TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai Pothu Abiruthi Trust and elected as its President for two terms i.e. 2003-2006 and 2006-2009. By a resolution of the General Body dated 7th January, 2007 he was debarred from holding any post in Aruppukkottai Nadarkal Uravinmurai Pothu Abiruthi Trust (hereinafter referred to as the `Trust') for a period of 10 years. The aforesaid resolution was sent to the Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Registration Department, for its registration. Aggrieved by the same Petitioner filed Writ Petition (MD) No. 3414 of 2009 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, inter alia, praying to restrain the Respondent from registering the same. Petitioner further filed Writ Petition (MD) No. 3657 of 2009 for a direction to the third Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view that the said prayer has become in fructuous but it proceeded to mould the relief sought for by the Petitioner and held that the resolution dated 7th January, 2007 "debarring the Petitioner for a period of 10 years is patently illegal, the fact that the resolution had been filed on 5th December, 2008 will not have any legal sanction and the Petitioner continues to be the member of the Trust". While granting the aforesaid relief the learned Single Judge found that there is no provision in the bye-laws of the Trust to debar any person from holding any post. Relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this regard reads as follows: As stated supra, there is no provision in the bye-laws of the Trust enabli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entation to the Registrar after 16 months of the said resolution. The first representation was dated 05.05.2008. Even after the said representation, the first Respondent neither came to this Court nor went to a Civil Court. He waited till April, 2009 to move a Writ Petition seeking to forbear the District Registrar from recording Form No. VII. At the time when the first Respondent filed the Writ Petition in April, 2009 seeking to restrain the District Registrar from recording the resolution, a full period of about 27 months had passed. During this period of 27 months, the first Respondent went into a slumber and did not come to this Court challenging the resolution. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Judge was not rig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue for 10 years it moulded the relief and the same ought not to have interfered in appeal. 7. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, however, submits that once the learned Single Judge held the writ petition to be in fructuous it ought not to have gone into the merit of the case and held the resolution to be bad. He further points out that inordinate delay in filing the writ petition also disentitled the Appellant to the relief granted and, therefore, the Division Bench rightly set aside the said order. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Krishna Rice Mills (1981) 4 SCC 148, in which it has been held as follows: The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Trust from holding a post for specified period. Bye-laws provide for removal of the membership in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein in case a member is found to be indulging in activities prejudicial to the Trust. The power to remove the member in our opinion shall not include power to debar the member from holding an office of the Trust. As the resolution of the Governing Body debarring the Appellant from holding the office of the Trust was valid and operative when the matter was pending before the learned Single Judge, he did not err in quashing the resolution. The power to mould relief is always available to the Court possessed with the power to issue high prerogative writs. In order to do complete justice it can mou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....right in moulding the relief. The act of the Appellant in removing a large number of members and financial impropriety will not clothe the General Body to pass resolution debarring the Appellant from holding the post for 10 years, as no such power is conferred by the bye-laws. The action being patently illegal, the learned Single Judge could not have declined the relief taking into account the alleged action. 11. As regards the decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Rice Mills (supra) relied on by Mr. Sorabjee, the same has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the said case the instruction issued by the Government was challenged and when the matter was taken up it was conceded by the State that the State Gover....