TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Supersession of the Committee of the Society
Section 34(A) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (‘Act’ for short) was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 16 of 1994. This section provides for the supersession of the Committee of the Society registered under the Act by the Government. The said section provides that if, in the opinion of the Government, -
- the Committee of any registered society is not functioning properly; or
- the affairs of any registered society are mismanaged, or
- the registered society’s activities are not in furtherance of the objects of the society; or
- the committee of any registered society has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made there under, or wilfully disobeys or wilfully fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued under the provisions of the Act, or the rules made thereunder, the Government may, after giving the Committee an opportunity of making its representations, by order in writing, supersede the committee and appoint a person, as Special Officer, to manage the affairs of the society for a specified period not exceeding one year. This period may be extended at the discretion of the Government from time to time but not more than three years in aggregate.
The Special Officer, subject to the control of Registrar of Societies have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee and to take such actions required in the interest of the society.
Reasonable opportunity
Before the Special Officer is ordered to take over the Committee, the Committee shall be given a reasonable opportunity to put forth its case. Otherwise it will be held invalid as decided by the Karnataka High Court in Banjara (Lambani) Youth's Association Versus State of Karnataka and Others - 1999 (7) TMI 719 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. In this case the State Government called for a report from the District Registrar on a complaint received from the former President and certain members of the Committee. The District Registrar, without giving any opportunity to the committee members. The State Government acted on that report and appointed an administrator. It was held that the report sent by the Registrar is not valid and hence the appointment of the administrator was quashed by the High Court.
Invoking writ petition
In ‘S. Senthil alias Dhanapalan Versus Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others - 2021 (1) TMI 1357 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, the 6th respondent is Erode Lorry Owners’ Association. The petitioner, in the present writ petition alleged that the 6th respondent has been contravened the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioner contended that the 6th respondent has amended its bye laws without passing special resolution in the annual general meeting. Further some of the office bearers of the society committed several irregularities for which criminal cases have been filed against them. Under these circumstances the petitioner prayed the High Court to appoint a Special Officer under Section 34-A of the Act to supersede the existing committee of the 6th respondent.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first three respondents, who are the Secretary to Government, Commercial tax department, the Inspector General of Registration and the Registrar of Societies, Erode. In the said affidavit it is contended that-
- The amendment proposed by the Committee was registered under Section 12(4) of the Act on 19.08.2018;
- The President of the Society was not barred in conducting the annual general meeting.
- The petitioner, without documentary evidences raised bald allegations against the respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
- It is not required to pass a special resolution for the appointment of committee members.
- Section 34-A of the Act will attract only an enquiry was conducted under Section 36 of the Act by the Registrar and if there is a prima facie evidence as to the mismanagement of the society. In this case no such enquiry was conducted. The Registrar of Societies, Erode, the third respondent was of the opinion that this case will not come under the said section.
The respondent Nos. 4 to 6, in their counter affidavit stated that the present petitioner is not maintainable on the ground of suppression of material facts. They contended that the petitioner attended all the meetings convened by the Society including the meeting in which the bye laws of the society were proposed to be amended. The allegations that criminal cases have been filed against them are false and frivolous. They further revealed that one civil suit has been filed in which it was prayed to restrict the Society to conduct the Annual general meeting on 12.01.2020. Further it was alleged that the petitioner signed the cheques of the Society and made payments. The present writ petition has been filed to prevent the smooth running of the Society.
The High Court considered the arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. The High Court analysed the provisions of Section 12(2) and 12(4) of the Act. The High Court observed that the bye laws of the 6th respondent society have been registered under section 12(4) of the Act. Further there is no necessity to pass special resolution for registering the amendment of bye laws of the society. The petitioner has not alleged that the Society has contravened the statutory procedure while granting registration.
The High Court that once Department Officers (1 – 3 respondents) found that the Society has followed the due procedure of law for registering the amendments of the bye-laws, the High Court cannot invoke the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the civil court to get remedy. The High Court also observed that the petitioner has not disclosed the civil suit pending in O.S. No. 10 of 2020, relating to the same subject matter before the District Munsif, Erode. The petitioner has also participated in various meetings of the Society and he was the signatory of cheques of the society for making payments on behalf of the Society.
The High Court dismissed the present writ petition since there is no merit in it. Further the High Court gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, if he desires against the functioning of the society.