AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—These two matters came to be posted under the orders of the Honorable Administrative Judge, dated 26.10.2010. The Petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same society.
In W.P. (MD) No. 11529 of 2006, the Petitioner society challenged an order, dated 11.12.2006 passed by the second Respondent District Register and after quashing the same to accept Form-VII submitted by the Petitioner society represented by M. Annamalai in pursuance to the election of the Managing Committee in the elections held on 14.7.2002 and on 5.6.2005. In that writ petition, notice of admission was ordered. It was found that the Petitioner was acting as the Secretary of the Society after the order passed in C.M.A. No. 22 of 2002 vacating the interim injunction granted in I.A. No. 16 of 2002 in O.S. No. 19 of 2002 and the suit is pending. Since the reasons adduced by the Petitioner were acceptable, it was found unnecessary to relegate the parties for further litigation in the Civil Court. On notice from this Court, the second Respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 3.3.2007. The third Respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 6.2.2007.
Even when the first writ petition was pending, the same Petitioner filed the second writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 10398 of 2010 seeking for a direction to forbear the second Respondent District Education Officer from recognising any other person as the Secretary of the school Committee of the Petitioner school without looking into Form-VII duly registered to the first Respondent District Registrar. In that writ petition, on 18.8.2010, this Court directed the first Respondent to furnish the particulars of the Secretary who was recognized by the first Respondent as the Secretary of the Petitioner society. A counter affidavit was filed by the second Respondent, District Educational Officer, dated 2.9.2010. The contesting Respondent, i.e. third Respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, dated 18.10.2010 in the capacity as the President of the Ayira Vaisya Educational Welfare Advisory Board.
In the second writ petition, the District Educational Officer, Aruppukkottai had stated that the Ayira Vaisya Educational Advisory Board, Madurai was a registered body with Registration No. 102/1981. A trust by name Madurai Velliayambalam Dharma Trust was originally formed to administer the educational institutions. As per the bylaws of the society, the trustees of the Trust are the Executive Committee members, who along with two Headmasters of Madurai and Sathur Higher Secondary schools as Ex-officio members are looking into the affairs of the Board. The schools are administered by the executive members alone as per the bylaws. The Educational agency was appointing the Secretary of the school from its inception. But, in the year 2002, there was a dispute in the affairs of the management. One C. Sankaran had filed a suit in O.S. No. 19 of 2002 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai. In view of the dispute, the District Educational Officer, Aruppukkottai resorted to direct payment. The suit was dismissed on 10.9.2009. Subsequently, the elected trustees formed a new School committee. The new School Committee selected one T. Kumaresan as the secretary of the school in the meeting held on 15.12.2009 and an approval was granted for the Secretary on 5.7.2010. As there was no objection, the existing approval must continue. It is under the Private Schools Act, there is no reference to Form-VII for approval of the Secretary ship.
The third Respondent in his counter affidavit in the second writ petition claiming to be the President of the Society stated that he was the President of the Board right from 26.09.2004. Thereafter, no election was conducted. The suit in O.S. No. 59/1917, an amendment petition was filed in I.A. No. 54 of 2007 which is pending before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai. He had also stated that Madurai Velliambalam Thirupparankundram Odukkam Vagayara Dharma Trust was established for the welfare of Kasukkara Chettiar community. The scheme decree was framed in the year 1917. In accordance with the scheme decree, 5 trustees are elected by the community people and two trustees are nominated by the Sub Court. It is this community which formed the schools at Madurai and Sattur. The trust''s properties and funds were endowed for the development of these schools. As per the regulations of the Private Schools Act, the society by name "Ayira Vaisya Educational Welfare Advisory Board" was constituted. In order to open the school, the trust had spent more than Rs. 5 crores and deposited a cash endowment. The trustees alone are looking into the entire administration. Under the bylaws of the trust, the Executive Committee along with two headmasters are running the school. The Managing Trustee of the school will be the President of the Board. To regulate the activities of the Board, 10 prominent community people are inducted as life members in the year 1966. A compromise was entered into in E.A. No. 564 of 1966 to look after the Board after the demise of its members.
Right from the inception till date, the Board is looked after by the trustees and this 7 trustees will be inducted as the members of the Board. The Form-VI and Form-VII are submitted each and every year. In the year 1999, when the writ Petitioner was elected as a trustee, he was inducted as a member of the Board. He had acted as the Secretary during his tenure. At that time, there was a dispute and a third party had filed a suit before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai and had obtained an injunction. The period of the Petitioner being the trustee came to an end on 12.1.2004. The CMA filed against the interim order came to be dismissed due to the death of the Plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the Petitioner tried to separate the Board from the management of the trust and the same was complained to the District Registrar. It was after the order of the first Respondent District Registrar, Madurai, a General Body meeting was held on 13.6.2004 and one Manikandan was elected as the Secretary of the Board and that to that effect Form-VI and Form-VII were registered.
The Petitioner filed W.P. No. 1794 of 2004 before the High Court. As against the order, the third Respondent filed W.A. No. 193 of 2005. A division bench directed the I.G. of Registration to dispose of the appeal filed by the writ Petitioner. The I.G. of Registration directed the District Registrar to enquire as per the direction of the High Court. The first Respondent finally informed both sides to move the Civil Court to determine the rightful representation. It was also brought to the notice that the said direction was issued after taking note of the ratio given by the Full Bench vide its judgment in C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal Vs. The District Registrar and Others, . An amendment application was also filed before the Scheme Court. While these matters are pending, in respect of Sattur School, one T. Kumaresan was nominated as the Secretary on 15.11.2009 and a proposal to that effect was sent to the office of the District Educational Officer. It is also claimed that the Petitioner who had quit the office of the trusteeship on 12.1.2004 and being a third party has no locus standi to file the present writ petition.
The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the District Registrar had declined to accept Form-VII both by the Petitioner and by the third Respondent and that was in gross violation of the order of the I.G. of Registration. The scheme decree had no relevance to the suit. The society was functioning smoothly. u/s 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Act, every school must have a school committee and the educational agency must constitute a school committee. It is the school which nominates one person as the Secretary. Recording of Form-VII is the ministerial function. Therefore, no Form-VII was presented by the third Respondent to prove that Kumaresan was the Secretary of the School Committee. Hence a direction should be issued to accept the Form-VII presented by them.
Per contra, the third Respondent had reiterated their contentions stating that it was a community trust and a Welfare Board was formed in the year 1951. From the year 1996 to 2002, only trustees of the Board were administering the school as well as the Board. Therefore, the authorities were right in rejecting Form-VII.
Two questions arises for consideration in both these writ petitions. First of all, the question whether the District Registrar has a right to adjudicate the Form-VII submission came to be considered by a Full Bench of this Court in C.M.S. Evangelical Suvi David Memorial Higher Secondary School Committee Karisal Vs. The District Registrar and Others, . It was held in the said judgment that the parties will have to approach only the competent civil court and the Registrar by filing Form-VII do not claim any adjudicatory power.
In the matter of recognising an educational agency, the writ court cannot give any direction as held by the Supreme Court in Swamy Atmananda Vs. Swami Bodhananda and Others, . The following passages found in paragraphs 1 and 2 may be usefully extracted below:
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-10-1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 15089 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Swami Bodhananda had been allowed. The said writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents therein to give all assistance to the Appellant in taking over management of the institutions specified therein. The said writ petition was filed having regard to the judgment of the civil court.
2.A decree passed by the civil court must be executed in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition is not the appropriate remedy therefore. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. It, however, goes without saying that the first Respondent herein shall be entitled to execute the decree in accordance with law.
(Emphasis added)
Further, the Supreme Court has also held that any dispute relating to control over the educational agency will have to be determined only in a suit in terms of Section 53-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School Regulations Act, 1973 and in such matters, the power of the Civil Court is not excluded. It is necessary to refer to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Swamy Atmananda and Others Vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others, . The following passage found in paragraph 49 may be usefully extracted below:
49.A dispute as to who is the real educational agency in relation to a private school is not a matter which in terms of the provisions of the said Act would be determined by an authority under the provisions of the said Act. Section 53-A of the Act carves out an exception to Section 53 thereof. In terms of the said provision, any dispute as to the educational institution is to be determined by a civil court having jurisdiction for its decision. The submission of Mr Sukumaran, however, is that the jurisdiction of the civil court is required to be invoked in such matters specified therein by way of reference by the persons interested or by the competent authority. Mr Sukumaran would contend that such a reference would be akin to a dispute pending under the Industrial Disputes Act. We cannot accept the said contention. A party to a dispute may not join the other in referring the same to the civil court. The party may agree or may not agree there or. A person having a grievance as against another must have a remedy. The maxim "ubi jus, ibi remedium" is not an empty formality. The jurisdiction of the civil court exemplifies the said doctrine. The jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be held to have been ousted unless it is so, expressly or by necessary implication, stated in the statute. In terms of Section 53-A of the Act, a dispute as to educational agency is concededly required to be decided by a civil court. How the jurisdiction of the civil court is required to be invoked is a matter to be examined by the civil court. Unlike a private tribunal or a statutory tribunal which would not derive a jurisdiction unless a reference in terms of the provisions of the Act is made to it, the civil court enjoys a plenary jurisdiction. Furthermore, if and when a dispute arises before the competent authority as regards entitlement of an educational agency in relation to educational institutions, the same must also be referred to the civil court. Statutory authority in terms of Section 5 of the Act cannot be said to have any jurisdiction to determine such a dispute. A statute, as is well known, must be read in such a manner so as to give effect to the provisions thereof. It must be read reasonably. A statute must be construed in such a manner so as to make it workable. The wording "referred by the persons interested" would, thus, mean a person who has a grievance as regards claim of other side relating to educational agency of the educational institutions. It can be done by filing a suit before the civil court. The term "persons", which is plural, has been used having regard to the fact that educational agency need not be a person alone but would also include a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or a body corporate in terms of the Companies Act. In any event, if such a dispute within the contemplation of Section 53-A has to be decided by a civil court, it will not attract the bar u/s 53 which applies only to a question which is required to be dealt with or decided by any authority or officer mentioned in the Act.
(Emphasis added)
In the light of the above, the parties will have to move the civil court for an appropriate order and cannot file the writ petition neither for a direction of this nature nor challenge the District Registrar''s action in refusing to register Form-VII. Hence both writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.