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
vs
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.
1
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
2
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
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
statutorily required in terms of Section 20(2) of the Act, the petitioner would
insist that its constituents have been validly elected by the Residents Assembly
and enjoy their full confidence.
6. Having heard the rival submissions, I agree with the petitioner that
there is no substance in the plea for perjury and that the same is misconceived.
Perjury is dealt with in terms of Section 191 of the IPC coming under Chapter
XI entitled ‘of false evidence and offences against public justice’. Section 191
reads thus:
'191. Giving false evidence. Whoever, being legally bound by an
oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being
bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any
statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to
be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evi- dence.
Explanation1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section,
whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person
attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may
be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a
thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he
knows a thing which he does not know.'
7. As rightly pointed out, though reference has been made to Sections 193
and 471 of the IPC, R8 is silent as to what the forged document is or as to what
false evidence has been produced. Thus, reference to these statutory provisions
is meaningless. That apart, Section 191, touching upon the giving of
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
false evidence, would not apply in the present case as no evidence has, per se,
been presented by the petitioner.
8. Both the petitioner and respondents claim to be legally constituted
Working Committees of the Residents' Assembly. This dispute would thus have
to be decided after appreciation of the submissions advanced by both parties as
well as the extant Rules and Regulations. The question of Quo Warranto would
itself arise only after such decision.
9. Each party is entitled to interpret the statutory provisions and Rules to
favour their own position. Such interpretation would not, in my considered
view, have the consequence of the party perjuring itself. At the end of the day,
only one of the parties will be held to be a validly constituted committee in line
with the Rules. This adjudicatory process cannot be frustrated by one of the
parties alleging perjury on the part of the other. The prayer in this application
seeks to put the cart before the horse and for these reasons, the preliminary
objection relating to perjury is rejected.
10. The submissions of the petitioner on the merits are as follows. The
Auroville Foundation Act, 1988 (in short ‘Act’), under Section 20, recognises a
Working Committee, which is to comprise of 7 members. Three members of the
petitioner Committee, along with R1 to R4, had initially been elected as
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis