Writ jurisdiction and society bye-law disputes: registered amendments and contested facts require civil court scrutiny, not mandamus.

A challenge to a society's amended bye-laws and administration under the Tamil Nadu Societies and Registration Act turned on disputed facts, including alleged absence of a special resolution and claimed financial irregularities. The article notes that once the Registrar has registered the amendment under Section 12(4), that registration operates as conclusive evidence of due registration. Because the pleadings did not establish any admitted breach of the statutory registration procedure, the issues raised were held unsuitable for writ adjudication under Article 226 and required determination by a Civil Court. The requested appointment of a Special Officer under Section 34(A) was therefore treated as not maintainable on the material presented.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct appointment of a Special Officer under Section 34(A) of the Tamil Nadu Societies and Registration Act, 1975, on allegations that the Society amended its bye-laws without a special resolution and that the office bearers committed financial irregularities.

Analysis: The dispute centred on the registration of amended bye-laws under Section 12(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies and Registration Act, 1975. The Registrar had registered the amendment, and the statutory scheme treats such registration as conclusive evidence that the amendment has been duly registered. The pleadings did not contain any admission by the public authorities that the statutory procedure for registration had been violated. The allegations regarding absence of a special resolution, suppression of facts, prior civil proceedings, participation in Society meetings, and alleged financial irregularities raised disputed questions of fact. Such matters were not appropriate for adjudication in writ proceedings and required examination by a Civil Court. The remedy under Article 226 was therefore not available for the relief sought, and the requested supersession under Section 34(A) was not shown to be maintainable on the material placed before the Court.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts and was rejected, with liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy before the Civil Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the challenge to Society administration and bye-law amendment turns on disputed facts and the statutory amendment has been registered under the Act, writ jurisdiction will not be exercised and the aggrieved party must seek civil remedy.

---