Final order - Working Committee Quo Warranto.pdf

Page 1 of 26

2024:MHC:3555

W.P.No.12980 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On : 28.03.2024

Pronounced On : 01.08.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

WP.No.12980 of 2023

and W.M.P.Nos.12762, 12766 and 33967 of 2023

Working Committee of the Residents’ Assembly of Auroville

Represented by its Member Hemant Lamba

Having office temporarily at Koodam,

No.1 Crown Road

Auroville 605 101

Tamil Nadu ... Petitioner

1.Anuradha Legrand

2.Parthasarathy Krishnan

3.Arun Selvam

4.Srimoyi Rossegger

5.Ingeborg Christine Neuman Zimm (Tine)

6.Jose Eusebio Martinez Burdaspar (Joseba)

7.Selvaraj Damodaran

8.Secretary to the Governing Board,

Auroville Foundation,

Auroville Foundation Bhavan,

Auroville 605 101.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 2 of 26

W.P.No.12980 of 2023

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto removing respondents 1 – 7 from

acting/holding out as members of the Working Committee of the Residents’

Assembly of Auroville under Section 20 of the Auroville Foundation Act, 1988.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian

Senior Counsel

For Mr.Suchindran.B.N.

For Respondents : Mr.Vaibhav Venkatesh (R8)

No appearance (R1 to R7)

ORDER

The petitioner claims to be the Working Committee of the Residents

Assembly of Auroville, (in short ‘Working Committee) and seeks relief of quo

warranto as against R1 to R7 who also project themselves as constituting the

Working Committee. The submissions of Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Suchindran, learned counsel on record for the

petitioner and Mr.Vaibhav Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for R8 have

been heard in detail. None appears for R1 to R7.

2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on the main prayer, I

deal with the preliminary objection raised by R8 in regard to the maintainability

of the writ petition in WMP No.33967 of 2023 alleging perjury. According to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 3 of 26

W.P.No.12980 of 2023

R8, the petitioner has grossly erred in projecting itself as the Working

Committee of the Residents Assembly of Auroville.

3. R8 proceeds on the basis that it is only R1 to R7 who are the members

of the Working Committee as per Section 20 of the Auroville Foundation Act

and the records of the Auroville Foundation. Hence the very conduct of the

petitioner in styling and showcasing itself as the Working Committee is one of

impersonation and amounts to perjury under Section 195 of the India Penal

Code 1860 (IPC) r.w. Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code for offences

under Sections 193 of the IPC dealing with ‘Punishment for false evidence’ and

Section 471 of the IPC for ‘Using as genuine a forged document or electronic

record.

4. Per contra, the petitioner would submit that the allegation was entirely

misconceived as there is neither any forged document attracting the application

of Section 471 of the IPC nor any false evidence that has been produced,

attracting the application of section 193 of the IPC. In fact, even the affidavit

filed in support of the application does not make reference to evidence produced

or forged document and with this, the premise of the allegation of perjury fails.

5. Thus, while R8 maintains that R2 to R7 have been duly elected as

members of the Working Committee, the records of Auroville reflect only the

names of its constituents as members of the Working Committee of the

Residents’ Assembly, and enjoy the confidence of the Residents’ Assembly as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis