Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham (KNMS) v Registrar of Societies, Thiruvananthapuram; District Registrar General, Thiruvananthapuram; MP Appuraijan Nadar; Sundar Raj

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 14393 of 2011 (Y)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) :** **---------------------** **KERALA NADAR MAHAJANA SANGHAM (KNMS), REG. NO. 5/64, VAZHUTHACADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, PARASSALA KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. RAMASWAMY NADAR.** **BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE** **RESPONDENT(S) :** **------------------------** **1. THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** **2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. M.P. APPURAJAN NADAR, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, THANNIVILA, BALARAMAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURMA - 695 501.** **4. SUNDARARAJ, GREENFIELD HOUSE, KATHIPPARA, KOOTHALI.P.O., VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 532.** - **BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN BY ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP BY ADV. SRI.V.VIJULAL BY SRI.P.K.ABDUL RAHMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 14163/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Contd...2/-** **AMV** **: 2 :** ## **WP(C).No. 14393 of 2011 (Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :** |**P1.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.04.2002 IN O.P.NO.29057/2000**| |---|---|---| |||**AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.**| |**P2.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF**| |||**SYNDICATE.**| |**P3.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.MI-2449/2010 DATED 09.11.2010**| |||**OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE REPRESENTATION**| |||**OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**P4.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE ORDER NO.MI.2449/2010 DATED 30.03.2011 OF THE**| |||**2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**P5.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2009 IN CMP 3453 IN CC 315/99**| |||**OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**P6.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE**| |||**MEETING HELD ON 24.01.98 ALONG WITH THE MINUTES OF THE**| |||**GENERAL BODY.**| |**P7.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE APPROVED LIST OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE**| |||**MEMBERS KERALA NADAR MAHAJANA SANGHAM.**| |**P8.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE RENEWED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED**| |||**31.03.98.**| |**P9.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE MINUTES THE MEETING DATED 04.04.2007 OF THE**| |||**EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF PETITIONER.**| |**P10.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE MINUTES OF THE**| |||**MEETINGS OF KNM KNMS TRAINING COLLAGE.**| |**P11.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATED**| |||**26.01.2006 OF THE PETITIONER SANGHAM.**| |**P12.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE BYELAWS OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.**| |**P13.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY**| |||**DATED 06.06.2009.**| |**P14.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI**| |||**DAILY DATED 25.05.2011.**| |||**Contd...3/-**| **AMV** **: 3 :** **WP(C).No. 14393 of 2011 (Y)** - **P15. : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.04.2010. P16. : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 05.04.2011. P17. : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 02.06.2009. P18. : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.502/C/08/KSCBC DATED 29.07.2008.** - **P19. : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.3947/F/3/11/SC/ST DATED 23.02.2011 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.** - **P20. : COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 25.12.2012 OF KERALA NADAR MAHAJANA SANGHAM.** - **P21. : COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST PUBLISHED BY THE RETURNING OFFICER ON 10.02.2012.** - **P22. : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE RETURNING OFFICER DATED 26.02.2012.** - **P23. : COPY OF THE LIST OF SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION HELD ON 26.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE STATE RETURNING OFFICER.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** **R3(A). : COPY OF REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF REGISTRATION.** - **R3(B). : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 09.11.2010. R4(A). : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 IN O.S.NO.1282 OF 2007 OF THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE** ## **AMV** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** **----------------------------------------W.P(C).Nos.14163 and 14393 of 2011 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** In these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the proceedings dated 30.3.2011 issued by the Registrar of Societies, Trivandrum, whereby he inter alia issued certain directions regarding the management and administration of a society known as the Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C)No.14393 of 2011 is treated as the main case. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham was registered as a society in the year 1964 under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act for short. The head office of the society is situate at Trivandrum. The society had established a training college known as Kunjukrishnan Nadar Memorial Training College at Vellarada, in Thiruvananthapuram District. Sri.Gnanasikhamony was elected as the President of the society in the meeting held on 25.5.1997. Sri.M.A.Appurajan Nadar, the third respondent in these writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 2 was elected as its General Secretary. In the elections held on 25.5.1997, a 35 member Executive Committee was also elected. The Executive Committee of the society met on 24.1.1998. Sri.Amaravila Ponnayyan Nadar, a member of the Executive Committee of the society claimed that he was elected President of the society on 24.1.1998. This led to a split in the Executive Committee and the Governing Body. Various disputes thereupon arose. The second petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14163 of 2011 claimed that he was appointed as Manager of the Training College on 24.1.1998. Sri.L.S.Pramod claimed that he was appointed as Manager of the Training College by the rival group on the very same day. That led to a stalemate regarding the administration and management of the Training College, which in turn resulted in the filing of O.P.No.21121 of 1998 and connected cases in this Court. The said cases were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 10.4.2000. By the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court inter alia directed the Syndicate of the University of Kerala to take steps to adjudicate and resolve the dispute regarding the management of the college with respect to the period from 24.1.1998, the date on which the dispute first originated. This Court observed that it will be open to the Syndicate of the University to appoint a sub committee to take evidence of the parties both oral and documentary 3 W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 and to submit a report in the matter. This Court also directed that the Syndicate of the University will thereafter serve a copy of the report of the sub committee to the rival factions of the management and to the representatives of the students to enable them to make further representations in the matter. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the Syndicate of the University of Kerala that met on 31.5.2002 constituted a sub committee. 37 persons appeared before the sub committee and gave evidence both oral and documentary. The proceedings before the sub committee went on for a period of five months and the sub committee met on various dates during the period from 12.6.2002 to 5.11.2002 and thereafter submitted its report on 6.11.2002. The sub committee found that it is not proper to entrust the management of the college to either of the factions. The Syndicate of the University that met on 7.11.2002 decided to issue copies of the report to the rival factions and to the representatives of the students and also to those persons who had given evidence and to call upon them to file objections if any to the report. Thereupon 28 out of 37 persons who participated in the enquiry appeared before the Syndicate and filed their objections. After all the persons were heard, the Syndicate that met on 4.7.2003 passed Ext.P2 resolution. The Syndicate found that the de-facto and de-jure right of management is vested with the faction headed by W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 4 Sri.Gnanasikhamoni. It was held that the President who was lawfully in office at the beginning of the academic year when admissions were made to the college during 1998-1999 was Sri.Gnanasikhamoni. The Syndicate accordingly approved and recommended Sri.E.Vincent as the Manager of the college as on the date on which the dispute arose, namely 24.1.1998 and rejected the claim of Sri.L.S.Pramod. 4. More than a decade after the aforesaid decision of the Syndicate was arrived at, the third respondent in these writ petitions submitted Ext.P3 representation dated nil before the Honourable Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Animal Husbandry. The representation was submitted on 27.2.2010. The Honourable Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Animal Husbandry forwarded it to the Honourable Minister for Fisheries and Registration. The Honourable Minister for Fisheries and Registration forwarded it to the Principal Secretary to Government, Taxes Department, who in turn forwarded it to the Registrar of Societies, Thiruvananthapuram along with his letter dated 12.4.2010. The Registrar of Societies in turn issued Ext.P3 notice dated 9.11.2010 to Sri.D.Devaprasad, the President of the Society stated to have been elected on 8.1.2006 and Sri.Sunder Raj, the first petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14163 of 2011 who is stated to be the present President of the society. In that notice, the Registrar of Societies, Thiruvananthapuram called upon both of them W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 5 to produce the minutes book, the accounts book and the registration certificate and other documents relating to the society on 23.11.2010 for the purpose of inspection under section 19 of the Act. The Registrar of Societies issued notice to the third respondent also. All the parties appeared before the Registrar and produced documents and put forward their rival contentions. By Ext.P4 order passed on 30.3.2011, the Registrar of Societies declared that the governing body which was in office on 24.1.1998 headed by the third respondent is the governing body duly constituted in accordance with the bye-laws, that the reports submitted by him are the acceptable reports and that except the governing body headed by Sri.M.A.Appurajan Nadar, no one else can act on behalf of the Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham. The records produced by both sides were directed to be kept in safe custody until steps are taken to file it in the concerned court after obtaining the legal opinion of the learned Government Pleader. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that under section 19 of the Act, the District Registrar can only periodically examine the accounts and other books of the society and submit a report to the Government after such inspection and that even the Government acting under section 19 of the Act could not have issued the direction contained in Ext.P4 regarding the administration and W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 6 management of the society. It is contended that Ext.P4 is without the sanction or authority of law and that the provisions of the Act do not empower the Registrar of Societies to conduct an enquiry of the kind held by him which led to the issuance of Ext.P4 and to decide which group among the rival groups is entitled to administer and manage the affairs of the society and the college. It is contended that the third respondent had not in that petition filed by him before the Honourable Minister sought an inspection of the accounts but had only sought the intervention of the Registration Department for the purpose of handing over the administration and management of the society having regard to the state of affairs which obtained on 24.1.1998. It is contended that the third respondent who resigned as General Secretary of the society on 24.1.1998 and kept quite for more than 12 years and had also not participated in the proceedings before the sub committee of the Syndicate or the Syndicate of the University, had no right to move the District Registrar or the Government and seek or obtain the relief prayed for in Ext.P3. 6. The Registrar of Societies, Thiruvananthapuram who is the second respondent in W.P.(C)No.14163 of 2011 has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 21.12.2011. Paragraphs 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit dated 21.12.2011 in W.P.(C)No.14163 of 2011 which are relevant for the purpose of this case are extracted below: W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 7 _“2. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner filed the above writ petition by claiming that he is the President of 'Kunji Krishnan Nadar Memorial Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham'. The main challenge in the above writ petition is against Ext.P4 order issued by the 2[nd] respondent. Ext.P4 order was issued on the basis of a complaint filed by Mr.M.P.Appurajan Nadar in respect of the administration of 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' having registration No.T5/64. The said M.P.Appurajan Nadar filed a complaint alleging that 8 Committee members who were expelled from 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' No.5/64 formed parallel Committee and incorporated the forming of Committee in the records of the District Registrar Office, Thiruvananthapuram by influencing the then District Registrar, Manoharan. A criminal case was also registered in respect of that incident and all the accused were subsequently discharged. The main allegation in the complaint is to incorporate the names of true office bearers. Notices were issued to all the affected parties including the petitioner. The petitioner personally appeared before the 2[nd] respondent on 14.12.2010 and gave a detailed statement._ _4. It is hereby submitted that after considering the rival contentions, this respondent found that the election of the 'said' M.P.Appurajan Nadar and other office bearers dated 24.1.1998 is in order. The said Appurajan Nadar produced documents to prove that Annual General Body Meetings and elections were properly held strictly in accordance with the provisions of bye-law of 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' No.5/64._ _5. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner in the above writ petition Mr.Sunder Raj and the leader of another faction Mr.D.Devaprasad failed to produce valid documents to prove that they are the actual office bearers of Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' No.5/64. Even in this writ petition, the petitioner failed to show the correct name and Registration number of the society against which the dispute was raised. Ext.P4 was passed in respect of 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' No.5/64. But the above writ petition was filed by the petitioner by claiming himself as the President of Kunji Krishnan Nadar Memorial Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham._ _6. It is hereby submitted that Ext.P1 document produced by the petitioner has no relevance in the matter of administration of 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' No.5/64. Ext.P1 was issued by the Syndicate of the_ W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 8 _University of Kerala in respect of the administration of 'Kunji Krishnan Nadar Memorial Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham Training College, Vellarada' and the conduct of B.Ed Degree Course. The University of Kerala issued Ext.P1 only for protecting the interest of students. No finding was rendered by the Syndicate regarding the actual office bearers of 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' No.5/64. The Syndicate has no power or jurisdiction to decide the office bearers of the said society. This respondent only verified the genuineness of the annual returns submitted by rival factions and it was found that the committee under the leadership of Mr.M.P.Appurajan Nadar submitted the returns after conducting annual general body meeting in accordance with bye-laws of the society and the said committee is maintaining proper accounts, Minute Books and other allied documents. The petitioner and the other claimant Mr.Devaprasad were failed to produce any genuine document to substantiate their claim."_ 7. The Registrar of Societies has filed a counter affidavit dated 7.2.2012 in W.P.(C)No.14393 of 2011. Paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 thereof are extracted below for easy reference: " _2. It is respectfully submitted that the above writ petition is filed against Exhibit P4 order dated 30.3.2011 by the Registrar of Societies. The petitioner claiming that he is the General Secretary of Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham'. The main challenge in the above writ petition is against Exhibit P4 order issued by the respondent in the above writ petition. Exhibit P4 order was issued on the basis of a petition filed by Mr.M.P.Appurajan Nadar 3[rd] respondent herein in respect of the administration of 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' having registration No.T5/64. According to the 3[rd] respondent, 8 committee members who were expelled from the committee formed a parallel committee and incorporated the formation of the committee in the records of the Registrar of Societies, Thiruvananthapuram by influencing the then District Registrar, Mr.Manoharan. A criminal case was also registered in respect of that incident and all the accused were discharged off. The main prayer in the petition by Mr.Appurajan Nadar was to incorporate the names of true office bearers. The above petitioner personally appeared before the respondent on 14.2.2010 and gave a detailed_ W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 9 _statement wherein it was stated that there were two factions, one headed by Mr.Devaprasad and the other by Mr.Sunder Raj, the petitioner in the writ petition 14163 of 2011 before this honourable court, claiming themselves as Administrators of the society. Notices were issued to all the affected parties. 5. It is submitted that there were six points put forth by Appurajan Nadar in his petition:_ _1. There had been a dispute in the meeting held on 24.1.1998 at the office of the society while conducting the executive committee meeting._ _2. The committee unanimously initiated disciplinary action against those who were dissidents._ _3. On the same day executive committee elected Mr.Amaravila Ponnayan Nadar as President and petitioner as General Secretary of the Society._ _4. The then Registrar of Societies Mr.Manoharan in the year 1998 accepted and filed the list of Office bearers submitted by the dissident faction without verifying the records and Registers of the Society._ _5. Therefore outsiders are holding the post of Governors/Administrators of the Society, possessing and misusing the wealth of the Society._ _6. In the circumstances Registrar of Societies may verify the records as on 24.1.1998 and thereafter and set aside the Returns/List of Governors null and void._ _6. It is humbly submitted that this office has gone through the records and Registers thoroughly, Statements and Depositions were taken and each and every affected persons were heard in person._ _7. It is respectfully submitted that after considering the rival contentions, this Respondent found that the election of Appurajan Nadar and others as Office bearers dated 24.1.1998 in order. The said Appurajan Nadar produced documents to prove that Annual General Body meetings and elections were properly held strictly in accordance with the provisions of ByeLaw of the society 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' T5/1964._ _8. It is hereby submitted that Exhibit P1 document produced by the petitioner has no relevance in the matter of administration of 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham', T5/1964._ W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 10 _Exhibit P1 was issued by the Syndicate of the University of Kerala in respect of the administration of 'Kunjikrishnan Nadar Memorial Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham Training College Vellarada and the conduct of B.Ed degree course. Exhibit P2 issued by the University only for protecting the interest of students. No finding was rendered by the Syndicate of the University regarding the office bearers of the Society._ _9. It is respectfully submitted that the Orders challenged by the Petitioner (Exhibit P4 in the Petition) issued by the Registrar of Societies were in good faith and in accordance with law. The Registrar of Societies who received and filed the List of Officer bearers had to verify the records/Registers such as Minutes Book etc. before filing the returns. Unfortunately he failed to convince himself that who were the actual office bearers of the society._ _10. It is respectfully submitted that Exhibit P4 orders is legal, constitutional and in accordance with law and therefore liable to be up hold. This respondent has jurisdiction to issue such orders since he is the Authority to accept annual returns/lists and to accept them. Therefore he can rectify any mistakes occurred during the filing if found on later scrutiny upon petition or request. The prayer of the Petitioner Appurajan Nadar was to verify the records as on 24.1.1998 and rectify the mistakes if any found. No provision of the Act prohibits the Registrar of Societies doing so. Section 23 of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 (Act XII of 1955) provide dissolution of Society. Section 25 of the said Act says:_ _(i) When an application is made by the State Government or ten percent of the members on the rolls of a Society to the District Court within the jurisdiction of which the society is registered, the Court may, after enquiry and on being satisfied that it is just and equitable, pass any of the following orders:_ _(a) Removing the existing governing body and appointing a fresh governing body; or_ _(b) Framing a scheme for the better and efficient management of the society: or_ _(c) Dissolving the society._ _11. It is respectfully submitted that Exhibit P4 is not an order issued under Section 25 of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 (Act XII of 1955). The challenged orders was intended by the_ W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 11 _Registrar of Societies to rectify the mistake happened while filing the list of office bearers as on 24.1.1998. Petitioner of this writ petition and the Petitioner of writ petition 14163 of 2011 failed to produce valid documents to prove that the returns filed by them are genuine. There were three factions claiming themselves actual office bearers of the society. The petitioner of this writ petition and the petitioner in the writ petition 14163 of 2011 are using the same address claiming as actual office bearers to hold the properties of the society. There is no dispute between above petitioners in this regard deliberately reveal that they are holding office for their personal interest. The Bye-Law of the society printed prior to 1998 and produced in this office by the petitioner provides that the term of Office bearers is five years. But the petitioner of this writ petition and the petitioner of the writ petition 14163 of 2011 amended the provision as seven which shows the malafide interest of the above persons to hold the office illegally."_ 8. The third respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 12.6.2011 in W.P.(C) No.14163 of 2011. In paragraph 2 thereof he has stated that he was elected General Secretary of the society in the election held on 25.5.1997 and that as per the bye-laws, elections are held once in five years. In paragraph 3 thereof he has stated that pursuant to the dispute which arose on 24.1.1998, the elected President along with five others were expelled from the organisation, that the said President and five others who were thus expelled and 29 others stood as one block and he along with 28 other elected members of the Executive Committee stood as another block. It is contended that the name of the society is 'Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' but the petitioner's claim to be office bearers of 'Kunji Krishnan Nadar Memorial Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham' which is a W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 12 different organisation and therefore he moved the concerned Minister to rectify the interpolation of records made by the former Registrar of Societies against whom criminal prosecution steps have been initiated and to entrust the administration of the organisation to the group led by him. He has also stated that the Honourable Minister forwarded the representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Taxes who in turn forwarded it to the Deputy Inspector General (Licensing) and he in turn forwarded the same to the Registrar of Societies for a report under section 19 of the Act. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit it is stated that though Ext.P4 is styled as an order, it is only a report containing the findings reached by the second respondent. The third respondent has reiterated the said contentions in the counter affidavit dated 4.6.2011 filed by him in W.P.(C) No.14393 of 2011. The fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.14393 of 2011, who is the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14163 of 2011, has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 6.6.2011 denying the petitioner's claim that Sri.Devaprasad and Sri.Parassala Krishnankutty are the President and Secretary of the petitioner's society. It is contended that they were removed from the respective officers for having acted against the interests of the society and that he is the present President of the society. 9. I heard Sri.D.Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14393 of 2011, Sri.S.Easwaran, learned W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 13 counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.14163 of 2011, Sri.P.K.Abdul Rahman, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and Sri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in both the writ petitions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended with reference to sections 19 and 25 of the Act that even the Government which had called for a report from the District Registrar could not have issued an order like Ext.P4 and therefore it is liable to be set aside. They contended that the stand taken by the third respondent that Ext.P4 is only a report submitted by the Registrar under section 19 of the Act is not tenable in view of the findings and observations therein which deal with the election of the governing body and has nothing to do with the accounts of the society or the books of the society. It is contended that as Ext.P4 does not satisfy the requirements of a report prepared after examining the accounts and other books of the society, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also contended relying on the decision of this Court in **Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala** (2007 (1) KLT 978) that even assuming that Ext.P4 is only a report, the power can be exercised only by the Government and not by the Registrar and therefore for that reason also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and 14 W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 Sri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that Ext.P4 is only a report which is unenforceable and therefore, a writ of certiorari will not lie to challenge that order. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that as the Registrar is empowered to examine the accounts and other books of the society and to submit a report to the Government after such inspection, the Registrar was perfectly justified in bringing to the notice of the Government that the committee which was in office on 24.1.1998 is the duly elected committee to look after the affairs of the society. The learned counsel for the third respondent did not however dispute the proposition that even the Government could not have passed an order declaring that any particular set of office bearers is entitled to administer and manage the affairs of the society. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. Section 19 of the Act empowers the Government to call upon the governing body of a society to submit periodical accounts of income and expenditure and of the assets and liabilities of the society. It also empowers the Government to authorise the Registrar or any other officer to periodically examine the accounts and other books of the society and to submit a report to the Government on the result of such inspection. Section 19 also W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 15 empowers the Inspecting Officer to enter the premises of the society and obliges the governing body and servants of the society to furnish him with all the information he may call for and to render him all the assistance necessary to enable him to conduct the examination and make the report. It is also stipulated that it shall be the duty of the governing body and of all persons who are or have been servants of the society to produce before the officer so deputed, all books and documents in their custody or power relating to the society and to answer any question relating to the affairs of the society. Sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Act stipulates that if the Inspecting Officer has reason to believe that the accounts or other books and documents of the society are withheld without sufficient excuse, he may after recording the reasons and grounds of his belief, enter and search or cause to be searched any place or may seize any such accounts, books or documents. Sub section (3) of section 19 of the Act stipulates that the Government may for the efficient and better management of the society, review the report submitted under sub section (1) and pass such orders as they deem fit other than those referred to in clauses (a) to (c) of sub section (1) of section 25. Section 19 of the Act is extracted below for easy reference: _**“19. Power to call for accounts and inspection of books, etc.** -(1) The State Government may at any time call upon the governing body of any society to submit periodically_ W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 16 _accounts of income and expenditure and of the assets and liabilities of the society. The Registrar or any other officer authorised by the State Government shall periodically examine the accounts and other books of the society and submit to the Government a report on the result of such inspection. The Inspecting Officer may enter the premises of the society and the governing body and the servants of the society shall furnish him with all information he may call for and shall also render him all assistance necessary to enable him to conduct the examination and make the report. It shall be the duty of the governing body and of all persons who are or have been servants of the society to produce before the officer so deputed all books and documents in their custody or power relating to the society and to answer any question relating to the affairs of the society._ _(2) Whenever the Inspecting Officer has reason to believe that the accounts or other books and documents of the society are withheld without sufficient excuse, he may after recording the reasons and grounds of his belief, enter and search or cause to be searched any place or may seize any such accounts, books or documents._ _(3) The State Government may for the efficient and better management of the society, review the report submitted under sub section (1) and pass such orders as they deem fit other than those referred to in clauses (a) to (c) of sub section (1) of section 25.”_ ## 11. Section 25 of the Act is extracted below for easy reference: ## _**“25. Application to court for dissolution, framing a**_ _**scheme, etc** .-(1) When an application is made by the State Government or ten per cent of the members on the rolls of a society to the District Court within the jurisdiction of which the society is registered, the court may, after enquiry and on being satisfied that it is just and equitable, pass any of the following orders:-_ _(a) removing the existing governing body and appointing a fresh governing body; or_ _(b) framing a scheme for the better and efficient management of the society; or_ _(c) dissolving the society._ _(2) Where the application under sub section (1) is by the members of the society, the applicant shall deposit in court along with the application the sum of one hundred rupees in_ W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 17 _cash as security for costs.”_ 12. It is evident from a reading of section 19 of the Act that the Registrar who is authorised by the Government can only examine the accounts and other books of the society and submit a report to the Government on the result of such inspection. Section 19 also empowers the Government at any time to call upon the governing body of any society to submit periodically, accounts of income and expenditure and of the assets and liabilities of the society. Sub section (3) of section 19 of the Act empowers the State Government to pass such orders as the Government deems fit other than those referred to in clauses (a) to (c) of sub section (1) of section 25 for the efficient and better management of the society. Sub section (1) of section 25 of the Act stipulates that when an application is made by the State Government or ten per cent of the members on the rolls of a society to the District Court within the jurisdiction of which the society is registered, the court may, after enquiry and on being satisfied that it is just and equitable, pass any order, either removing the existing governing body and appointing a fresh governing body or framing a scheme for the better and efficient management of the society or dissolving the society. On the terms of sub section (3) of section 19 of the Act, it is evident that even in the worst case scenario, even assuming that the accounts and books of a society are not in order, W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 18 the Government could not have moved the District Court for an order removing the existing governing body of the society or for an order to appoint a fresh governing body for the society or for framing a scheme for the better and efficient management of the society. The Government could have passed only such orders as it deems fit for the efficient and better management of the society. In the instant case, the Government have not passed such an order. Even though the third respondent has raised a contention that Ext.P4 though styled as an order, is only a report and it is for the Government to pass appropriate orders in the matter, I am of the opinion that the said contention is plainly untenable. 13. As noticed earlier, under section 19 of the Act, the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Government can only examine the accounts and other books of the society and submit a report to the Government on the result of such an inspection. A reading of Ext.P4 order makes it evident that there is no finding therein regarding the books of accounts or other books of the society. A reading of the order will make it clear that the Registrar was examining the validity of the elections alleged to have been held on different dates and was attempting to decide which among the rival factions is entitled to administer and manage the affairs of the society. The Registrar has not in Ext.P4 come to a finding that the accounts W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 19 are not in order or that the books are not properly kept. In other words, a reading of Ext.P4 order would disclose that the Registrar has attempted to resolve the inter-se dispute between the rival groups regarding the right to administer and manage the affairs of the society. The relevant portion of Ext.P4 order reads as follows: _"_ 1) 24.01.1998_W ÙV¼ßAÞøÈáZæMæടÏáU ÍøÃØÎßÄß ¥¢·BZ ÉáÄßÏ ÍÞøÕÞÙßµæ{ æÄøæEടáJ ÈടÉടß ÙV¼ßAÞøX ÙÞ¼øÞAßÏ æÄ{ßÕáµ {áæടÏᢠùßAÞVÁáµ{áæടÏᢠ¥ടßØíÅÞÈJßW ÈßÏÎÉøÎÞæÃKá µÞÃáKá _._ 2) ¨ ¦ËàØßæÜ ùßAÞVÁáµZ È×íടæMGÄá Ø¢Ìtߺî ÙV¼ßAÞøæa ¦çfÉ¢ ÌÙá.çµÞടÄßÏáæട Éøß·ÃÈÏßÜÞÃí. ùßAÞVÁáµZ ÜÍcÎÜïÞJ ØÞÙºøcJßW, ÍøÃØÎßÄßÏáæട µÞÜÞÕÇß 5_W ÈßKᢠ7 ÕV×ÎÞAß ÈßÏÎÞÕÜß çÍÆ·Äß æºÏñáæµÞIí, 2002_W æÉÞÄáçÏÞ·¢ µâടß ÉáÄßÏ ÍøÃØÎßÄßæÏ æÄøæEടáJÞW ÎÄßÏÞµáæÎKßøßæA, Ø¢¸¢ ÍøøടÈÏíAí ÕßøáiÎÞÏß 4.03.2000_W æÉÞÄáçÏÞ·¢ µâടß 18.03.2005 ÕæøÏáU ÍÞøÕÞÙßµæ{å æÄøæEടáJÄᢠ¥Äá Ø¢Ìtߺîí ùßçGÃáµZ ¥KæJ ¼ßÜïÞ ø¼ßØídടÞV (¼ÈùW) ËÏW æºÏñÄᢠÆáøâÙÄ ©IÞAáK ÈടÉടßµ{ÞæÃKá µÞÃáKá. 3) ÙV¼ßAÞøæa çÈത�ÄbJßW Ø¢¸Jßæa ÈßÏÎÞÕÜßÏíAÈáØøߺîí ÕÞV×ßµ æÉÞÄáçÏÞ·B{ᢠæÄøæEടáMáµ{ᢠÏഥÞµÞÜ¢ ÈടJß ÕøáKÄáæIKí ÙV¼ßAÞøX ÙÞ¼øÞAßÏ çø¶µ{ßW ÈßKᢠÎÈTßÜÞAáKá. 4)åÙV¼ßAÞøX ടß Ø¢¸Jßæa സÞɵޢ·Õᢠ24.1.98 ÎáÄW ¥Äßæa ¼ÈùW æØdµGùßÏáÎÞÃí. 5) dÖà.Áß.çÆÕdÉØÞÆí ÉøÞÎVÖßAáK ÌÙá.èÙçAÞടÄßÏßæÜ çµTáµZåØ¢¸Jßæa ©ടÎസÄÏßÜáU _B.Ed._ ædടÏßÈߢ·í çµÞç{¼ßæa ÎÞçȼíæÎaí Ø¢Ìtߺîᢠ¥ÁíÎß×XåØ¢ÌtߺîáUÄáÎÞÃí.å dÖà.Áß.çÆÕdÉØÞÆí ¥ÕµÞÖæMടáKÄáçMÞæÜ ¥Áb.¼í¾ÞÈÖ߶ÞÎÃßÏáæട çÈത�ÄbJßÜáU ÕßÍÞ·æJ ÏഥÞVത çµø{ ÈÞടÞV ÎÙÞ¼ÈØ¢¸ÎÞÏß ¥¢·àµøßAáKÄßÈáçÕIß ËÏW æºÏñßGáUÕÏÜï. 6)ådÖà.Áß.çÆÕdÉØÞÆá¢, dÖà.Øáwøø޼ᢠÙÞ¼øÞAßÏ çø¶µ{ᢠÈWµßÏ æÎÞÝßµ{ᢠ¥ÕøÕøáæട çÈത�ÄbJßÜáUÄÞÃí ÏഥÞVത ÈÞടÞV ÎÙÞ¼È W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 20 Ø¢¸æÎKí æÄ{ßÏßAáKÄßÈáĵáKÕÏÜï. 7) 5/64_¢ ÈOøÞÏß ø¼ßØíxV æºÏîæMG Rçµø{ ÈÞടÞV ÎÙÞ¼ÈØ¢ ¸Jßæa ÈßÏÎÞÕÜß (6) ©çgÖBZ ( _a_ ) ÏßW ÈÞടÞV ØÎáÆÞÏJßæa ØVÕîçÄÞzá¶ÎÞÏ ÉáçøÞ·ÄßAáçÕIß dÉÕVJßAáµQ ®Ká µÞÃáKá. (31.12.1997 ÕæøÏáU ®ÜïÞ çÍÆ·Äßµ{ᢠ©ZæMടáJßæAÞIí ÙV¼ßAÞøX 1998_W ¥ºîടߺîí 30.06.2010_Èá ÙÞ¼øÞAßÏ ÈßÏÎÞÕÜß dɵÞø¢) ®KÞW dÉØñáÄ ØÆáçgÖJßÈá µ{C¢ ÕøáJáK ÕßÍÞ·àÏ È¿É¿ßµ{ÞÃí Ø¢ ¸JßW ©IÞÏßGáUæÄKᢠÕcµñß Èß×íഠÄÞÄíÉøcB{ÞÃí ÕßÍÞ·àÏÄÏíAá µÞøÃÎÞÏßGáUæÄKᢠµÞÃáKá. _"_ 14. The first finding entered by the Registrar in Ext.P4 is that the election of office bearers on 24.1.1998 is legal and proper. The second finding entered by him in Ext.P4 is that the election held on 4.3.2000 and the filing of returns is mysterious for the reason that the term of the governing body was enlarged from five years to seven years by an amendment of the bye-laws and therefore, it was necessary to hold the elections only in the year 2002. The third finding entered in Ext.P4 is that a document produced by the third respondent establishes the fact that under his leadership annual general meetings and elections are periodically held. The fourth finding entered in Ext.P4 is that the third respondent is a founder member of the society and General Secretary from 24.1.1998. The fifth finding entered in Ext.P4 is that Ext.P1 judgment of this Court related only to management of the training college and admissions to B.Ed. degree course and the writ petitions which were disposed of by W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 21 Ext.P1 judgment were not filed for recognising the faction headed by Adv.Gnanasikhamoni as representing the Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham. The sixth finding entered in Ext.P4 is that the documents produced by Sri.D.Devaprasad and Sri.Sunderaraj do not establish the fact that the Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham of which they claim to be leaders is not the real Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham. The last finding entered by him in Ext.P4 is that there is difference of opinion among various members of the society due to their selfish motives. 15. After entering the aforesaid findings, the Registrar has in Ext.P4 order directed as follows: _“_ 24.01.1998_W dÖà.®¢.Éß.¥MáøÞ¼X ÈÞ¿Þøáæ¿ çÈത�ÄbJßÜáIÞÏßøáK ÍøÃØÎßÄßÏÞÃí Ø¢¸Jßæa ÈßÏÎÞÕÜßAÈáസ�ÄÎÞÏ ÍøÃØÎßÄßæÏKí ¥¢ ·àµøߺîáæµÞIá¢, ¦ÏÄßÈÞW ¿ßÏÞX ÙÞ¼øÞAßÏßGáU ÕÞV×ßµ ùßçGÃáµ{ÞÃí ØbàµÞøcÎÞÏßGáUÕæÏKᢠdÖà.®¢.Éß.¥MáøÞ¼X ÈÞ¿Þøáæ¿ çÈത�ÄbJß ÜáIÞÏßøáK Íøà ØÎßÄßÏáæ¿ ÈßÏdLÃJßÜáU Ø¢¸JßÈÜïÞæÄ ÎxÞVAᢠçµø{ ÈÞ¿ÞV ÎÙÞ¼ÈØ¢¸¢ ®K çÉçøÞ 5/64 ®K ø¼ßØíxV ÈOçùÞ ©ÉçÏÞ·ßAáÕÞX ¥ÇßµÞøÕᢠ¥ÕµÞÖÕᢠ§æÜïKᢠ§ÄßÈÞW ©JøÕÞµáKá. ¥çÄÞæ¿ÞM¢ ÙV¼ßAÞøX ØÎVMߺîßGáU ÕÞV×ßµ ùßçGÃáµZ, ¨ ¦ËàØßW ÈßKᢠÈ×í¿æMGáçÉÞÏ ùßAÞVÁáµZ Ø¢Ìtߺîí ÈßÜÈßWAáK çµTßæÜ ¥LßÎ ÄàVMßÈá ÕßçÇÏÎÞÏß,åùßAÞVÁáµZ È×í¿æMGÄí Ø¢Ìtߺîí ®Lá Äá¿V È¿É¿ßµ{ÞÃí èµæAÞçUIæÄKí ¼ßÜïÞ ·Õæpaí ÉïàÁV Îáç¶È ÌtæMG çµÞ¿ÄßÏßW ¨ ¦ËàØßW ÈßKᢠÕcÕÙÞø¢ çÌÞÇßMߺîí ©JøÕÞÏÄßÈí çÖ×¢ ËÏW æºÏîáKÄÞæÃKᢠ¥ÄáÕæø ¦ÏÕ ÌLÕTßW ¨ ¦ËàØßW ÄæK ØâfßAáKÄÞæÃKᢠ§ÄßÈÞW ©JøÕÞµáKá. _”_ The Registrar has declared that the governing body headed by Sri.M.P.Appurajan Nadar (the third respondent) which was in office on W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 22 24.1.1998 is its governing body as per the bye-laws and that the returns submitted by him are the acceptable returns and that except that governing body no other person can claim to represent the Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham. He has in Ext.P4 also directed that the records produced by the third respondent shall be kept in safe custody until a decision is taken in consultation with the District Government Pleader to file an appropriate application in the District Court. It is evident from a reading of Ext.P4 order that the Registrar of Societies has adjudicated on the dispute inter-se between the rival factions regarding the right to represent the Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham, instead of examining the accounts of income and expenditure and of the assets and liabilities of the society. He took up on himself the task of deciding the civil dispute between the parties which could have been decided only by the competent civil court. Even the Government acting under section 25 of the Act could not have passed such an order, but could have only moved the District Court seeking the reliefs specified in sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Act. 16. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent that as Ext.P4 is inconsequential and unenforceable, a challenge to that order at the instance of the petitioners cannot be entertained. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in **Sant Lal Gupta and others v. Modern** W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 23 **Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd.** [2010 (13) SCC 336] referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for the third respondent do not in my opinion apply to the case on hand. In that case, the question which arose for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the mere passing of a resolution by a society to expel 27 of its members can have any efficacy without the approval of the Registrar. By a resolution adopted on 27.4.1987, the Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. expelled 27 members including the appellants before the Apex Court. A proposal was thereupon sent to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as required under the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act for approval on 20.2.1888. In the meanwhile, new members had been enrolled and approval of the enrollment of new members was also sought. The Registrar, by order passed on 4.6.1996 rejected the approval. The society moved the Financial Commissioner by filing a revision petition and it was dismissed. The society thereafter filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court remanded the matter to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for re-consideration. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies re-considered the matter and passed an order dated 26.8.1997, once again rejecting the approval of the expulsion of the members. The society preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed on 3.11.1997. W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 24 The society again moved the High Court by filing a writ petition and it was allowed. On appeal, it was contended before the Apex Court that in view of rule 36(3) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973, the resolution will become effective only from the date of approval and unless approval is accorded it cannot become effective. It was in that context that the Apex Court held that if a statute provides for the approval of the higher authority, the order cannot be given effect to, unless it is approved and the same remains inconsequential and unenforceable. It was held that the resolution passed by the society cannot be given effect to, unless approval is accorded by the Registrar as required by the Act and the Rules. 17. In the case on hand, the Registrar of Societies has by Ext.P4 order, interfered with the administration and management of a society by declaring that office bearers who were in office on 24.1.1998 alone are entitled to represent the society. The very order itself refers to the fact that an election had taken place on 4.3.2000 and in that election a governing body was elected for a period of five years. It is also not in dispute that thereafter also, elections have been held. In such circumstances, in the absence of any provision in the Act or the rules framed thereunder to the effect that an order of the kind of Ext.P4 will have efficacy only if it is approved by the W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 25 Government, I am of the opinion that the petitioners, whose rights are affected by the said order and against whom it will be put forward, are entitled to challenge that order on the ground that it is an order passed without jurisdiction. In the very decision of the Apex Court referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for the third respondent, the Apex Court has held that a writ of certiorari can be issued when the authority whose order is sought to be reviewed has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction. In the instant case, even the third respondent has no case that the Registrar is competent to issue an order either under sections 19 and 25 of the Act or under any other provision of the Act and to declare that one group or the other, represents the duly elected committee. In the absence of any such right or authority in the Registrar it has to be necessarily held that the impugned order which is in fact an order and not a report in terms of section 19 of the Act, is an order without the sanction or authority of law. 18. In Ext.P3 petition dated nil, filed by the third respondent before the Hon'ble Minister, his request was as follows: "ÖøßÏÞÏ øàÄßÏßW ÎßÈßGíØí ÌáAáµ{ᢠÎxá çø¶µ{ᢠÉøßçÖÞÇߺîí 24_01_98W ÈßÜÈßK ÍâøßÉf¢ µÃAßæÜ¿áJí ÏÅÞVj Ø¢¸¿ÈÞ ÍÞøÕÞÙßµZAí Ø¢ ¸¿ÈÏáæ¿ ºáÎÄÜ ÈWµßæAÞIáU ø¼ßØíçd¿×X ÕµáMßæa ©JøÕáIÞÏß ¨ Ø¢¸¿ÈæÏ ¥Äßæa ÏÅÞVj ÍÞøÕÞÙßµ{ßW ÈßfßÉñÎÞAáÕÞX çÕI ÈßÏÎÈ¿É¿ßµZ ØbàµøßAÞX ÆÏÕáIÞµáÕÞX ÄÞÝíÎÏÞÏß ¥çÉfßAáKá." _._ W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 26 The request in the representation submitted by the third respondent to the Hon'ble Minister was that the Registration Department should take steps to hand over the administration and management of the society to the office bearers who were in office on 24.1.1998 after ascertaining which faction had the majority. The third respondent did not for reasons best known to him even after the Syndicate of the Kerala University recognised the faction headed by Sri. Gnanasikhamoni as the lawful office bearers, take steps to move the competent civil court or the District Court in terms of section 25 of the Act, to enforce the claim which was put forward by him in Ext.P3. His claim in Ext.P3 which was admittedly submitted only in September 2010, 12 years after the dispute arose, was to unsettle whatever had transferred thereafter by requesting an incompetent authority to hand over the administration of the society to the faction which had majority as on 24.1.1998. The third respondent has no case in Ext.P3 that the accounts of the income and expenditure and of assets and liabilities of the society are not being properly kept. His only case was that the minutes book and other documents should be examined for the purpose of ascertaining which group had the majority on 24.1.1998. The Government could not have in view of the provisions contained in the Act granted that request. It was for the purpose of considering the request made in Ext.P3 that the Government called for W.P.(C) Nos.14163 & 14393 of 2011 27 a report from the District Registrar. By no stretch of imagination can it therefore be said that the report called for by the Government was in terms of section 19 of the Act. Though the conduct of the third respondent would justify the award of costs to the petitioners, having regard to the fact that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did not press for costs, I refrain from awarding costs to the petitioners. I accordingly allow the writ petitions, set aside the proceedings dated 30.3.2011 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, produced as Ext.P4 in the respective writ petitions and declare that it is not a report in terms of section 19 of the Act. The parties shall bear their respective costs. **P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE** VPV