2021 (1) TMI 1357 - HC - Indian Laws

Registration under s.12(4) is conclusive once Registrar is satisfied; writ relief denied for disputed facts

S. Senthil alias Dhanapalan Versus Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others

S. Senthil alias Dhanapalan Versus Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and Others - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Registrar's registration under Section 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies and Registration Act, 1975 of amended bye-laws can be interfered with by writ jurisdiction under Article 226 when the petitioner alleges absence of a statutory 'special resolution' as required by Section 12(2). 2. Whether the Court may direct appointment of a Special Officer under Section 34A of the Act to supersede the Executive Committee of a registered society on the basis of the petitioner's allegations of irregularity and financial mismanagement, without a prior enquiry under Section 36 or prima facie satisfaction of mismanagement by the Registrar. 3. Whether disputed questions of fact and alleged private disputes between members of a registered society are amenable to relief by public law writ (mandamus) under Article 226, or whether civil proceedings are the appropriate forum. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Interference with Registrar's registration under Section 12(4) Legal framework: Section 12(2) permits a registered society to amend its bye-laws by special resolution; Section 12(4) empowers the Registrar, if satisfied that an amendment is not contrary to the Act or rules, to register the amendment and to issue a certified copy which shall be 'conclusive evidence' that the amendment has been duly registered. Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited or considered in the judgment; the Court proceeded on statutory text and admitted documents. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that the amended bye-laws were registered by the Registrar under Section 12(4). Absent any admission by the Registrar (or respondents 1-3) that the statutory procedure was not followed, the statutory scheme gives conclusive effect to the Registrar's registration. The Court observed that the respondents denied violation of the statutory procedure and maintained the Registrar's satisfaction. The petitioner also failed to disclose related pending civil proceedings and, on the material, had participated in society meetings and signed cheques. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the Registrar has registered an amendment under Section 12(4) and there is no admission of procedural non-compliance by the Registrar, high court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 will not ordinarily interfere with the registration; challenge to registration with disputed facts is to be pursued in civil court. Obiter - comments on the petitioner's participation and omissions are factual findings supporting non-interference. Conclusion: The Court will not exercise writ jurisdiction to annul or interfere with the Registrar's registration of bye-laws under Section 12(4) in the absence of a clear admission or evidence that statutory procedure was not followed; the petitioner's remedy is to challenge the registration in a civil forum where disputed facts can be adjudicated. Issue 2 - Appointment of Special Officer under Section 34A Legal framework: Section 34A (as invoked) contemplates appointment of a Special Officer to supersede an Executive Committee where mismanagement/financial irregularities are established by appropriate process; Section 36 provides for enquiry by the Registrar and prima facie satisfaction as a precondition to action under Section 34A. Precedent Treatment: No prior authorities analyzed; Court relied on statutory structure and respondents' pleadings. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the 3rd respondent's position that Section 34A becomes operative only after an enquiry under Section 36 and upon prima facie finding of mismanagement/financial irregularities. The respondents asserted no such enquiry or finding had occurred; they denied the petitioner's bald allegations and contended the matters were contested and subject to civil proceedings. Given the absence of an enquiry or Registrar's prima facie satisfaction, and presence of disputed factual assertions, the Court found no basis for directing appointment of a Special Officer via writ. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - appointment of a Special Officer under Section 34A requires, as a statutory precondition, enquiry under Section 36 and prima facie satisfaction of mismanagement/financial irregularities by the Registrar; courts should not grant such relief on contested allegations without that statutory process. Obiter - remarks that registrar's inaction/decision and factual disputes are matters better suited for civil adjudication or for Registrar's statutory enquiry. Conclusion: The petitioner's request for mandamus directing appointment of a Special Officer under Section 34A is unfounded where no enquiry under Section 36 has produced prima facie findings; writ relief is inappropriate on contested factual averments. Issue 3 - Public law writ remedy vs. private dispute and disputed facts Legal framework: Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and traditionally unsuitable to resolve private disputes or contested questions of fact more appropriately tried in civil courts; public law intervention is warranted where there is illegality, mala fides, or fixation of public duty that can be addressed without trial of disputed facts. Precedent Treatment: Not discussed; the Court applied established principles of separation between public law relief and private civil adjudication. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the petitioner had advanced allegations of internal irregularities and financial mismanagement that raised disputed factual questions - including existence and veracity of complaints, participation in meetings, cheque signatory status, and parallel civil litigation. The respondents contended the dispute is essentially private and urged civil remedies. The Court held that it cannot, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, try disputed facts and grant equitable or administrative remedies when an adequate remedy by way of civil suit exists and the matter involves private controversy between members. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where allegations entail disputed facts and concern private disputes within a registered society, Article 226 is not the appropriate forum; civil courts should adjudicate such disputes. Obiter - the Court's assessment of suppressed material facts and petitioner's conduct informs discretionary refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction. Conclusion: The writ petition seeking mandamus was not maintainable as a public law remedy for private, disputed matters; the petitioner's appropriate remedy is to pursue civil proceedings. Overall Disposition and Incidental Observations Interpretation and reasoning: Considering the Registrar's conclusive registration under Section 12(4), absence of statutory preconditions for Section 34A action (no Section 36 enquiry/prima facie finding), and the presence of disputed factual issues and parallel civil proceedings, the Court declined to entertain the petition under Article 226. The petitioner's non-disclosure of pending civil litigation and documentary participation in society affairs were factual considerations militating against extraordinary writ relief. Conclusion: The writ petition for mandamus to direct appointment of a Special Officer was dismissed for want of merit; liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue civil remedies before the appropriate civil court. No order as to costs.