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 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