IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.2.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.1075 of 2006 BA. RAJASEGAR ..PETITIONER Vs 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, SALEM (WEST), SALEM. 2. THE METTUR TALUK LORRY OWNER SANGAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SALEM MAIN ROAD, PUDUCHAMPALLI, METTUR DAM -3. ..RESPONDENTS Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the First Respondent to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the Second Respondent Society and take suitable action under the Societies Registration Act within such time as may be fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Srinivas For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate for R1 Ms.P.T.Asha for R2 O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the second respondent society and to take suitable action, under provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1975. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the second respondent Sangam is not functioning, as per the bye-laws governing the said Sangam. Various irregularities are being committed by the office bearers of the Sangam. However, the first respondent has not taken any action to curtail the irregularities being committed by the office bearers of the second respondent Sangam. In such circumstances, the petitioner had submitted a complaint, dated 7.12.2005, to the first respondent, to initiate appropriate action against the office bearers of the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent Sangam, as per its bye-laws and in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1975. 3. In the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, it has been stated that, at the time the petitioner made his complaint, on 7.12.2005, he was not a member of the second respondent Sangam. In fact, the petitioner had been removed from the membership of the second respondent Sangam, from 9.10.2005 and that he had not challenged the same, till date. It has also been stated that action has been initiated against the office bearers of the second respondent Sangam, by the first respondent, as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1975. 4. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that it is open to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the second respondent Sangam, removing the petitioner from its membership, from 9.10.2005, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.1218 of 2006 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lan To 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, SALEM (WEST), SALEM. 2. THE PRESIDENT, THE METTUR TALUK LORRY OWNER SANGAM, SALEM MAIN ROAD, PUDUCHAMPALLI, METTUR DAM -3. + 1 c.c. to Mr. P. Srinivas, Advocate. S.R.No.10383. + 1 c.c. to M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates. S.R.No.9934. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.10236. Writ Petition No.1075 of 2006 LA (CO) GSK 02.03.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/