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
Page 6 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
members of the Working Committee of the Residents' Assembly, on various
dates.
11. The Residents' Assembly is an autonomous body and a democratic
one, which functions bearing in mind the best interests of the Auroville
community. Their tenure of the Working Committee in office is thus subject to
the members holding the confidence of the house, i.e., the Auroville community.
12. The petitioner submits that in electing the 7 members that constituted
the Working Committee, the ‘Participatory working groups document’ and the
selection process enshrined therein, was put into play. The composition of the
original Working Committee was (i) Sauro Mezzetti, (ii) Chali Grinnell, (iii)
Parthasarathy Krishnan (R2), (iv) Arun Selvam (R3), (v) Srimoyi Rossegger
(R4) (vi) Hemant Lamba and (vii) Ingeborg Christine Neuman Zimm (Tine)
(R5) (collectively referred to as ‘original Working Committee’).
13. While this was so, there came about serious differences of opinion
between some members of the original Working Committee, being Hemant
Lamba, Sauro Mezzetti and Chali Grinnell (referred to henceforth as the
‘break-away group’), and the remaining four members of the original Working
Committee. The differences are stated to have flared up post the appointment of
R8, as the Secretary to the Governing Board of Auroville Foundation.
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
14. The petitioner alleges that the resident Aurovilians had been harassed
in many forms and on the night of 05.12.2021, with the help of police force,
bulldozers and earthmovers were used to demolish buildings and make a
clearing for a proposed Crown road. Several trees were cut and cleared for this
purpose.
15. This endeavour was the subject matter of challenge before the
National Green Tribunal in O.A.No.239 of 2021 (Navroz Mody V. Auroville
Foundation). The case was disposed on 28.04.2022 directing the parties to the
litigation to prepare a Township plan in accordance with specific stipulations.
Further construction was stopped and that order has been challenged by R8
before the Supreme Court in C.A.Nos.5781-5782 of 2022.
16. According to the petitioner, the above events lead to a loss of
confidence on the part of several Aurovilians in the original Working
Committee. Two meetings were called, on 04.04.2022 and 24.04.2022, to
decide on the motion of no-confidence. According to the petitioner, the vote was
conducted on the basis of the then extant procedure in a meeting where 864 out
of 2389 eligible Aurovilians voted, and the results were announced on
10.05.2022. The results revealed that the members of the break-away group had
been confirmed by 94%, 96% and 94% respectively of the total votes cast,
whereas R1 to R4 had been dismissed by an overwhelming majority.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 8 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
17. The decision of the Residents' Assembly had been communicated to
the Governing Body, the International Advisory Council and R8. However, R1
to R4 had declared their intention not to abide by the results and continued to
project themselves as members of the Residents' Assembly.
18. Despite the success of the members of the break-away group in the
elections, they were been prevented from taking over the functioning of the
Residents' Assembly. On the contrary, R1 to R4 have unilaterally co-opted three
members, R5 to R7, so as to constitute 7 members, and are projecting
themselves as the Working Committee of the Residents' Assembly as on date.
19. In order to make up the strength of the Working Committee, the
Residents Assembly, according to the petitioner, met on the 25
th
and 26
th
of
June, 2022 and the places of R1 to R4 were replaced by Aravinda Maheswari,
Ilayabharathy Somasundaram, Valli Senthilkumar and Mael Shanthi. The
composition of the Petitioner Working Committee thus comprises Hemant
Lamba, Sauro Mezzetti, Chali Grinnell, Aravinda Maheswari, Ilayabharathy
Somasundaram, Valli Senthilkumar and Mael Shanthi.
20. As regards Mael Shanthi, he has been issued a notice dated
15.02.2023 by the authorities concerned, to leave India. However, he is still in
the Country, as he is stated to be engaged in negotiations with the authorities.
To be noted that no challenge appears to have been mounted to the leave India
notice itself and in any event, no document has been produced to indicate a
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 9 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
suspension of the notice as at present. The authority upon which said Mael
Shanthi continues to reside in India is thus unknown and the burden resting
upon the petitioner to explain this aspect remains undischarged.
21.The respondents have also been taking steps to update the Register of
Residents in regard to the status of Mael Shanthi which is resisted by the
petitioner as being contrary to the mandate of the Auroville (Admission and
Termination of Persons in the Register of Residents) Regulations, 2023 and
the procedure set out thereunder.
22. In the meanwhile, an Officer-on-Special duty (OSD) had been
appointed by the Governing Board of the Auroville Foundation bearing in mind
the friction in the functioning of the Residents’ Assembly and in specific, the
Working Committee, as also the fact that the affairs of Auroville needed to be
set right and streamlined.
23. On 06.05.2022, the OSD issued a letter suspending the decision- making processes of the Residents’ Assembly on the ground that the Residents'
Assembly did not have a proper list of its members. Admittedly, the list of
members is presently under updation as the list, in its present form, does not
represent the proper and correct composition of the Residents’ Assembly.
24. W.P.No.14707 of 2022 had been filed challenging communication
dated 06.05.2022 which had been allowed on 12.08.2022. The aforesaid order
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 10 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
was challenged in W.A.No.1961 of 2022 and interim stay granted by the
Division Bench on 26.08.2022. The interim orders have been modified on
04.09.2023 to clarify that the process of updation of the members list shall
proceed unhindered by the writ appeal or the interim orders granted earlier.
25. The locks on the doors of the Residents’ Assembly office had been
changed and the petitioner Committee members had been prevented from
entering the office from 02.06.2022 onwards. A police complaint has been filed
in that regard. Several complaints have been made as against R8, alleging high- handedness in the running of the operations which includes summary
termination of service of various executives in Auroville.
26. In fine, the case of the petitioner is that it is the petitioner which is the
legitimate Working Committee of the Residents’ Assembly and that R1 to R7
are usurpers projecting themselves to be members of the Working Committee
when they have no authority under the extant Regulations to do so.
27. The petitioner was asked to make specific submissions on the aspect
of maintainability of the Writ Petition based upon the admitted position that
there are, as on date, no Regulations in terms of which a proper procedure is
stipulated for election/selection of the members of the Working Committee.
Though Regulations were framed in 2023, the operation of the same have been
stayed by the First Bench of this Court.
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 11 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
28. The basis of a Writ of Quo Warranto is the disqualification suffered
by a candidate in holding a specific post. The qualifications that have been set
out under the Act is that the candidate for membership of the Working
Committee must be a major, and a resident of Auroville. Admittedly, the
constituents of the petitioner Committee, as well respondents 1 to 7 are majors.
There is however some dichotomy on the aspect of whether they are residents
per the Residents’ register.
29. As noted supra (in paragraph 24), the First Bench has, on
04.09.2023, directed that the process of updation of the members register shall
go on. In such circumstances, it is clear that the members list, in its present form
is incomplete and hence unreliable for all intents and purposes. Thus, this Court
cannot, and is not inclined to go into the aspect of whether the respondents, or
for that matter the members of the petitioner Committee, have earned any
disqualification on this score.
30. The submissions of R8 are taken in common for all respondents.
According to R8, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ
Petition as it has not satisfied the ingredients necessary for the seeking of a writ
of quo warranto. The Respondents also contest the procedure followed in the
election of the members of the petitioner Working Committee. While they
acceed to, and accept the Participatory Working Group (PWG) selection process
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 12 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
for selection/election of Working Committee members, they deny outright the
document styled as the ‘Residents’ Assembly decision making process’ followed
in the meetings of April (04.04.22 and 24.04.22) when the vote of no- confidence removing them, was passed.
31. According to R8, the functioning of the Residents’ Assembly has,
over the years, been at odds with the avowed intents of the Mother. It was thus
that intervention became necessary to restore order to the functioning of
Auroville to bring it in line with the divine Charter of the Holy Mother.
32. The rapid deterioration of law and order and the sad state of affairs in
Auroville received judicial notice of the Supreme Court in S.P.Mittal V. Union
of India and Ors
1
, the Court going to the extent of stating that the situation
prevailing in Auroville had converted the dream of the Mother into a nightmare.
33. An emergency Ordinance was passed in 1980 and the Auroville
Foundation Act passed in 1988 vesting the management, control and authority
of Auroville to the Governing Board. Various provisions of the Act are referred
to, to outline and explain the roles of the Governing Board, International
Advisory Council appointed by the Central Government and the Residents'
Assembly.
34. The Residents’ Assembly and its Working Committee of 7 members
drawn from within its own members aid in the management of administrative
1 Foot Note Supra 17
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 13 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
functioning of Auroville. Their duty is advisory and recommendatory, to aid and
assist the functioning of the Governing Board.
35. Submissions are made in regard to the Master Plan for Auroville
which was formulated consequent on a Resolution passed in 1999. The Master
Plan has itself been the subject matter of contentious litigation before various
fora and hence the submissions in regard to this aspect are not dilated upon.
Suffice it to say that there has been serious differences of opinion between
various groups/factions within Auroville itself in implementation of the Master
plan and the manner in which the affairs of Auroville must be conducted going
forward.
36. Seeking to maintain the prayer of quo warranto, R8 would argue that
the petitioner is an impersonator. According to R8, the official records of
Auroville would support the claim of R1 to R7 that they constitute the legitimate
Working Committee of the Residents’ Assembly. R8 alleges suppression of
relevant facts including the filing of FIRs as against several members of the
petitioner Working Committee.
37. R8 also alleges that information relating to the functioning of
Auroville was deleted by the petitioner from the hard drives of the official
computers in the Working Committee office. The appointment of the OSD was
thus necessitated to bring some order to the functioning of Auroville and the
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 14 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
communication issued by the OSD was specific to the effect that no substantial
policy decision be taken till such time the Register of Residents had been
updated.
38. As regards the vote of no-confidence on the basis of which the
petitioner claims to derive sustenance and authority, R8 points out that, even
according to the petitioner, only 864 residents had allegedly participated in the
online voting for the vote of no-confidence.
39. In the absence of any authoritative Regulation for the process of
election/selection, the petitioner cannot place any reliance on the procedure
followed for their selection. Further, their claim that the total number of eligible
Aurovilians is 2389 is baseless as the members’ register is itself incomplete as
on date. It is also unknown as to whether the 864 members whom the petitioner
claims had voted, were eligible and held valid memberships in the Resident’
Assembly. There is also no merit in the claim that 10% of the members would
contribute the quoram for the meeting as the PWG document does not make any
such stipulation.
40. Thus, the results declared on 10.05.2022 were skewed, incorrect and
liable to be eschewed. R8 would allege that the events of 04.04.22 and
24.04.2022, and 25.06.2022 and 26.06.2022, had been manipulated by the
petitioner and the procedure followed for their election did not have the backing
of either a statutory Regulation or time-tested convention.
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 15 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
41. While acceding to the Participatory Working Group document and
the modus operandi set out thereunder, as being the proper method for
selection/election to the Working Committee of the Residents Assembly, they
deny the ‘Residents’ Assembly decision making process’ document and the
process by which the vote of no-confidence was passed.
42. The respondents thus proceeded to follow the process set out under
the PWG document and replaced the three break-away members with three
others, namely, R5 to R7. The members of the Auroville community were duly
informed and the records of the Residents’ Assembly updated in this regard.
Thus, according to them, R1 to R4 appointed in 2021 and R5 to R7 appointed
in 2022 constitute the legitimate Working Group since May 2022 onwards. R8
also points out that the removal of the three break-away members has not been
challenged thus far before any competent Court and has thus attained finality.
43. The judgments cited by the parties relate to the maintainability of the
prayer of quo warranto, and are set out below:
Petitioner’s citations:
1. University of Mysore V. C.D.Govinda Rao
2
2. State of Haryana V. Haryana Coop. Transport Ltd.
3
3. Bhanumati V. State of U.P.
4
4. Usha Bharti V. State of U.P.
5
2 1963SCC OnLine SC 15
3 (1977) 1 SCC 271
4 (2010) 12 SCC 1
5 (2014) 7 SCC 663
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 16 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
5. Vipulbhai M.Chaudhary V. Gujarat Coop. Milk Mktg. Federation Ltd.
6
6. Bar Council of Delhi V. Bar Council of India
7
7. Luvezo Venuh V. State of Nagaland
8
8. Dr.Birendra Kumar Singh V. Bihar School Examinatoin Board
9
9. Sanjay V. Divisional Commissioner
10
10.Tripti Rani V. State of U.P.
11
11.Prabodhan Education Society V. Sanjay Walavalkar
12
12.Bharati Reddy V. State of Karnataka and others
13
13.Working Committee of the Residents Assembly of Auroville V. Secretary
to the Governing Board Auroville foundation
14
14.Hemant Lamba V. The Auroville Foundation and Ors.
15
15.Dr.Kashinath G. Jalmi and anr. V.The Speaker and others.
16
8
th
Respondent’s citations:
1. The Auroville Foundation V. Krishna Devanandan
17
2. S.P.Mittal V. Union of India and Ors.
18
3. The Auroville Foundation V. Krishna Devanandan
19
4. Natasha Storey V. The Auroville Foundation
20
5. Namrita Bindra-Gautier V. Auroville Foundation
21
6 (2015) 8 SCC 1
7 1974SCC OnLine Del 181
8 1993SCC OnLine Gau 41
9 2016SCC OnLine Pat 9666
10 2017SCC OnLine Bom 7993
11 2020SCC OnLine All 1049
12 2020SCC OnLine Bom 6809
13 (2018) 6 Supreme Court Cases 162
14 Division Bench - W.P.No.1477 of 2024 interim order dated 23.02.2024
15 Division Bench – C.M.P.No.4174 of 2023 in C.M.P.No.14291 of 2022 in W.A.No.1961 of 2022 order dated
04.09.2023
16 (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 703
17 Division Bench – W.A.Nos.1962 and 1961 of 2022 interim order dated 26.08.2022
18 (1983) 1 SCC 51
19 Division Bench – W.A.Nos.1962 and 1961 of 2022 interim order dated 09.09.2022
20 W.P.No.22895 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022
21 W.P.No.18302 of 2022 dated 19.12.2022
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 18 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
sought in issuing directions under paragraph 69 of order dated 12.08.2022, the
order was stayed.
46. Since an omnibus interim stay had resulted in administrative and
logistical difficulties, the interim order was modified on 04.09.2023 by the First
Bench and directions issued to the effect that, (i) the Residents’ Assembly may
function as provided under Sections 18 to 20 of the Auroville Foundation Act,
1988 and (ii) Residents’ Assembly shall not take policy decisions which alter
the existing structure and working of the Auroville Foundation. It is this order
that governs the functioning of Auroville as on date, read with the order passed
by the OSD dated 06.05.2022 which refers to the on-going updation of the
Residents' Register.
47. The Auroville Foundation Act comprises of three statutory bodies, the
Governing Board, the Residents' Assembly and the Auroville International
Advisory Council in terms of Section 10(3) under chapter III entitled ‘The
Auroville Foundation’. Section 11 deals with the Governing Board, Section 12,
the term of office of the Members of the Governing Board, Sections 13 and 14,
the salary, allowances and other conditions of the service of the Chairman and
the meetings of the Governing Board and Sections 15 and 16, the Secretary and
the other officers of the Foundation and the Committees of the Governing
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 21 of 26
W.P.No.12980 of 2023
1. On Line Forms Totally submitted 2614
2. Less Duplications -152
3. Balance 2462
4. Forms Verified and confirmed 1861
5. Temporarily out of Auroville 164
6. Non-Submission of Forms 129
7. Long term out of Auroville 308
The above is issued with the approval of competent authority.
Dr.G.Seetharaman
(Officer on Special Duty)
53. The OSD has been appointed in terms of the Section 15(3), in terms
of which, the Governing Board may appoint such other officers and employees
as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. Section 17
sets out the powers and functions of the Governing Board as follows:
17. Powers and functions of the Governing Board.- The
powers and functions of the Governing Board shall be-
(a) to promote the ideals of Auroville and to coordinate activities
and services of Auroville in consultation with the Residents'
Assembly for the purposes of cohesion and integration of
Auroville;
(b) to review the basic policies and the programmes of Auroville
and give necessary directions for the future development of
Auroville;
(c) to accord approval to the programmes of Auroville drawn up
by the Residents' Assembly;
(d) to monitor and review the activities of Auroville and to
secure proper management of the properties vested in the
Foundation under section 6 and other properties relatable to
Auroville;
21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis