R.BANUMATHI,J
1. As to who is to be in management of South Kallikulam Catholic Christian Nadar Mahamai Sangam (Reg.No.8/1951), South Kallikulam Village and consequently, Correspondent of Kamaraj Middle School of Kallikulam village is the subject matter of dispute in this Writ Appeal arising out of the order in W.P.(MD)No.14160 of 2011.
2. Factual background:- Therkku Kallikulam Catholic Christain Nadar Mahamai Sangam (for short, Nadar Mahamai Sangam) is an educational agency of Kamaraj Middle School, which is located in the same Therkku Kallikulam Village. The President of the said Sangam shall be the correspondent of Kamaraj Middle School, Kallikulam for his tenure as the President. Kamaraj Middle School Therkku Kallikulam which is managed by the said Sangam is an aided school and the government is paying the entire monthly salary of the approved teachers of that School. Appellant was elected as the President for the said Sangam for a period of 3 years from 1.11.2009 and hence approved for holding the Correspondentship of Kamaraj Middle School on the basis of holding Presidentship of the said Sangam. Approval was accorded by the third respondent/DEEO in his proceedings Mu Mu No.3729/A2/2011 dated 4.7.2011.
3. O.S.No.173 of 2010 - The Sangam resolved no confidence against the Appellant, S.Ananda Raja, and removed him from the post of President of Nadar Mahamai Sangam. Form-VII carrying this change was taken on record by the Registrar of Societies, Tirunelveli on 16.5.2011. Challenging no confidence resolution passed and seeking for a declaration that it is null and void, the Appellant filed civil suit in O.S.No.173 of 2010 before the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor and challenging the election of the fifth respondent as President and removal of the Appellant Anandaraja from the post of President. The said suit was filed and the same is pending. Even though, the Appellant sought for interim injunction restraining the impelementation of the resolution, the Civil Court did not grant any interim relief.
4. Form-VII filed by the Appellant was accepted by the Registrar in Serial No.21/11 dated 16.05.2011, as per which Appellant and his team members are stated as President and Committee Members with effect from 01.11.2009. Form-VII filed by the 5th Respondent was also accepted by the District Registrar on the same date 16.05.2011 in Serial No.27/11 wherein it is stated that 5th Respondent and his team members are the President and Committee Members respectively with effect from 05.12.2010.
5. As there was law and order problem, on 8.7.2011, R.D.O., Cheranmahadevi, passed an order directing the charge of the management to be handed over to one Panidassan. The said proceedings of the R.D.O. dated 8.7.2011 came to be challenged in W.P.(MD)No.7845 of 2011. In the said Writ Petition, even though initially, stay was granted, subsequently, by the order dated 29.9.2011, the Writ Petition was disposed of setting aside the order dated 8.7.2011 of the R.D.O., Cheranmahadevi giving liberty to the parties to work out their remedies before the competent forum by following the due process of law.
6. R.C.No.7024/A2/201 dated 21.11.2011 - Thereafter, the third respondent passed the proceedings cancelling his previous order on the basis of Form-VII reporting the changes as per the resolution dated 5.12.2010. Based on Form-VII and the report of the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, 3rd Respondent - District Elementary Educational Officer passed the Proceedings R.C.No.7024/A2/2011 dated 21.11.2011 approving the 5th Respondent as Correspondent of Kamaraj Middle School. The said Proceedings of the 3rd Respondent dated 21.11.2011 was challenged by the Appellant in W.P.(MD) No.14160 of 2011.
7. 3rd Respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit contending that based on Form-VII and recording the 5th Respondent as Correspondent of Kamaraj Middle School with effect from 05.12.2010, in the order dated 21.11.2011, the 5th Respondent was recognised as Correspondent of Kamaraj Middle School and the same is in order.
8. Referring to various Proceedings and also acceptance of Form-VII (Serial No.27/11 dated 16.05.2011), 5th Respondent filed the counter contending that based on Form-VII, the District Elementary Educational Officer rightly approved the 5th Respondent as Correspondent. The Writ Petition filed by the Appellant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned single judge held that as per Section 53-A of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, Civil Suit is the proper remedy and since Suit is pending, it is for the parties to work out their remedy in the Civil Suit. Learned single Judge further held that till the disposal of suit, respondents 1 to 4, being the educational authorities, have to take note of election of 5th respondent as President and Form-VII was also recorded by the Registration Department. The learned single Judge further observed that as per the proceedings of 3rd respondent dated 21.11.2011, there is nothing wrong in the 5th respondent continuing as President of Nadar Mahamai Sangam and as Correspondent of Kamaraj Middle School.
10. Challenging the impugned order, Mr.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel for Appellant contended that till the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 21.11.2011, the Appellant - Anandaraja was administering the School and carrying out the affairs of the society. It was contended that the learned single Judge ought to have taken note that based on the said proceedings dated 21.11.2011 the 5th respondent attempted to illegally take over the functioning and activities of the Appellant society. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, which stipulates that in the event of any dispute, being raised by rival contestants, the 3rd respondent ought to have referred the parties to the Civil Court and the 3rd respondent having not followed the statutory provision the impugned order was vitiated. Placing reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of C.DHARMALINGAM VS. THE DISTRICTREGISTRAR, (2010(3) CTC 390), it was submitted that Form VII is only clerical in receiving the application and recording the same and while so the self served Form VII submitted by the 5th respondent will not clothe the 3rd respondent with any authority to rely upon the same to pass the impugned order. Main contention of Appellant is that before cancelling the Proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.3729/A2/2011 dated 4.7.2011, sufficient opportunity ought to have been afforded to the Appellant and the impugned proceedings of 3rd respondent in R.C.No.7024/A4/2011 dated 21.11.2011 is vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice.
11. Per contra, reiterating the proceedings of 3rd respondent in R.C.No.7024/A4/2011 dated 21.11.2011, learned Special Government Pleader Mr.M.Govindan submitted that removal of the Appellant from the post of President and in his place the appointment of 5th respondent as President was taken on record by the Registrar of Societies on 16.5.2011 and the same, being subject matter in the Civil Suit - O.S.No.173 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Court, Valliyoor and rightly the 3rd respondent recorded the appointment of 5th respondent as Correspondent in his proceedings in R.C.No.7024/A4/2011 dated 21.11.2011. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that since the Civil Suit is pending, cancelling the recording of the Appellant as a Correspondent of the School is well in order and the learned single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition.
12. Taking us through the typed set of papers, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for 5th respondent contended that when the Appellant - Anandaraja was removed as President of South Kallikulam Catholic Christian Nadar Mahamai Sangam, he has no locus standi to represent the said Sangam. It was further submitted that since the Appellant and his team were removed in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting held on 5.12.2010 and Form VII filed by the 5th respondent was recorded by the District Registrar and thereby recording the changes in the Committee, based on the said Form VII recorded, the 3rd respondent rightly cancelled the proceedings dated 4.7.2011 and 3rd respondent - District Elementary Educational Officer rightly passed the proceedings in R.C.No.7024/A4/2011 dated 21.11.2011 recognising the 5th respondent as the Correspondent of the School. It was further submitted that since the Civil Suit is pending, learned single Judge rightly held that the matter is pending before the competent Civil Court and unless and until the finality is reached in the Civil Suit, Appellant cannot challenge the Proceedings of the 3rd respondent and the learned Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition and the same does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.
13. We have carefully perused the typed set of papers and the other materials on record and we have also carefully considered the rival contentions.
14. Therkku Kallikulam Christian Nadar Mahamai Sangam was registered in Registration No.8/1951 and the School is receiving aids from the Government and Government is paying entire monthly salaries of the approved teachers and the School is well known. Like many other registered societies, Society has been formed mainly with a view to establish and manage the educational institutions. Kamaraj Middle School is located in Therkku Kallikulam village. The Committee Members of Appellant Society are to control and administer the said School.
15. The Appellant - Anandaraja was elected as President of the Sangam for a period of three years from 1.11.2009 to 31.10.2012 in the election held on 1.11.2009 and for recording the same, Form VII was filed by the Appellant - Anandaraja and his team members on 6.11.2009. For the alleged misappropriation and other irregularities, in the Extraordinary General Body meeting held on 5.12.2010, Appellant - Anandaraja was removed from Presidentship by no confidence motion and 5th respondent was elected as the President. Even before the meeting held on 5.12.2010, Anandaraja filed the suit - O.S.No.173 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Court, Valliyoor restraining the 5th respondent and others from convening Extraordinary General Body meeting on 5.12.2010. Since no interim order was passed, as scheduled, the Extraordinary General Body Meeting was held on 5.12.2010. Subsequently, Anandaraja filed Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.174 of 2010 to amend the prayer in O.S.No.173 of 2010 that the Extraordinary General Body Meeting held on 5.12.2010 is illegal and non-est in the eye of law and sought for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the 5th respondent and his team from interfering with the Appellant's administration of the Sangam and the School.
16. Rule 17(2) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Rules contemplates that notice of any change among the members of the Society or of the Committee shall be filed in Form VII within three months from the date of such change. Notice of change among the members of the Committee shall be accompanied by the resolution of the meeting, if any, effecting such change. Appellant - Anandaraja filed Form VII to register his election as President and his team as Committee members and the same was registered on 16.05.2011. After Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 5.12.2010, the 5th respondent also filed Form VII to register the change in the composition of the Committee and the same was registered on 16.05.2011.
17. In response to the letter from Tahsildar, Radhapuram, in his proceedings in No.3530/E2/11 dated 8.6.2011, referring to the decision of C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal through its Secretary, Sri S. David Stephen Vs. The District Registrar and Ors.(2005(2) CTC 161 = 2005(2) LW 550), the District Registrar observed that the power of District Registrar is only ministerial in nature and that District Registrar has no power to go into the validity of the election and that parties are to resolve their dispute only in the competent Civil Court. Thereafter, referring to the above proceedings of the District Registrar, Tirunelveli, Tahsildar, Radhapuram has sent his report in Na.Ka.A2/10646/2011 dated 16.6.2011. Based on the said report of the Tahsidlar, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi passed order in Na.Ka.No.A4219/2011 dated 8.7.2011 directing Appellant Anandaraja to hand over the administration of the Sangam to the newly elected President - 5th respondent.
18. As pointed out earlier, the said proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer came to be challenged in W.P.No.7840 of 2011. By the order dated 14.7.2011 single Judge has granted Interim Stay. Peace Committee meeting was held in the village -South Kalikullam headed by the District Collector on 22.7.2011. In the said Peace Committee Meeting, parties have agreed that they would cooperate with each other for peaceful celebration of Panimaya Matha Temple festival between 27.07.2011 and 5.8.2011. Thereafter, in W.P.No.7840 of 2011, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 8.7.2011 was quashed on the ground that Revenue Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction under law to pass the order in the matter relating to administration of Sangam. While quashing the said proceedings of Revenue Divisional Officer, liberty was given to the parties to work out their remedy in accordance with law. Then the 4th Respondent - Assistant Elementary Educational Officer sent his report Na.Ka.No.1548/A1/2009 dated 1.6.2011 with recommendation to approve Anandaraja as the Correspondent of Kamaraj Middle School. Based on the said report of the 4th respondent, 3rd respondent - District Elementary Educational Officer issued the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.3729/A2/2011 dated 4.7.2011 approving Appellant -Anandaraja as the Correspondent of the said School for a period of three years from 3.11.2009.
19. Enclosing Form VII registering the 5th respondent and his team as President and Committee members of the Sangam, on 19.5.2011 the 5th respondent gave a request to the 4th respondent to approve him as the Correspondent of the School. Since there was no response and in the meanwhile the above said proceedings dated 4.7.2011 came to be issued approving Anandaraja as the Correspondent, the 5th respondent again gave representation on 27.08.2011. The successor Assistant Elementary Educational Officer (4th Respondent) sent another report in Na.Ka.No.1446/A1/2011 dated 18.11.2011 referring to the Extraordinary General Body Meeting held on 5.12.2010 and the registration of the 5th respondent as the President in Form VII - Serial No.27/2011 dated 16.5.2011. Based on the said report, the 3rd respondent passed the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.7024/ A2/2011 dated 21.11.2011 cancelling the earlier proceedings dated 4.7.2011 and approving the 5th respondent as the Correspondent of the School.
20. As pointed out earlier, there were two Form - VII. While considering the scope of filing of Form VII, in C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal through its Secretary, Sri S. David Stephen Vs. The District Registrar and Ors.(2005(2) CTC 161 = 2005(2) LW 550), it was held as under:
18. The power of the Registrar to enquire into the affairs of the society is only to hold a summary inquiry for his own satisfaction. The said power cannot be construed as the power of appeal. Under Section 36, the Registrar has not been empowered to adjudicate upon the conflicting claims to represent the society based upon question of fact. A plain reading of section 36 shows that the Registrar could look only the provisions of the Act and the Rules and prima facie materials to arrive at a conclusion either to believe or not to believe Form No. VII in order to effect change in the register. The power of the Registrar to call for information and explanation under Section 34 does not contemplate any power to examine witnesses or to allow opportunity for cross examination of witnesses. The power in our view is incidental and it is only for the purpose of maintaining correct records. As the power to conduct inquiry is only limited in order to find out whether constitution of members are valid, the inquiry is limited only for the purpose of making entries in the register. However, the exercise of power must not be arbitrary as the orders passed or directions issued by the Registrar is amenable to challenge in the Writ Jurisdiction........
20. As the power of the Registrar to hold enquiry is only to arrive at a prima facie conclusion as to the correctness of the particulars given in Form VII, the provision of Sub-Section (9) of Section 36 should also be understood to mean that he could issue such directions to the registered society or any of the member of the society only with reference to the details furnished in Form VII. It must also be borne in mind that the enquiry under Section 36 is not only limited to the regular affairs of the society and such affairs not only include the constitution of a registered society but also to the working and financial condition,and hence the power of the Registrar to issue such direction under Sub-section (9) of Section 36 of the Act, in regard to the constitution of the registered society must be understood in the context of Form VII. Section 14 obligates the registered society to maintain a register containing the names, addresses and occupations of its members. Section 15 further mandates such registered society shall file with the Registrar a copy of the register maintained by it under Section 14 and from time to time file with the Registrar notice of any change among the members of the committee. In the absence of failure to comply with Section 14, the Registrar could only resort to to the power under Section 37 to cancel the registration. Hence, the power under Sub- Section (9) of Section 36 cannot be stretched to a power on the Registrar to direct the registered society to hold fresh election. A direction to hold fresh election would amount to indirectly setting aside the earlier election and such power is not conferred on the Registrar under any of the provisions of the Act. So long as the election is not declared invalid in the manner known to law, no direction for fresh election could be ordered. Validity of the election could very well be decided only by the competent Civil Court as the parties are entitled to let in their evidence to sustain their respective claims. In the event the Registrar satisfies himself as to the particulars furnished in Form VII as correct, he should enter the names in the register maintained for that purpose. In the event if he does not satisfy as to the particulars and thereby does not accept Form VII, he has to issue a direction relegating the parties to approach the civil Court for appropriate orders and thereafter shall act as per the orders of the civil Court. Accordingly, the issue is answered. Post the Writ Appeals for disposal accordingly.
21. In the subsequent judgment of Division Bench of this Court in R.MURALIDARAN AND 6 OTHERS VS. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, SOUTH MADRAS AND ANOTHER, (2008-2-L.W. 75 : 2008 (1) MLJ 1308), at paragraph No.19, the duties to be performed by the Registrar, which can be demarcated into three categories as (a) Ministerial, (b) Administrative and (c) Quasi-judicial were explained. Holding that acceptance or rejection of Form VII and the action of the Registrar in calling for additional information or explanation under Section 34 is a mere ministerial act, not amenable to Writ jurisdiction, it was held as under:- 32. From a bare reading of Sub Section (1) of Section 34, it is clear that the only obligation cast upon the Registrar, upon receipt of any document or Form filed under the Act, is to call for any further information or explanation in respect of any matter, to which, such document relates to Sub Section (3) makes it still more clear by prescribing that the Registrar may annex such information or explanation to the original document filed with him. Therefore, if Form No.VII is filed with the Registrar, as required by Section 15(1) of the Act read with Rule 17(2) of the Rules, all that the Registrar can do is only to call for further information or explanation under Section 34(1) and keep the information or explanation received by him as an annexure to the original document. This is nothing but a mere ministerial function and hence, it cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
33. In any event, the filing of Form No.VII is only a consequential action to an election purportedly conducted. The acceptance of such a Form by the Registrar would neither affix a seal of approval on the validity of the election nor would the rejection of Form No.VII by the Registrar, invalidate an election properly conducted. Therefore, a person, who is aggrieved by an election, should only go before a Civil Court challenging the election. A person aggrieved by an election cannot challenge the acceptance or rejection of Form No.VII by the Registrar as a short cut to invalidate an election. This is why the Full Bench of this Court, in C.M.S.Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee v. The District Registrar, Cheranmahadevi and four others (2005-2-L.W. 550), held that the power under Section 34 is only incidental and that it was only for the purpose of maintaining correct records.
22. R.Muralidaran case (2008-2-L.W.75) was followed by another Division Bench in Tirunelveli CMS-Evangelical Church v. The District Registrar,Cheranmahadevi, (2008 Writ L.R. 575), to which one of us (R.Banumathi,J.) was a member and (2009) 4 MLJ 461 (P.V.Kadiravan v. Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam, Usilampatti, rep. by its Secretary O.R.Ramachandran, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar College, Usilampatti and others). 23. Elaborating upon R.Muralidaran case (2008-2-L.W.75), in subsequent Division Bench judgment in C.DHARMALINGAM VS. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, (2010 (3) CTC 390), in which one of us (B.Rajendran,J.) was a member, this Court held as under:- 20. R.Muralidaran did not reduce the Registrars acts to a mere ministerial one. Paragraph 19 clearly shows this. R.Muralidaran explained the duties performed by the Registrar can be demarcated into three categories as (a)Ministerial, (b)Administrative and (c) Quasi-judicial. R.Muralidaran also held that there can be no iota of doubt about the availability of the power of judicial review over the administrative functions which has an element of discretion and the quasi judicial functions which also has an element of discretion. However, certain functions of the Registrar are merely ministerial in the sense there is no discretion left to the Registrar. Registrar performs these acts in obedience to the procedure laid down in accordance with law, which imposes time, mode and occasion of its performance and that nothing remains for judgment or discretion. To that extent, R.Muralidaran said the acceptance or return of Form-VII is nothing but a ministerial act. The Full Bench also held the Registrar will have to examine by making an enquiry for the limited purpose of making entries in the Register as to whether to believe or not to believe, prima facie to accept or to reject Form No.VII in order to effect change in the Register. ....... There can be no doubt even if a ministerial power has been exercised so contrary to the procedure and it shows that not even modicum of adherence to procedure has been followed by the Registrar, it will, of course amenable to judicial review. ....
24. Thus it has been consistently held that acceptance of Form-VII by the District Registrar is only a ministerial act for the purpose of maintenance of records. Acceptance of Form-VII is not a declaration regarding the validity of the election. The District Registrar has to satisfy himself as to the particulars furnished in Form-VII. If the Registrar is not satisfied about the correctness of Form-VII, he need not accept it and he can direct the parties to approach the Civil Court. Acceptance of Form-VII by the Registrar is not a declaration regarding the validity of the election.
25. By perusal of Form VII (S.No.21/2011 dated 16.5.2011) filed by the Appellant, his name has been entered as President with effect from 1.11.2009. In Form VII (S.No.27/2011 dated 16.5.2011) filed by the 5th respondent, his name has been entered as President with effect from 5.12.2010. In Column No.4 of Form VII (Serial No.27/11) under the caption Details of change, it is stated as under:
By perusal of the above, it is seen that the District Registrar has not made any observation as to whether he has satisfied himself as to the particulars furnished in Form VII as correct. The District Registrar simply accepted the Form VII filed by the 5th respondent. By referring to 2005(2) CTC 161, the District Registrar proceeded under the footing that the District Registrar is only form filer and that the District Registrar performs only a ministerial act in filing Form VII.
26. Based on Form VII (S.No.27/2011) registering the 5th respondent as a President and his team as a Committee members, the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Rc.No.7024/A4/2011 dated 21.11.2011 appears to have cancelled the earlier proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.3729/A2/2011 dated 4.7.2011. In our considered view, before canceling the earlier proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.3729/A2/2011 dated 4.7.2011, the 3rd respondent - District Elementary Educational Officer should have afforded reasonable opportunity to the Appellant - Anandaraja, who was earlier approved as Correspondent by the said proceedings dated 4.7.2011.
27. Of course, as per Section 53-A of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, whenever there is any dispute as to the constitution of any educational agency in relation to any private school or as to the constitution of the Committee, such dispute has to be resolved only by the Civil Court having jurisdiction. As pointed out earlier, the dispute between the parties is already pending before the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.173 of 2010.
28. Only based on the report of the then Assistant Elementary Educational Officer in proceedings in R.C.No.7024/A4/2011 dated 21.11.2011 approving Anandaraja as Correspondent came to be passed. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the then Assistant Elementary Educational Officer deliberately sent a wrong report for which the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him. We do not propose to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said report of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer. Suffice to note that the cancellation of the proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.3729/ A2/2011 dated 4.7.2011 involves civil consequences.
29. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant - Anandaraja contended that principles of natural justice applies to administrative field also when the administrative order results in civil consequences. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon 2009 (2) CTC 185 (Uma Nath Pandey and others v. State of U.P. and another) and (2009) 14 SCC 690 (Prakash Ratan Sinha v. State of Bihar and others). Learned Senior Counsel for Appellant submitted that cancellation of the District Elementary Educational Officer's earlier Proceedings dated 04.07.2011 involves civil consequences and therefore, opportunity should have been afforded to the Appellant - Anandaraja and the impugned Proceedings dated 21.11.2011 approving the 5th Respondent - M.Panidassan as Correspondent is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. It is fairly well settled that even administrative acts have to be in accordance with natural justice if they have civil consequences. Before proceeding to cancel the said proceedings dated 4.7.2011, in fairness, the 3rd respondent ought to have afforded reasonable opportunity to Appellant- Anandaraja to put forth his case.
30. In Canara Bank vs. V. K. Awasthy 2005 (6) SCC 321, the Supreme Court held that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years and has observed in para 8 of the said judgment as under:- 8. Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. .....
31. In State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust & Ors. 2007 (3) SCC 587, the Supreme Court observed as under: In our opinion, when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play.
32. In our considered view, the cancellation of the earlier proceedings dated 4.7.2011 involves civil consequences, because it has the effect of affecting the status of the Appellant. In such circumstances, the 3rd respondent should have afforded opportunity to the Appellant - Anandaraja and therefore, the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 has to be set aside directing the 3rd respondent to consider the matter afresh and afford opportunity both to the Appellant - Anandaraja as well as to the 5th respondent - M.Panidassan.
33. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel for 5th respondent contended that if the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.7024/A4/2011 dated 21.11.2011 are set aside, the earlier proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.3729/A2/2011 dated 4.7.2011 would get revived and the Appellant would be restored to his original position which is against the majority view of the members of the Sangam. The learned counsel would further submit that in the Extraordinary General Body meeting when the majority of the members have already passed the resolution removing Anandaraja and his team and elected 5th respondent and his team as President and Committee members, the same is to be recognised and the Appellant - Anandaraja cannot be thrust upon the Sangam. Per contra, onbehalf of the Appellant, it was contended that in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting allegedly convened on 5.12.2010 was not by a majority of the members, but only by a minuscule members of the Society. The merits of the interse dispute between the parties could be decid0ed only by the Civil Court, which has already seized up the matter in O.S.No.173 of 2010.
34. As elaborated earlier, the rivalry between the two factions would have repercussions on the administration of the School. Though the Civil Suit in O.S.No.173 of 2010 has been filed, the same is yet to be disposed of. Since 2010, for the past two years, both parties are entangled in several rounds of litigations including the law and order problem warranting interference by revenue officials, police, etc., As pointed out earlier, in so far as the sanctioned posts, Government is paying the entire monthly salaries of the approved teachers of that School. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the long drawn litigation between the parties, it would be appropriate to direct the educational authorities - respondents 1 to 4 to effect direct payment of salary to the approved teachers of Kamaraj Middle School, Therkku Kallikulam.
35. In the result, the order dated 25.03.2012 in W.P.(MD)No.14160 of 2011 is set aside and this Writ Appeal is allowed. The 3rd respondent is directed to give opportunity to the Appellant - Anandaraja as well as the 5th respondent and consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Sub-Court, Valliyoor is directed to take up the suit - O.S.No.173 of 2010 and dispose of the same, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The respondents 1 to 4 shall effect direct payment of salary to the approved teachers till the disposal of the Civil Suit or till the date of next election, which ever is earlier. However, there is no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Â