Madras HC Gives Registration Chief 4 Weeks to Consider Plea for Prosecution Sanction Against Indian Officers Association Office-Bearers

In brief

The question

Whether the Court should direct the competent registration authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 22 April 2022.

The court held

The Court directed the first respondent, the Inspector General of Registration, to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 22 April 2022 and pass appropriate orders on its merits and in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

It also directed

The petition was disposed of without an order as to costs.

The Court later corrected the original order by substituting “first respondent” for “second respondent” in the specified passages.

01Facts

The petitioner, a life member of the Indian Officers Association, alleged violations of the Association’s bye-laws and Sections 19 and 46(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.

After an earlier representation received no response, he submitted a representation dated 22 April 2022 under Section 52(2) of the Act, seeking written sanction to initiate prosecution against the Association’s President and Executive Committee members.

He later learned through an RTI response that the representation had been forwarded to the District Registrar and remained pending.

He therefore sought a direction for its disposal; at the hearing, he stated that it would suffice for the Court to direct consideration of the representation.

pp. 2–3

On 25 September 2025, the Court directed the second respondent to consider it.

p. 4

On 30 October 2026, the Court, on an application for “being mentioned,” corrected that direction to refer to the first respondent.

p. 7

02Issues

i.Whether the Court should direct the competent registration authority to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 22 April 2022.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the reference to the “second respondent” in the original order should be corrected to the “first respondent”.

p. 7

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek a direction concerning a pending representation.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner relied on Section 52(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, as the basis for his request for prior written sanction, and alleged contraventions of Sections 19 and 46(2).

pp. 2–4

The Court did not interpret or determine the application of those statutory provisions; it directed that the representation be considered on its merits and in accordance with law.

pp. 2–4

Provisions in the judgment · 3

Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 Section 19Section 46Section 52

04Reasoning

The Court confined its consideration to the petitioner’s limited request for disposal of the pending representation and expressly declined to examine the merits of the allegations.

pp. 2–4

It therefore directed the authority to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders.

p. 4

In the subsequent correction order, the Court noted that the original order’s reference to the second respondent was inadvertent because the representation had been addressed to the first respondent; it ordered the substitution accordingly.

p. 7