R NATESAN Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the members of Salem Suyamariyadhai Sangam, founded by Periyar EVR in the year 1957 (R3 in these Writ Petitions ). The objects of the Sangam is to spread Political knowledge and to make people to act according to the rational thinking; not to be slaves to superstition; to liberate the people from meaningless and unnecessary religious or social rituals in their daily habits; and to remove the caste, religion and Class differences in marriage. Bye-laws have been framed to foster the same objects. According to bye-law No. 12, if the executive committee passes any resolution detrimental to the basic objectives, it will be prevented from being tabled in the General Body.

(2.) THE second respondent/"monurkula Devangar Vasaga Salai" was formed by the members of Telugu speaking Devangar Community. Its main objectives are to protect the interest of 'telugu speaking Devangar Community'. No person other than Telugu speaking Devangar Community can become member in that association.

(3.) WHILE so, the Registrar of Societies amalgamated both the societies. Originally, the third respondent society was composed of persons from all sections of people, but in course of time, it was dominated by a particular sections of community by induction of new members in such a manner they could dominate. One by name S. R. Mahalingam, S/o. S. P. Ramalingam wanted to become a member and he sent a communication to the third respondent as his father was one of the original members. But his request was rejected. This manipulation was only to grab the properties of the third respondent; and the amalgamation is mala fide. The resolution for amalgamation has been ordered on the ground that the objects of the two societies are identical which is not true. The second respondent is a caste based society whereas the third respondent is a society which is opposed to caste system. Therefore, the two societies cannot be amalgamated. Hence the order of amalgamation dated 8. 9. 1998 in ROC. No. 9898/a2/98 has to be quashed as it is illegal.