1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD)No.2952 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 Ekta Resource Centre for Women, Represented by its Secretary Bimla Chandrasekar, Bethel Nagar, Bible Bhavan Street, Ponmeni, Bye Pass Road, Madurai - 625 010. Petitioner Vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Pattinampakkam, Chennai. 2.The District Registrar of Societies (Administration), Office of the Registrar of Societies, Madurai South, Madurai. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3904/E1/2010 dated 11.11.2010 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner is the Secretary-cum-Director of Ekta Resource Centre for Women, a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. According to the petitioner, they are doing yeoman service for the society. When there was an inspection of the society, the second respondent had pointed out that Article 14 of the Bye-laws of the society is inconsistent with the Section 25(3) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act inasmuch as it provided for the payment of honorarium to the Director of the society appointed among the office bearers of the Executive Committee of the society. 2. According to the petitioner, on 11.08.2001, a special General Body Meeting was convened and a resolution was passed appointing her as the Director of the Ekta with a meager amount of honorarium for her working as Executive Head and as the post of Honorary Secretary is a different one, payment was made to the Honorary Secretary post. The remuneration for the post of Director was a meager amount and the resolution was communicated to the second respondent. Again, on a subsequent inspection on 14.02.2003, some defects were pointed out to the first respondent. Once again, a special General Body Meeting was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 conducted on 25.06.2003 resolving to amend the Article 14 itself as "The Executive Committee shall appoint the Director at such salary as decided by the committee". Once again, on an inspection on 31.03.2004, that amendment to Article 14 of the Bye-laws was not properly filed with the second respondent and therefore, subsequently on 03.09.2004, according to the petitioner, the amended resolution was filed. But, in the subsequent inspection on 17.10.2005, no inconsistency was pointed out in the bye- laws. Later on, in the inspection carried out on 16.11.2006 also, there were no remarks. Subsequently, in the inspection made on 27.08.2008 also, no discrepancy was pointed out. On an inspection on 25.08.2010, it was reported that the amendment to the bye-laws of the Ekta Resource for Women was not properly filed with the second respondent in Form No.III and she was instructed to submit the receipt for the filing of the said amendment. It was further pointed out that the Director appointed by the executive committee of the society should not be of a Secretary or a member of the executive committee. Hence, the Director was directed to reimburse the honorarium received from the society for which a detailed explanation was offered on 19.10.2010. The impugned order was passed on 11.11.2010 directing the Director to reimburse the amount of Rs.1,83,000/- for the period commencing from 01.08.2009 to 29.03.2010 and further citing that no receipt has been produced for the filing of the amendment of the bye-laws of the society with the second respondent and the Director cannot be a member of the Managing/Executive Committee of the society. 3. According to the petitioner, the honorarium is paid not in the capacity of the Managing/Executive Committee of the society, but, as the Secretary only. She would only contend that the second respondent has no power to pass the impugned order directing her to reimburse the amount and that the payment of honorarium to the Executive Head is the internal affairs of the society. 4. Even at the time of admission, a specific question was put forth as to whether the payment was made in the capacity as a Director of the society or in the capacity of a Secretary. It is further clarified that as per the bye-laws, when a Director receives money, she cannot be appointed as the Executive Head. In this connection, as per the Memorandum of Association as filed in the typed set of papers, the society shall be managed by the Executive Committee elected by the General Body. As per Rule 13, an Executive Committee shall consist of a President, Secretary, Treasurer and four committee members. According to the petitioner, the clause No.13 was amended to the effect that one of the office bearers of the executive committee shall be appointed as the Director of the society at such honorarium as decided by the committee. Then, in the subsequent amendment on 20.02.2003, clause 14 is further amended to the effect that the executive committee shall appoint Director at such honorarium as decided by the Committee. 5. Even though amendments have been carried out, as pointed out by the respondent, unfortunately, the petitioner is not able to provide any document to show that has been duly filed before the respondent in the prescribed form. Therefore, the authorities now would contend that there is a discrepancy as regards the payment of money as there cannot be a Secretary / Director from and out of the committee. In spite of the fact of repeated defects and inconsistencies pointed out in every inspection, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 even though they have alleged that the amendments have been carried out, unfortunately, no document has been produced to substantiate the case of the petitioner. Further, even though they contend only a meager amount has been fixed for the remuneration for a period of seven months i.e. from 01.08.2009 to 29.03.2010 a sum of Rs.1,83,000/- has been paid which is very high amount and not a meager amount as stated by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent. The petitioner is not able to pin point any irregularity in the impugned order. The authorities are vested with the power to pass an order under Section 36 of the Act, but, at the same time, if the petitioner is aggrieved, it is always open for her to file an appeal/revision under Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Without availing the appeal remedy, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned in this regard. 6. Without going into the merits of the case and also without expressing any opinion as to the eligibility, or otherwise, since as per the Act, an appeal is provided, the writ petition as filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and it is always open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act to redress their grievance. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed in limini only on the ground that an alternative remedy is available under Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Office of Inspector General of Registration, No.120, Santhome High Road, Pattinampakkam, Chennai. 2.The District Registrar of Societies (Administration), Office of the Registrar of Societies, Madurai South, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, SR No.17508 + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.17458 Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2952 of 2011 07.06.2011 Srm RJ/14.6.11 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/