- (1.) Petitioner happens to be a member of Aruppukkottai Nadarkal Uravinmurai 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 in the writ petition to enquire into the affairs of the Trust according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, in the light of the representations dated 5th May, 2008 and 28th September, 2008. Petitioner filed another writ application bearing W.P.(MD) No. 4269 of 2009 for a direction to the third Respondent to consider his representation dated 22nd December, 2008. In the representations dated 5th May, 2008 and 28th September, 2008 referred to above the Petitioner questioned the resolution passed by the General Body on 7th January, 2007 and as also the authority of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 of the writ petition to pass the resolution. In the representation dated 22nd December, 2008, the Petitioner questioned the validity of the Governing Body itself.
(2.) All the writ petitions were heard together and while questioning the validity of the resolution dated 7th January, 2007 debarring the Petitioner from holding any post in the Trust for a period of 10 years, it was contended before the learned Single Judge that the Trust is governed by bye-laws and it does not empower either the General Body or Governing Body to debar any person from holding any post for a stipulated period. As observed earlier the prayer of the Petitioner was to restrain the Respondents from registering the resolution dated 7th January, 2007 but even before the writ petition was filed the same was registered on 5th December, 2008. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge was of the 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 enabling General Body or Governing Body to debar any person from holding any post. Therefore, when the bye-laws are silent about the power of the Trust to debar any person from holding any post, the resolution passed on 07.01.2007 debarring the Petitioner from holding any post for a period of 10 years is patently illegal and therefore, even though the resolution has been registered by the District Registrar, the resolution has no legal sanction and it is not legal.
(3.) Aggrieved by the same Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in the writ petition preferred Writ Appeal No. 366 of 2009. The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge on its finding that the Petitioner filed representation to the Registrar on 5th May, 2008, that is after 16 months from the date of the resolution i.e. 7th January, 2007 and further having not approached the High Court or the Civil Court the writ petition filed in April, 2009 after 27 months of the resolution deserves to be dismissed. The Division Bench further observed that the learned Single Judge having held the writ petition as in fructuous ought not to have moulded the relief and set aside the resolution being contrary to bye-laws. It further observed that the issue ought not to have been decided in the writ petition and the Petitioner ought to have been relegated to the remedy of civil suit. The observation of the Division Bench in this regard reads as follows: But unfortunately, the Petitioner made a representation 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 right in adjudicating a question which was not actually before him. When the very prayer of the first Respondent not to register the resolution was doubtful of being entertained, in view of the efflux of about 27 months, the first Respondent would not have been entitled to the relief of setting aside the very resolution as being contrary to the bye-laws.;