G SUGUMARAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed as a pro bono publico. THE petitioner, claiming himself as the Secretary of the Federation for People's Rights, Puducherry, has filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of declaration to declare that the certificate of registration issued by the fourth respondent - Registrar of Companies, Puducherry, Ministry of Company Affairs dated 20.03.2000 registering the 6th respondent society as null and void and consequently direct the first respondent to conduct elections to the fifth respondent body and restore the property of the 5th respondent from 8th respondent and to initiate criminal and civil action against the 7th and 8th respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following factual basis: THE Chamber of Commerce of Pondicherry had been re-organised by a decree dated 07.03.1914, which gave to it the civil personality. As certain difficulties have arisen in the application of the text of the decree, mainly about the election of the members to the consular assembly and its administration, the President of French republic by decree dated 06.07.1934 enacted the Chamber of Commerce of Pondicherry as an organ of industrial and commercial interest of French Settlements in India. Article 2 of the decree provided that the members of Chamber of commerce were to be elected by an electoral body formed by electors of French Nationality having atleast 21 years of age and being licensed traders, managers of commercial or industrial Limited of French companies, etc. All the electors should have their domicile in the jurisdiction of the chamber of commerce since two years atleast. Article 3 provided for the disqualification of members, preparation of electoral rolls and other events for the administration and election of office bearers of the Chamber of Commerce. After the establishment of the fifth respondent, the Chamber of commerce, it purchased 12 shops and a vacant site over an area of 1.9 hectares near the Puduchery port on 06.07.1908 and also purchased building at door No.1, Suffren Street on 19.06.1916, out of the public money from the funds of the administration of Puducherry. THE funds were diverted from the collection of 'patante', the tax, collected by the then Contribution Department, now the Revenue Department. Thus, the property purchased by the Chamber of Commerce are the properties belonging to the Government of Puducherry. After independence and coming into force of the Constitution of India, the Ministry of External Affairs passed an order called "the Pondicherry Chamber of Commerce Constitution (Amendment) Order, 1958". It came into force on 01.01.1958 by which Article 2 of the French Decree dated 06.07.1934 was amended by incorporating "French or Indian Nationale" in the place of "French Nationale" to become the member of the Chamber of Commerce. Further, the Legislative Assembly of the Pondicherry Government has passed an Act called the Pondicherry Chamber of Commerce Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1966, by which Article 18 of the decree dated 06.07.1934 has been amended to the effect that the chamber of commerce shall elect from among the members - a President, Vice President, A secretary and a Treasurer and in Article 2 of the said decree for the word 'nomination' the word 'election' had been substituted. On 17.07.1966, the Lieutenant Governor of Pondicherry notified the election of Members to the Chamber of Commerce. THE electoral list has been published in the Gazette No.49 of the 03.12.1968. THE election of the office bearers was held in the presence of Mayor of Pondicherry, as required by the decree of 1934 and eight members were elected including respondents 7 and 8. THEir tenure came to an end in the year 1975 as the tenure was 6 years under Article 15 of the decree. Respondents 7 and 8 were elected as members in the year 1969. Even after the expiry of the tenure, respondents 7 and 8 continued to manage the affairs of the 5th respondent. In the capacity of elected members, they indulged in mismanagement of the chamber's property. In the hilt of that, they got the society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act on 20.03.2000. All the efforts made by the petitioner exposing the illegal act of respondents 7 and 8 by converting into a Governmental organization into one of a private society to respondents 1 to 3 yielded no result. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) FROM the above narrated facts, the following two points arise for consideration : 1. Whether the writ petition filed as a pro bono publico is maintainable at the hands of the petitioner? 2. Whether any order as prayed for by the petitioner could be passed on the basis of the facts narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition?