TAMIL NADU MAHAJANA SANGAM Vs. BALAGURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and W.P.No.25648 of 2002 are related to the conduct of election in the Mannar Thirumalai Naicker College Society (hereinafter called 'the Society'). The Society is established by a linguistic minority. The Society has its bye-laws and administers educational institutions through a Committee, which is an elected body. Membership is restricted to persons of the Naidu Community and enrolment is by making donations/contributions. When a dispute arose in 1993 suits regarding the then elected Committee were filed. In the Second Appeals that arose out of them, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct the elections and an Advocate Receiver to manage the Society in the interregnum. New members were inducted by the Advocate Receiver and an election was conducted and the results declared. The grievance is, the enrolment was illegal and beyond the powers of the Advocate Commissioner and created an imbalance in the composition of members and therefore, the election is invalid.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was found by this Court in S.A.Nos.1649 and 1650 of 1998,which arose out of the two suits of the year 1994 that the Society was not functioning in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the bye-laws and therefore, this Court was pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and Advocate Receiver for conduct of elections in 1998. Therefore, the conduct of the election ought to have been only on the basis of membership that existed on that date. The Electoral Roll had subsequently been altered totally so as to change the composition of the members by the induction of new members during the period when the Advocate Receiver wasin management of the Society. The Advocate Receiver had no power to enrol new members. All that he had to do was to conduct election on the basis of the existing membership list. The induction of new members must be set aside, in view of Jt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies Vs. T.A. Kuttappan (AIR 2000 SC 2378) where it was held that the administrator or a Committee appointed by the Registrar during the supersession of the elected Committee had no power to enroll new members. If this is accepted, the votes of the members who had been enrolled violating the provisions of the Act were invalid and the election conducted was also invalid in the eye of law. The elected body cannot be recognised as a validly elected body and all proceedings that had taken place thereafter deserves to be set aside. It was further submitted that every registered society is bound to have a register of members which shall be filed with the Registrar also. Notice of any change among the members of the Society shall be filed within such period as may be prescribed. This notice must be filled in Form VII with the Registrar. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner when the right to enroll new members rests with the General Body, enrolment of new members when there was no General Body Meeting cannot be taken note of. It was also submitted that this election held in contravention of the law, was challenged by a writ petition, which was dismissed observing that the elections having been held, the right of the petitioner was to file an election petition. This was confirmed by the Division Bench. In the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court had fallen in error in directing the petitioner to file an election petition since such a remedy was not available in the Act and that the High Court ought to have decided the dispute relating to illegal enrolment of members and therefore, gave liberty to the petitioner to raise this dispute and have it decided by the appropriate forum, and that, it is only pursuant to this direction that the Writ Petition have been filed. As regards the revisions, C.R.P.No.164 of 2002 has been filed against the order of the learned Sub-Judge handing over charge to the newly elected Secretary on 07-03-2001 and C.R.P.No.165 of 2002 is against the order of the learned Judge declaring the elections.

(3.) As regards the Revision, the learned counsel submitted that the Sub-Judge, Madurai erred in affixing its seal of approval on this illegal election and therefore, the petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were filed against the orders declaring the result and handingover charge. It was submitted that the Advocate Commissioner and the Advocate Receiver both filed an application in the suit, the former for permission to receive donations and the later for the amendment of the bye-laws. The Sub-Court merely directed the Receiver to receive the donations and declined permission to amend the bye-laws. There was nothing in the order of the Sub-Court, Madurai to indicate that the Advocate Commissioner was permitted to enroll new members. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are repeatedly knocking at the doors of justice claiming that the affairs of the College-Society are not being managed according to the provisions of the Act. They have unsuccessfully initiated one proceeding after another only to find that in the mean time the respondents are merrily conducting elections, which have no legal basis. The learned counsel would further submit that merely because the elections for this year have been concluded the writ petitions and the civil revision petitions should not be dismissed as infructuous, and that the legality of the dispute must be decided. He relied on (i) Babu Verghese and others Vs. Bar Council of Kerala (1999 (3) SCC 422), (ii) The Chief Commissioner of Ajmer Vs. Radhey Shyam Dani (AIR 1957 SC 304) and (iii) Bar Council of Delhi Vs. Surjeet Singh (AIR 1980 SC 1612) in which the elections held on the basis of void and ultravires rules or provisos were setaside by the Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel, these decisions would clearly apply to the present case.