IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P. No.1675 of 2010 Tamizhaga Aaramba Palli Asiriyar, Kootani (Reg.No.194/05), Rep. by its General Secretary 28/34, KTR Nagar, Beach Road, Cuddalore & District. .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 004. 3. The District Registrar (Administration) (Registration) Cuddalore 4. Tamizhaga Aramba Palli Asiriyar Kootani (Reg.No.147/90 but cancelled) Rep. by its General Secretary, Vannarapalayam, Cuddalore 5. S.Abdul Majid 6. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.8495/Ah3/2008 dated 19.05.2009 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy Senior Counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Mr.R.Krishnan For R1 to R3 & R6 : Mr.B.Vijay Govt. Advocate For R4 & R5 : Mr.R.Saravana Kumar O R D E R The petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order dated 19.05.2009, passed by the District Registrar (Administration), Cuddalore, vide which, registration of the petitioner's society stands cancelled. 2. The admitted facts are, that the petitioner's society was registered in the name and style of "Tamizhaga Aaramba Palli Asiriyar Kootani" vide Registration No.194/2005. 3. It is not in dispute that prior to registration of the petitioner's society, fourth respondent's society was also registered in the same name in the year 1990 vide Registration No.147/1990. 4. According to the provisions of Section 9 of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') no society can be registered by a name, which in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable, identical with, or so nearly resembling the name by which a society is already in existence. The petitioner's society, therefore, could have not been registered in the name of "Tamizhaga Aaramba Palli Asiriyar Kootani" 5. The reason for this lapse was that the authorities, under the Act, had declared the fourth respondent society as defunct in the year 1988 and removed its name from the list of society, and on account of this, the petitioner's society was registered in the year 2005, by treating fourth respondent to be non existence. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.4, filed application, before the State Government against deletion of its name from the list of societies and the matter was referred to the Inspector General of Registration. 7. On reference, the Inspector General of Registration, vide order dated 28.04.2006, set aside the order, declaring respondent no.4 as defunct and restored its registration to original number. 8. Section 44(7) of the Act, reads as under: "The registered society whose name is restored to the register under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) shall be deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been struck off; and the Government or the Inspector- General of Registration or the Court, as the case may be, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may, by order, give such directions and make such provisions as seem just for placing the registered society and all other persons in the same position, as nearly as may be, as if the name of the registered society had not been struck off." 9. Consequently, in terms of Section 11 of the Act, directions were issued to the petitioner's society on 30.06.2009 for change of name by following the procedure laid under Section 11 of the Act. 10. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Inspector General of Registration, by filing W.P.No.22399. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 03.11.2008. The operative part of the order passed in writ reads as under: "24. According to writ petitioner, First Society was not functioning. In the context of denial by the writ petitioner, the finding of the second respondent narrows down to question of facts. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into. As pointed out earlier, writ petitioner has already filed Civil Suit in O.S.No.301/2006 on the file of DMC, Cuddalore and Respondents 4 & 5 are resisting the Suit. All contentious issues arising between the parties could be adjudicated in the said Suit. 25. Before we part with the matter, two points need to be noted: i.As stated by the Respondents, the petitioner himself was the member / office bearer of the First Society. The petitioner is stated to the Secretary of the First Society ad member of the First Society till 2005, which the petitioner has not chosen to disclose in the writ petition. ii.Based upon the order of the Second Respondent, the Third Respondent has issued the proceedings dated 30.06.2006 informing the second society formed by the writ petitioner to change the name. In the impugned order dated 30.06.2006, the District Registrar has only called upon the Writ Petitioner to change the name The order dated 30.06.2006 is in accordance with Section 11. As proviso to Section 11 through inadvertence or otherwise, if a society is registered by a name identical with that by which a society in existence is previously registered or nearly resembling it so as to be concluded to deceive, the District Registrar may call upon https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Second Society to change its name. The impugned order dated 30.06.2006 is only consequential order. The impugned orders do not suffer from any arbitrariness or unfairness or lack of jurisdiction warranting interference. 26. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the parties to agitate the matter before the Civil Court. The views expressed in this writ petition may not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the matter. There is no order as to costs." 11. It is also not in dispute that the writ appeal filed against the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge, was also dismissed by this Court on 03.09.2009. 12. During the pendency of writ appeal, impugned order was passed. The petitioner, in pursuance to the order dated 30.06.2006 choose neither to change the name, nor reply to the show cause notice. 13. Consequently, registration of the petitioner's society stands cancelled by impugned order. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the impugned order by contending, that under Section 9, no society can be registered with undesirable name and that under Section 11, jurisdiction is with the society to change the name, if the name of the society is identical or nearly resembling the previous society, but, Section 11 of the Act does not give power to the authorities under the Act, to change the name of society, or issue any direction. The impugned order, therefore, being contrary to the provision of the Act, cannot sustained. 15. This contention deserves to be noticed to be rejected, for the reason that once a society cannot be registered by the registering authority with undesirable name, it would give power to cancel registration of the society, if it is registered wrongly with identical name with that of existing society. The general clause Act provides that the authority competent to do a thing can also undo it. 16. The right to register a society, would give the right to cancel it, if it is found that the society could not have been registered. 17. Even otherwise, under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the power vests with the Inspector General of Registration to cancel registration of a society. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure as envisaged under Section 37 of the Act, was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ followed, cannot be accepted, for the reasons that restoration of the fourth respondent and the order, calling upon the petitioner's society to change name was upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.855 of 2009. 19. The order impugned is only a consequential order to the order passed by authorities on 28.06.2006 and 30.06.2006, which stands upheld by this Court, there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order, on the ground that procedure under Section 37 of the Act was not followed. 20. Finding no merit in the petition, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 004. 3. The District Registrar (Administration) (Registration) Cuddalore 4. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 1 cc to Mr.R.Krishnan, Advocate, Sr.No.9208 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.9307 W.P. No. 1675 of 2010 KJI {CO} TP/4.3.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/