D. Murugesan, J.@mdashAll the writ appeals relate to the administration of the college and the management of the assets of Chikkaiah Naicker
College, Erode. The said college was started in the year 1954 by the late E.V. Ramasami (Periyar). The affairs of the college were managed by the
Chikkaiah Naicker College Managing Board and the Board consisted of 12 members and Thiru E.V. Ramasami was the President. After the
demise of Thiru E.V. Ramasami, the said Board was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 19.4.72 and one Thiru Rajasekar
was made as Secretary. At the time when the Board was registered, it consisted of 10 members including the President, Vice President and the
Secretary. As the Chikkaiah Naicker College is a private college, it was brought under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges
(Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Colleges Regulation Act"") in terms of Section 2(8) of the Act and the college was paid
100% State aid in respect of the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff and 80% in respect of non-salary items.
2. It appears that even when the said Rajasekar was functioning as Secretary, in the interregnum period, out of 10 members of Chikkaiah Naicker
College Managing Board including the President, Vice President and the Secretary, except 2 members viz., Thiru T.Muthukrishnan and Tmt.
J.Sarada @ Baby, all other members had either expired or resigned and in view of certain irregularities in the management were noticed, the
society had become defunct and its registration was cancelled on 28.12.94 and the society was dissolved on 3.5.95. The cancellation of
registration and the dissolution of the society have become final.
3. On 6.7.98, a society known as ''Chikkaiah Naicker Education Board, Erode'' was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,
1975 (hereinafter referred to as ""the Societies Act"") and the said Education Board consisted of 12 members including one Thiru R. Aswath, the
appellant herein and a Committee was also constituted. A special meeting was convened on 29.7.98 and it was resolved to authorise the President
Tmt. Jothi Rajasekar to take steps to transfer the educational agency. On the subsequent day i.e., 30.7.98, by another special resolution, Thiru R.
Aswath was appointed as the Secretary of the College Committee. On the strength of the said resolution, Thiru R. Aswath made an application on
5.8.98 in terms of Section 7 of the Colleges Regulation Act read with Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules in Form-IV of
the rules framed thereunder. By order dated 18.9.98, Thiru. R. Aswath was informed that no action on the application can be taken on the ground
that the college administration did not act in accordance with the Colleges Regulation Act and the Government had contemplated action against the
administration of the college and a show cause notice for the said purpose has already been issued on 1.6.98.
4. By G.O.Ms. No. 489, Higher Education (D2) Department dated 19.12.2000, a Special Officer was appointed in terms of Section 14-A of the
Colleges Regulation Act for the administration of the college for a period of one year or till the reconstitution of the management in accordance with
law. It appears that the college administration filed a suit in O.S. No. 532 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode questioning the
show cause notice issued on 1.6.98. The college administration also filed another suit in O.S. No. 533 of 1998 seeking for a judgment and decree
to allow Thiru R. Aswath to act as the Secretary of the said college and to perform all lawful duties in the said capacity. Though initially interim
orders were granted, those orders were set aside in appeal on the ground that the suits are not maintainable in terms of Section 49 of the Colleges
Regulation Act. The said order was questioned by the appellant in C.R.P. Nos. 3197 & 3198 of 2000, but ultimately withdrew the same on
12.2.2001.
5. Thereafter, the Education Board represented by the Secretary R. Aswath, the appellant herein, filed W.P. No. 5272 of 2001 before this Court
questioning the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5.2.2002 with a direction to the
Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Coimbatore to consider the application for approval of the change of educational agency in
accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction, the application was considered and by order dated 14.3.2002, the same was rejected on the
ground that it was not submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the Colleges Regulation Act and Rule 5 of the Rules read
with Form-IV of the rules. It was also stated that the Chikkaiah Naicker Education Board was held to be defunct and the same was notified and
the name of the society had been struck off from the file of the Registrar of Societies and therefore the application could not be considered.
6. This order was questioned by the appellant in W.P. No. 11019 of 2002. It appears that one Mahajana Educational Board, Erode represented
by its Secretary Thiru T.A. Shanmugasundaram also filed W.P. No. 4399 of 2001 questioning the letter of the Inspector General of Registration
dated 7.12.2000 refusing to transfer the management of the college. While the said writ petitions were pending, the Government, in exercise of the
powers conferred u/s 30(1) of the Colleges Regulation Act, in G.O.Ms.No.336 Higher Education (D2) Department dated 18.12.2002 took over
the management of the college for a period of two years with effect from 19.12.2002 in view of the rival claims and appointed the Regional Joint
Director of Collegiate Education, Coimbatore as the Special Officer to run the management of the college. The said order was questioned by the
appellant in W.P. No. 448 of 2003. In the meantime, as the term was to expire on 18.12.2004, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.543 Higher
Educaton (D2) Department dated 30.11.2004 again extended the period of takeover for one year with effect from 19.12.2004 and also the term
of the Special Officer. This order was also questioned by the appellant in W.P. No. 37048 of 2004. All the writ petitions were taken up together
and were dismissed by the order under appeals. Hence Chikkaiah Naicker Education Board has preferred these three writ appeals questioning the
impugned order in the writ petitions. However, Mahajana Educational Board had not preferred any writ appeal and had chosen to file W.A.M. P.
No. 1703 of 2006 to implead them in W.A. No. 1670 of 2005, but the said petition has not been entertained by this Court vide order dated
4.7.2007.
7. Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that inasmuch as the erstwhile educational agency by a
special resolution had transferred the agency to a newly constituted Committee and an application was filed strictly in terms of Section 7 of the
Colleges Regulation Act in Form-IV of Rule 5 of the rules, the rejection of the said application on the ground that the society had become defunct
and the request was not in accordance with Form-IV is unsustainable. He would submit that even though the society has become defunct, in terms
of Section 44(8) of the Societies Act, it is entitled to make an application for transfer of the educational agency in terms of Section 39 read with
Section 41 of the Societies Act. The fact that the erstwhile Chikkaiah Naicker College Management Board had become defunct will not bar the
authorities to consider the application made strictly in terms of the provisions of the Colleges Regulation Act, as the provisions of Sections 39, 41
& 44(8) of the Societies Act would enable the erstwhile members of the Board to seek for transfer of the educational agency even after the society
had become defunct.
8. On the other hand, Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) would submit that inasmuch as the Chikkaiah
Naicker College Management Board had become defunct and the name of the society had also been removed from the register maintained by the
Registrar of Societies on and with effect from 3.9.95, the erstwhile members or the educational agency, as the case may be, would have no power
to either apply for transfer or to authorise any other person to form the educational agency. Inasmuch as the application for transfer of educational
agency itself was not in accordance with Section 7 of the Colleges Regulation Act read with Rule 5 in Form-IV of the rules, the order of rejection
cannot be questioned by the appellant. He would submit that once the society had become defunct and the name of the society has been removed
from the register maintained by the Registrar of Societies, the society shall forthwith cease to carry on its business, except so far as may be
required for the beneficial winding up thereof, and for the said purpose it is entitled to pass a special resolution and dissolve itself in the manner
provided u/s 41. Therefore, in exercise of the powers under Sections 44(8) read with Sections 39 & 41 of the Societies Act, the application for
transfer of educational agency is not maintainable.
9. Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior Counsel for the impleaded sixth respondent in W.A. No. 1670 of 2005 has also advanced his arguments in
similar line. We also heard Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel appearing for Mahajana Educational Board, Erode.
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective learned Counsel.
11. From the facts stated above, the only question to be decided is whether the application filed by the appellant, namely, Chikkaiah Naicker
Education Board seeking for transfer of the educational agency could be entertained by the educational authorities. Facts, which we have narrated
above, would show that Chikkaiah Naicker College was established under the management of Chikkaiah Naicker College Management Board,
Erode consisting of 12 members and the President being E.V. Ramasami (Periyar). The Board was empowered to run, administer and improve the
institution and to carry out the allied purposes. This Board was later on registered under the Societies Registration Act on 19.4.72 and from the
certificate issued by the Registrar of Assurances, Erode, it is seen that there were 10 members for the year 1986-87 including one Thiru
G.Rajasekar, being the Secretary. The appellant-Aswath is the son of the said Rajasekar. Out of the 10 members, except Thiru R.T.
Muthukrishnan and Tmt. J.S. Baby, all others had expired or resigned as on 28.12.87. Apparently, the society could not function with the above
two members and therefore it had become defunct and there is no dispute that the registration was cancelled on 28.12.94 and the society was
dissolved on 3.5.95. On and from the said date, the erstwhile members of the Board or the educational agency cannot be said to have existed to
continue the affairs of the society and functioned as such to pass a special resolution to dissolve itself in the manner provided for winding up u/s 41
of the Societies Act. However, we are not inclined to express any opinion as to the application of Section 44(8) read with Section 39 & 41 of the
Societies Act, as we are concerned only as to whether the educational agency of an institution run by a society could authorise the transfer of
educational agency after the society had become defunct and the registration was cancelled and the society was dissolved.
12. Every private college should have an educational agency to run and administer the college. Section 7(1)(b) of the Colleges Regulation Act
contemplates that whenever the management of any private college is proposed to be transferred, the educational agency and the person to whom
the management is proposed to be transferred may, before such transfer, apply jointly to the competent authority for approval of the transfer. A
plain reading of the above Section would show that it could be invoked only in respect of an educational agency under whose control the
management of a private college vests on the date of such application. Facts of this case would reveal that on and from 3.5.95, by the fact that the
society had become defunct, registration having been cancelled and the society was dissolved and that such cancellation has not been questioned
and has become final, the erstwhile educational agency of Chikkaiah Naicker College, Erode cannot claim to have existed so as to enable such
agency to jointly apply with the proposed educational agency and make a declaration in Form-IV for transfer of the agency. Admittedly, the
Education Board in the name of Chikkaiah Naicker Education Board, Erode was registered on 6.7.98 and out of 12 members, except Thiru R.T.
Muthukrishnan and Tmt. J.S. Baby, all others are new members. The constitution of the society would show that it is a new society formed and not
the Chikkaiah Naicker College Management Board was reconstituted. This is obvious by the fact that on and from 3.5.95, Chikkaiah Naicker
College Management Board was not in existence. In these circumstances, the special resolution dated 29.7.98 made by the members cannot be
basis for transfer of the educational agency. The new members constituted after the registration of Chikkaiah Naicker Education Board cannot
claim that the said Board is authorised to transfer the educational agency of Chikkaiah Naicker College and even otherwise by the said resolution,
Tmt. Jothi Rajasekar, the President of the Committee was authorised to take steps for transfer of the educational agency and not the appellant
herein, though the appellant was appointed as Secretary of the said educational agency by a subsequent resolution dated 30.7.98. By the order
dated 14.3.2002, the Special Officer has considered the application and has rejected primarily on two grounds namely, (i) that the application was
not in terms of the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the Colleges Regulation Act and (ii) the erstwhile Chikkaiah Naicker College Management
Board was not in existence on the date of the application and therefore the educational agency could not be transferred.
13. As already observed, Section 7(1)(b) of the Colleges Regulation Act can be invoked only by an educational agency which, in accordance with
law, is entitled to perform its functions. There is no dispute that on and from 3.5.95 by the fact that the very society itself had become defunct, the
registration having been cancelled and the society was dissolved, the educational agency was disabled even from functioning except to pass a
special resolution to dissolve the society u/s 39 or for winding up u/s 40 of the Societies Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior
Counsel that the application made in Form-IV is valid cannot be accepted. Further, in law, educational agency in respect of the college established
by a Board cannot transfer in favour of a new educational agency which was constituted after forming a new society, as the erstwhile Chikkaiah
Naicker College Management Board and the Chikkaiah Naicker Education Society are different and distinct entities in the eye of law and the
provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the Colleges Regulation Act are not applicable for transfer of an educational agency. Hence the order of the
Special Officer in holding that the application was not in accordance with the provisions of the Colleges Regulation Act requires no interference.
14. That apart, the application was not considered on the ground that the erstwhile society had become defunct and there was no revival in
accordance with law and consequently the educational agency requires no transfer. Hence we find no ground to interfere with the order of the
Director of Collegiate Education dated 14.3.2002, which has been confirmed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, W.A. No. 1672 of 2005
is dismissed.
15. So far as W.A. Nos. 1670 & 1671 of 2005 are concerned, the appellant has questioned the orders of the Government in taking over charge
of the management of the society and the appointment of the Special Officer. As has been observed earlier, in view of certain irregularities having
been noticed in the administration of the college, in exercise of the power under Sections 30 & 14-A of the Colleges Regulation Act, the
respondents have rightly taken over charge of the management and appointed the Special Officer. It is true that in terms of the said Section, a
Special Officer could be appointed only for a period of one year subject to extension for another period of one year. As the above period of two
years was over, in exercise of the powers u/s 30 of the Colleges Regulation Act, the Government had taken over the management of the college
vide G.O.Ms. No. 336 Higher Education (D2) Department dated 18.12.2002 initially for a period of two years and thereafter the same was
extended by subsequent G.O.Ms. No. 543 Higher Education (D2) Department dated 30.11.2004 for one year and as on today, the said
Government Order has been extended as the taking over charge of the management can be extended upto ten years. Hence W.A. Nos. 1670 &
1671 of 2005 are also dismissed.
16. For the foregoing reasons, all the writ appeals are dismissed. Consequently, W.A.M.P. Nos. 3086 & 3087 of 2005 are also dismissed. No
costs.
