.12.2010 and the same has also been
record under Form-VII by the Registrar of Societies, the educational authorities have got no other go except to record the Correspondent ship of
the said School based on the recommendation made by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent originally appears to have made a wrong
recommendation for recording the name of the said S. Anandaraja totally based on the Form-VII recorded by the Registrar of Societies in favour
of the said S. Anandaraja, in total ignorance of the fact that the fifth respondent was elected on 5.12.2010 and got his name also recorded under
the Form-VII by the very same Registrar of Societies through the proceedings dated 16.5.2011. However, the said mistake was realised by the
fourth respondent and thereafter, he made a report on 18.11.2011 whereby recommending the cancellation of the approval already granted to the
said S. Anandaraja and to grant approval in favour of the fifth respondent as Correspondentship. Based on the said proceedings of the fourth
respondent dated 18.11.2011, the third respondent passed the impugned order, thereby, approving the Correspondent ship of the fifth respondent
and also by removing the name of the said S. Anandaraja from the Correspondent ship of the said School. I find no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned proceedings.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that there is violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not put
on notice before passing the impugned order by the third respondent.
It is true that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not put on notice. At the same time, it has to be seen that based on the
admitted facts, whether any useful purpose would have been served if notice is issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, namely, the said S.
Anandaraja cannot dispute that in respect of the election conducted to the said Society on 5.12.2010, he had filed a civil suit and is now pending
before competent civil Court. He cannot also dispute that the Registrar of Societies had recorded both the proceedings in Form-VII including the
recent election conducted on 5.12.2010. When that being the position, it is only for the competent Civil Court to ultimately decide the issue
between the parties and till such time, the said S. Anandaraja cannot have the benefit of the earlier election conducted on 1.11.2009. The fact
remains that in the subsequent election he was removed from the post of President, No doubt, the said S. Anandaraja challenged the said Meeting
and the election conducted thereon. Unless and until the competent Civil Court decides the issue, the petitioner cannot seek the benefit under the
earlier election conducted on 1.11.2009 and therefore, issuing of any notice before passing the impugned order would have not served any
purpose as it would be an empty formality only. Moreover, the petitioner has also not shown the prejudice caused by not issuing such notice. At
this juncture, it is useful to refer the reason of the Honourable Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc.,
as follows:
The origins of the law can also be traced to the principles of natural justice, as developed in the following cases: In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of
India it was held that the rules of natural justice operate in areas not covered by any law. They do not supplant the law of the land but supplement
it. They are not embodied rules and their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. If that is their purpose, there is no reason why
they should not be made applicable to administrative proceedings also especially when it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative
enquiries from quasi-judicial ones. An unjust decision in an administrative inquiry may have a more far-reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-
judicial inquiry. It was further observed that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. What particular
rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the
law under which the inquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or the body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is
made before a Court that some principle of natural justice has been contravened, the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was
necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. The rule that inquiry must be held in good faith and without bias and not arbitrarily or
unreasonably is now included among the principles of natural justice.
In Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee the Court has observed that natural justice is not an unruly horse, no
lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the
fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice
can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can
be exasperating. The Courts cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as a mere artifact. Nor can they fit into a rigid mould the concept
of reasonable opportunity. If the totality of circumstances satisfies the Court that the party visited with adverse order has not suffered from denial of
reasonable opportunity, the Court will decline to be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has also fairly stated that u/s 53A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools
(Regulation) Act, 1973, only the competent civil Court has got power to decide the status of the parties with regard to the Management in case of
any dispute arises between them. As the parties had already gone before the Civil Court, it is only for the said Court to decide the matter. Till such
time, there is nothing wrong to approve the Correspondent ship of the fifth respondent based on the recent election conducted on 5.12.2010,
especially, when the competent Civil Court has not granted any interim order in favour of the petitioner.
The learned senior counsel in support of his contention relied on the judgment in C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary
School Committee, Karisal, through its Secretary Sri. S. David Stephen, S/o Samuel, Karisal, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and
Others v. The District Registrar Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District and Others (supra) wherein it is held that the only civil Court is the competent
authority to decide the validity of election and the Registrar has no power to adjudicate upon the election dispute. There is no quarrel about the
said proposition and in this case, as the parties had already gone before the civil Court, it is only for the Court to decide the validity of the election.
In the said decision of the Honourable Full Bench, it is also observed that so long as the election is not declared invalid in the manner known to
law, no direction for fresh election could be ordered. Validity of the election could very well be decided only by the competent Civil Court as the
parties are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective claims.
The learned senior counsel also relied on R. Muralidaran and Others v. The District Registrar and Sidharth Heights Apartments Owners
Association rep. by its President S. Ramakrishnan (supra), wherein also the ratio laid down is that a person who aggrieved by an election, shall file
a suit only before the Civil Court challenging the said election.
The learned senior counsel relied on the decision in C. Dharmalingam v. The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar, Madurai South
Palace road, Madurai and Others (supra), in support of his submission that recording the Form VII by the Registrar of Societies is only a
ministerial act and based on the same, the third respondent cannot pass any order.
As I have already discussed, the Registrar of Societies had recorded in Form VII both the elections conducted on 1.11.2009 and 5.12.2010.
Admittedly, the petitioner had not challenged the recording of Form VII in respect of election conducted on 5.12.2010 wherein and whereby the
fifth respondent was elected as President of the Society and Correspondent of the School. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that
the third respondent is not having the right to act based on Form VII proceedings. At any event, as the matter is pending before the competent
Civil Court and unless and until the same is finally decided between the parties, the petitioner cannot challenge the proceedings of the third
respondent. It is needless to say that once the civil Court finally adjudicate the matter between the parties the educational authorities namely the
respondents 1 to 4 are bound by the same and to make necessary orders based on the said decree passed by the competent Civil Court. In view
of the above said discussion and facts and circumstances, I find no merits in the writ petition and the same is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs.