Massbulletin 25.10.24 RA WCom_ Clarification on recent article about MHC judgement on Auroville Working Committee.pdf

Page 2 of 3

disqualified through a Quo Warranto petition, indicating that the legal tool used in this case was

procedurally unsuitable. Importantly, the order explicitly states:

"This Court cannot, and it 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."

- The petitioner in this case is the Working Committee of the Residents' Assembly, and the court

seems to have expressed inability to decide that issue in light of the facts and circumstances

recorded in the judgement.

- Moreover, we are advised to state that the single bench order does not, and cannot, override

the previous orders of the division bench led by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.

Notably, the division bench order dated 23.02.2024 states:

“Until further orders, the functioning of the Working Committee under Section 20 of the AVF

Act shall not be interfered with by the Committee constituted under the impugned regulations

and the Working Committee shall be one as constituted under Section 20(3) of the Act.”

- It remains our stand that since the 7 respondents in the writ petition filed do not enjoy the

confidence of the Residents Assembly, they cannot represent the Residents Assembly of

Auroville.

- Additionally, the single bench order of 1.8.2024 reiterates that the directions issued by the

division bench on 4th September 2023 will govern the management and functioning of

Auroville. The court recognizes that:

“The Residents' Assembly may carry out its functions as provided in Sections 18, 19, and 20 of

the Auroville Foundation Act without any interference.”

- To reiterate, Section 20 of the AVF Act, 1988, provides for the Working Committee of the

Residents' Assembly of Auroville to be elected by the Residents' Assembly alone. This order

mandates no interference with the Residents' Assembly and their Working Committee.

Therefore, we are advised to state that the single judges order would be in conflict with the

judgement of the division bench.

In light of these points, we are taking steps and measures to ensure that clarity is restored on

this matter.

Sincerely,

The Working Committee of the Residents' Assembly of the Auroville Foundation

Aravinda Maheshwari, Chali Grinnell, Ilayabharathy Somasundaram, Mael Shanti Vidal (TOS),

Matthieu Gardelle, Prashant Hedao, Valli Senthilkumar