CHENNAI KANCHEEPURAM THIRUVALLUR DISTRICTS FILM Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified, to call for the records of the first respondent in proceeding No.10417/E1/2004, dated 23.10.2006, and quash the same.

(2.) THE facts, which led to the filing of this Writ Petition, are as under:

(3.) FIFTH respondent has filed a counter on his behalf and also on behalf of respondents 6,9 and 10, denying the allegations made in the petition and stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner association is not functioning as per law and the functioning of the association is in contravention to the objects, for which it has been formed. Respondents 2 to 12 never involved in any anti-social activities. Bye-laws 54 and 23 give different powers to different bodies for removal of the members of the association. Bye-law 54 gives power to the Executive Committee to remove the members, whereas Bye-law 23 gives power to General Body for removal of the members. Hence, Bye-laws 54 and 23 are in clear contradiction to each other. The first respondent, after conducting a detailed enquiry and by giving ample opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the respondents, has passed the speaking order. Further, as per Section 45 of The Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, any order passed by the Registrar is appealable before the Inspector General of Registration. The petitioner, without exhausting the appellate remedy, has come before this Hon'ble Court by way of this Writ Petition, which is, at the outset, not maintainable. Section 36 of the Act clearly spells out that the Registrar can take any action even by his own motion and, therefore, the enquiry under Section 36 by the Registrar on the complaints filed by the respondents 2 to 12 cannot be held to be not maintainable. The suo motu action can always be on complaints or while enquiring into the affairs of the association on routine procedure. Therefore, the action under Section 36 is well maintainable if the same pertains to the affairs of an association. In this case, the enquiry was conducted as per the directions of this Hon'ble High Court and the petitioner association, which has participated in the enquiry, did not raise any objection regarding maintainability of the enquiry before the District Registrar. But, as an afterthought, it is raising the issue only now.