Skip to content


Southern Railway Mazdoor Union Vs. Mazdoor Welfare Trust - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantSouthern Railway Mazdoor Union
RespondentMazdoor Welfare Trust
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated:07. 06-2013 coram the hon'ble mr.justice v.ramasubramanian c.s.no.160 of 2004 1. the southern railway mazdoor union rep. by its general secretary n.kanniah 191-b railway colony, egmore, chennai-8.2. a.rajah sridhar 3. p.kumaresan .. plaintiffs vs.1. mazdoor welfare trust, rep.by its managing trustee n.v.devi, 11-a/27 alamelumangapuram 2nd street chennai-4.2. n.v.devi 3. g.vadivelu 4. n.v.usha 5. s.tamilarasan 6. anjalai ammal mahalingam engineering college rep. by its correspondent kovilvenni, thiruvarur district. .. defendants ----- suit filed under order vii rule 1 of the civil procedure code seeking a judgment and decree (i) to direct the removal of the defendants 2 to 5 from the office of managing trustee and trustees of the first.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:

07. 06-2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN C.S.No.160 of 2004 1. The Southern Railway Mazdoor Union rep. by its General Secretary N.Kanniah 191-B Railway Colony, Egmore, Chennai-8.

2. A.Rajah Sridhar 3. P.Kumaresan .. Plaintiffs Vs.

1. Mazdoor Welfare Trust, rep.by its Managing Trustee N.V.Devi, 11-A/27 Alamelumangapuram 2nd Street Chennai-4.

2. N.V.Devi 3. G.Vadivelu 4. N.V.Usha 5. S.Tamilarasan 6. Anjalai Ammal Mahalingam Engineering College rep. by its Correspondent Kovilvenni, Thiruvarur District. .. Defendants ----- Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking a judgment and decree (i) to direct the removal of the defendants 2 to 5 from the office of Managing Trustee and Trustees of the first defendant viz. Mazdoor Welfare Trust; (ii) to frame a scheme for proper administration of the first defendant trust and its college, namely 6th defendant college with due participation among the members of the plaintiff union; (iii) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 5, their men, agents or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the management of the first defendant trust, namely the Mazdoor Welfare Trust and the 6th defendant college, namely Anjalaiammal Mahalingam Engineering College, Kovilveni Village, Thiruvaroor District; (iv) to direct the defendants 2 to 5 to render accounts from February 2001 of the first defendant trust and the 6th defendant college; and (v) for costs. ----- For Plaintiffs : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, S.C. For Mr.A.Jinasenan For Defendants 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Prabhakaran For Mr.T.P.Senthil Kumar For Defendant-3 : Mr.A.Narayanan For Defendant -4 : Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, S.C. For Mr.G.J.Baskaranarayanan For Defendant-5 : Mr.K.Harishankar ----- C O M M O N

JUDGMENT

This suit has been filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for framing a Scheme for the administration of a Public Charitable Trust, by name Mazdoor Welfare Trust and for various other reliefs.

2. There are also two other suits, filed by the 5th defendant herein, challenging his removal from Trusteeship and Correspondentship of the 6th defendant College. But I chose to deal with the above suit first, as it happens to be a Scheme suit. If a Scheme is framed for the administration of the Trust in that suit, the other two suits will automatically fall in line.

3. I have heard Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs, Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 2, Mr.A.Narayanan, learned counsel for the third defendant, Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned senior counsel for the fourth defendant and Mr.K.Harishankar, learned counsel for the fifth defendant.

4. The plaintiffs obtained leave under Section 92, CPC and instituted this suit praying for the following reliefs: ".(i) to direct the removal of the defendants 2 to 5 from the office of Managing Trustee and Trustees of the first defendant viz., Mazdoor Welfare Trust; (ii) to frame a Scheme for the proper administration of the first defendant Trust and its College, namely 6th defendant College with due participation among the members of the Plaintiff Union; (iii) to grant a permanent injunction restraining the second to fifth defendants, their men, agents or anybody claiming through them, from interfering with the management of the first defendant Trust, namely the Mazdoor Welfare Trust and the 6th defendant College, namely Anjalaiammal Mahalingam Engineering College, Kovilveni Village, Thiruvaroor District; (iv) to direct the defendants 2 to 5 to render accounts from February 2001 of the first defendant Trust and the 6th defendant College; and (v) to direct payment of cost of this suit.". 5.The averments contained in the plaint proceed on the following lines: (a) that the first plaintiff is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1923, and that the first plaintiff is one of the oldest and largest Trade Unions, recognised by the Railway Administration and comprising of the employees of Southern Railway; (b) that the second and third plaintiffs are the President and Assistant General Secretary of the first plaintiff; (c) that with a view to establish an educational institution for the benefit of Railwaymen, a Trust by name Mazdoor Welfare Trust was founded and established in 1987; (d) that the erstwhile General Secretary of the first plaintiff Union by name M.Namasivayam became the Founder cum Managing Trustee of the said Trust for life and the Vice Presidents of the first plaintiff Union by name P.Srinivasan and M.Govindarajan became the other Trustees in the first instance; (e) that the Trust was of Public Charitable character and it was created with a corpus of Rs.1,000/- provided by the then General Secretary of the first plaintiff Mr.M.Namasivayam; (f) that after the creation of the Trust, contributions poured in from the members of the first plaintiff Union through the Branch Offices and Divisional Offices of the Union; (g) that with a view to establish an Engineering College in Thanjavur District, about 60 acres of land was purchased by the Trust; (h) that contributions were made by Railwaymen, with an impression that the Trust is an outfit of the first plaintiff Union, as described by the Founder himself; (i) that on the lands purchased with the contributions made by Railwaymen, buildings were put up and infrastructure was developed for establishing an Engineering College; (j) that in 1994, the Trust required additional land of an extent of about 3 acres, which was lying adjacent to the lands already purchased by the Trust; (k) that the said land was in Survey No.510 of Kovilvenni Village and it belonged to the Southern Railway; (l) that the said land was given by the Southern Railway to the Trust on the basis of an unequivocal statement made by M.Namasivayam to the effect that there was an unbreakable link between the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union and the Mazdoor Welfare Trust; (m) that after getting the approval of All India Council for Technical Education, the 6th defendant-Engineering College started functioning from the academic year 1995-96 and it also got affiliated originally to the Bharathidasan University and later to the Anna University; (n) that till 1996, the first defendant Trust was managed by Namasivayam, as its Managing cum Life Trustee, along with two Vice Presidents of the first plaintiff Union; (o) that in 1997, the only son of M.Namasivayam died at an young age, plunging him in sorrow and despair; (p) that therefore, Namasivayam co-opted the fifth defendant, who is his son-in-law, as a Trustee and also made him the Correspondent of the Engineering College; (q) that subsequently, Namasivayam nominated defendants 2 to 4, who are his daughters and son-in-law as Trustees; (r) that the two Vice Presidents of the first plaintiff Union resigned from the Trusteeship at that time; (s) that the re-constitution of the Board did not make any difference as Namasivayam continued to be the Head of the Trade Union as well as the Trust; (t) that after his son's death, Namasivayam started keeping away from all public activities and resigned from the post of Chairman of the College in December 1998; (u) that he also resigned from the post of Managing Trustee in November 2000, though he continued to be a Life Trustee; (v) that the second defendant, who is the daughter of Namasivayam, was made the Managing Trustee at that time; (w) that in February 2001, Namasivayam went to Haridwar, never to return back and his whereabouts became unknown since then; (x) that ever since February/March 2001, defendants 2 to 4 began to act indifferently and started functioning as though the Trust and the College are their family properties; (y) that defendants 2 to 5 began to siphon the funds of the Trust and the College and amassed wealth; (z) that there were acts of misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of defendants 2 to 5 and they also started demanding commission from the Contractors, who undertook works and made supplies to the College; (aa) that upon receipt of complaints about the maladministration of the College and the Trust, the plaintiffs issued a registered legal notice on 01.9.2003 to the defendants calling upon them to induct at least three members of the Union in the Board of Trustees or to make suitable amendments in the Trust deed, to enable the first plaintiff Union to participate in the management and affairs of the Trust; (ab) that the second defendant sent a reply dated 24.9.2003 claiming that the first plaintiff Union had nothing to do with the Trust and that the members of the Union are not even beneficiaries; (ac) that the second defendant went to the extent of claiming a sum of Rs.2.75 crores towards expenses allegedly incurred by her for the performance of certain poojas for the return of their missing father Namasivayam; and (ad) that the defendants are guilty of misappropriation, breach of trust, misfeasance and malfeasance as well as mismanagement of the affairs of the Trust and that therefore, the suit was necessitated.

6. The Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement containing the following averments: (a) that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the registered office of the Trust is at Thanjavur; (b) that the plaintiffs have no interest in the first defendant Trust and the Engineering College established by it; (c) that the Mazdoor Welfare Trust was established by Namasivayam in his individual capacity and not in his capacity as the leader of the first plaintiff Union; (d) that the other two Trustees P.Srinivasan and M.Govindarajan were also made Trustees only in their individual capacities and not as office bearers of the first plaintiff Union; (e) that the Trust is a public charitable one and is an independent legal entity having its own bylaws and rules; (f) that Southern Railway Mazdoor Union is neither a Trustee nor a beneficiary; (g) that the object of the Trust is not only to help and serve the mazdoors working in the railways, but also to help the people belonging to socially and educationally backward classes in general; (h) that the first plaintiff Union which has its own set of bylaws, cannot interfere with the affairs of the Trust; (i) that even the corpus of the Trust was provided by Namasivayam in his individual capacity and it was not provided by the Union; (j) that the claim of the plaintiffs that the members of the Union contributed monies liberally to the trust through the respective branches of the first plaintiff Union, is incorrect; (k) that the claim that 60 acres of land were purchased by using the contributions made by Railwaymen is also not correct; (l) that the entire sale consideration for the purchase of land was paid out of Trust funds; (m) that the first plaintiff Union passed a resolution on 22.6.1998 in the 33rd Annual General Meeting to the effect that the first defendant Trust is an independent body and that the Union had no control over the same; (n) that apart from the first plaintiff, there are several other Unions representing the Railwaymen and hence, the first plaintiff Union cannot file the suit as though they are the sole representative of the entire railway men; (o) that the audit reports and the income and expenditure statements of the Trust do not indicate that the donations were obtained from the members of the first plaintiff Union; (p) that donations were made by several philanthropists, employees of public sector and private sector undertakings and people like Nalli Kuppusami Chettiar and owners of Rathi Meena Travels; (q) that since Namasivayam's mother was born in Kovilvenni, the villagers of Kovilvenni voluntarily came forward either to give lands or to sell the lands at a cheaper rate, to enable him to start the Engineering College; (r) though the statement of accounts of the first plaintiff Union for the years 1998-2001 reflect the collection of voluntary contributions to the extent of several lakhs of rupees, there is no indication that these contributions were donated to the first defendant Trust; (s) that the claim of the first plaintiff that they advanced a loan of Rs.1,74,14,505/- during the period 1996-2001, is not reflected in the statement of accounts; (t) that even in the year 1996 when the College was started, it collected fees and other income to the tune of Rs.70,80,335.50 and the founder was able to secure an interest free deposit of Rs.50.00 lakhs from the Indian Bank, as seen from the resolution dated 24.11.1994; (u) that on 30.3.1995, the City Union Bank granted a term loan of Rs.2 crores to the Trust; (v) that the Trust is also having an O.D. Account with the Syndicate Bank; (w) that the Trust has accounts with several banks namely, the Indian Bank - Adyar, Syndicate Bank - Egmore, Bank of Thanjavur, State Bank of India - Trichy Industrial Estate, City Union Bank - Mandaiveli, Indian Bank - Kovilvenni and Corporation Bank - Thanjavur; (x) that by depositing the title deeds of the Trust property, the Trust obtained a loan from the City Union Bank for putting up constructions; (y) that in 1998 and 1999, the Trust received an income of Rs.1.49 Crores and Rs.1.11 Crores respectively by way of fees and other income; (z) that the claim of the plaintiffs for an amendment of the deed of Trust or to induct the representatives of the Union, would go contrary to the terms of the deed of Trust and also detrimental to the interest of the Trust; (aa) that the plaintiffs took advantage of the situation after the death of the founder's son and he was seen off the Airport when he went to Delhi; (ab) that the wife of Namasivayam has her own suspicion about the role of the plaintiffs on the disappearance of Namasivayam; (ac) that the plaintiffs have deliberately not made any allegations against the fifth defendant, who was managing the College as Correspondent and who had many things to explain; (ad) that the fifth defendant is colluding with the plaintiffs and it is the fifth defendant, who is the real plaintiff; (ae)that the allegations of misappropriation, misfeasance, malfeasance etc. are all false; (af) that the third defendant is employed as an Officer in the Reserve Bank of India; (ag) that the fourth defendant was employed as an Officer of the Southern railway; (ah) that the College is being run very well by the defendants and it was certified with ISO90012001 and accredited by National Board of Accreditation, New Delhi; (ai) that the College was placed in the 25th rank out of 268 Engineering Colleges affiliated to the Anna University; (aj) that the College is being managed and administered very well, but the plaintiffs are attempting to create confusion; (ak) that the Union has nothing to do with the Trust and the claim of an unbreakable link between the Union and the Trust is false; (al) that the first plaintiff is now represented by N.Kanniah, who was only a Class IV employee and who was brought up by Mr.Namasivayam; (am) that all other office bearers of the first plaintiff were introduced to the Trade Union movement only by Namasivayam and they have all now amassed wealth taking advantage of the position held in the Trade Union; (an) that the then Railway Minister even made a statement in the Parliament that a CBI enquiry will be conducted into the details of properties acquired and the other atrocities committed by Mr.Kanniah, the General Secretary of the first plaintiff; (ao) that if the defendants had agreed to induct the representatives of the Union, they would not have ventured to file a Scheme suit at all by making false allegations; (ap) that the real intention of the plaintiffs is to become Trustees and to enrich themselves by usurping the properties of the Trust; (aq) that the second defendant never demanded the Correspondent to pay a sum of Rs.2.75 Crores for the poojas conducted for the return of Namasivayam; (ar) that there is no maladministration or breach of trust and hence, the question of removal of the defendants from the Trusteeship would not arise; (as) that the Trust accounts are duly audited by a Chartered Accountant and the accounts are well maintained; (at) that on 01.5.2004, a resolution was passed by the Board of Trustees, nominating Mrs.Susila Namasivayam in the place of the fifth defendant and hence, the plaintiffs have to take steps to replace the fifth defendant with Susila Namasivayam in the suit; (au) that the fifth defendant himself has filed a suit in O.S.No.96 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, for a declaration that the resolution dated 12.5.2004, is null and void and the same is pending; (av) that the two original Trustees Govindarajan and Srinivasan resigned respectively on 24.6.1996 and 06.6.1998; (aw) that thereafter, the Managing Trustee Namasivayam nominated defendants 2 to 4 as Trustees; and (ax) that on 05.11.2000, the second defendant was elected as Managing Trustee and that therefore, the suit is devoid of merits.

7. The third defendant is the husband of the second defendant. Therefore, he has filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendants 1 and 2. Similarly, the fourth defendant, who is the sister of the second defendant, has also filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendants 1 and 2.

8. But, the fifth defendant, who is also one of the sons-in-law of Namasivayam, Founder of the Trust, has filed a separate written statement. In his written statement, he has contended as follows: (a) that the Founder of the Trust M.Namasivayam was a great Trade Union Activist, who wanted to float a Trust under the name and style of Mazdoor Welfare Trust, with the sole object of helping and serving Mazdoors working in Railways and the people belonging to socially and educationally backward classes; (b) that the main object of the Trust founded by him was to establish, maintain and administer educational institutions; (c) that he made himself the Life Trustee and nominated two other Railwaymen as Co-Trustees; (d) that the Trust established the sixth defendant College solely from out of the contributions received from the Mazdoors in the Southern Railway; (e) that in his inaugural address, Namasivayam made it clear that the Trust was formed not only for the benefit of Railwaymen and their families, but also for socially and economically backward people; (f) that it was also stated by him that he depended upon donations from Railwaymen and general public; (g) that nevertheless he laid stress on helping the children of railway mazdoors; (h) that Namasivayam suffered a major setback in his life with the death of his only son; (i) that Namasivayam left behind three daughters, the eldest of whom is married to the fifth defendant; (j) that from 1996, the fifth defendant started assisting Namasivayam in all the activities of the College, after resigning from Government service; (k) that on 14.5.1996, Namasivayam inducted the fifth defendant as a Trustee; (l) that unable to come out of the depression that he suffered after the death of his son, Namasivayam left for Haridwar in February 2001, never to be heard of thereafter; (m) that all attempts to trace him were in vain; (n) that after February 2001, the Trust consisted of four Trustees, viz., defendants 2 to 5 and the attitude of the defendants 2 to 4 was not conducive for the smooth running of the institution; (o) that initially, the second defendant had the support of the fourth defendant, but the fourth defendant withdrew later; (p) that the second defendant, who had cheque signing power, stayed mostly in Madras and she started putting obstacles in the issuance of cheques and in making payments; (q) that the meetings of the Trust Board were not regularly conducted; (r) that as a Correspondent, this defendant was made to bear all humiliation from defendants 2 and 3; (s) that when Namasivayam was alive, he had instructed the fifth defendant time and again to take instructions from plaintiffs 2 and 3; (t) that after Namasivayam started withdrawing himself from many of the activities, he wrote a letter dated 12.8.1999 requesting this defendant to continue as the Correspondent and stating that the bank accounts are to be operated by the Managing Trustee and the fifth defendant; (u) that the letters written by Namasivayam would show that he had utmost confidence in the fifth defendant; (v) that while leaving for Haridwar on 17.2.2001, Namasivayam wrote a personal letter to the fifth defendant asking him to have regular contacts with the second plaintiff as well as Mr.Kanniah, for running the Trust; (w) that the second defendant sent a letter in her own handwriting asking the fifth defendant to treat the College as a business, so that the Trustees could take a share; (x) that in the years 2002 and 2003, meetings were held and resolutions were passed without the fifth defendant's knowledge; (y) that defendants 2 and 3 wanted to divert the surplus funds of the Trust to start a School at Chennai; (z) that a construction undertaken in the College was left incomplete half way through; (aa) that the Trust had a surplus fund of Rs.5.00 Crores and an endowment with Indian Bank to the tune of Rs.50.00 Lakhs, for providing scholarships every year to five students nominated by the Bank; (ab) that the second defendant wanted to withdraw the endowment and requested the Bank to claim money; (ac) that despite having surplus funds, defendants 2 and 3 wanted to borrow funds from the Bank for constructing an institution at Chennai; (ad) that several acts were done by defendants 2 and 3, detrimental to the smooth running of the College; (ae) that therefore a situation had arisen requiring the Trust to be administered by a body under the supervision of the Court, which would fulfil the objects of the Founder; (af) that the allegations of siphoning of funds cannot be made against the fifth defendant, as he had no control over the funds of the Trust; (ag) that though the Trust was the brain child of Namasivayam, it was run with the contributions made by the members of the first plaintiff Union; (ah) that after the institution of the above suit, the second defendant removed this defendant from the Board of Trustees as well as from the post of Correspondent, forcing him to file separate suits; and (ai) that after the appointment of interim Administrator by this Court, several other acts of mismanagement of the Trust by defendants 2 and 3 have come to light and that therefore, it is necessary to have a Scheme framed by this Court for the proper administration of the first defendant Trust. Thus it is seen from the written statement of the fifth defendant that despite being the brother-in-law of defendants 2 and 4, he has also prayed for framing a scheme.

9. During the pendency of the suit, this Court appointed Mr.Justice A.Ramamurthi (Retired) as an interim Administrator, to take charge of the affairs of the Trust and also appointed two persons from each side to assist him. The Administrator took over charge in April 2005. Several things happened thereafter, including the filing of a criminal complaint against the second defendant and others for the alleged offences of misappropriation, forgery, breach of trust, etc. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the second defendant and others, but, the same has been stayed on a petition filed by the second defendant and others under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the second defendant also filed an application in A.No.293 of 2011 for the removal of the interim Administrator. After arguments were advanced in the application for removal of interim Administrator and orders were reserved, the learned counsel appearing on both sides came back and requested me to take up the main suit itself for disposal, as it may put an end to several other litigations and collateral proceedings.

10. Therefore, the suit was posted for final hearing and the following issues were framed by consent: (i) Whether a Scheme for the management and administration of Mazdoor Welfare Trust, which is a public charitable Trust, be framed or not?. (ii) If so, the persons who are entitled to be appointed as Trustees and the nature of the provision to be made for Trusteeship in the first defendant Trust?. and (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief?.

11. All the parties endorsed that there will be no oral evidence. However, documents were marked on both sides. While a majority of the documents were marked by consent, a few were marked, subject to objections. On the side of the plaintiffs, a total of about 120 documents were marked as Exx.P1 to P120. On the side of the defendants, a total of 104 exhibits were marked as Exx.D1 to D104. Out of them, Exx.D1 to D98 were actually filed by defendants 1 and 2. The fifth defendant filed ten documents. The plaintiffs did not object to any of the ten documents sought to be marked by the fifth defendant. However, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 objected to four out of ten documents sought to be marked by the fifth defendant. In other words, there was no objection to the marking of six documents by the fifth defendant. Therefore, those six documents filed by the fifth defendant were marked as Exx.D99 to D104. Insofar as those four documents filed by the fifth defendant, which came to be objected to by the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 are concerned, I reserved my opinion, to be rendered while pronouncing judgment. Therefore, in my present discussion, I shall deal only with Exx.P1 to P120 and Exx.D1 to D104. At the appropriate stage of the discussion, I shall take up those four documents filed by the fifth defendant, both for considering their admissibility and for considering the merits. Issue No.(i): (Whether a Scheme needs to be framed or not?.) 12.1. The plaintiffs have approached this Court, after obtaining leave under Section 92 (1) of the Code, primarily on the ground (i) that persons who are now continuing as trustees, did not get appointed in accordance with the covenants contained in the deed of Trust and hence, their continuance is unlawful; (ii) that the persons in management of the Trust have lost sight of the objects for which the Trust was established; and (iii) that the Trustees are guilty of mismanagement and breach of trust. 12.2. Though the second defendant, who was at the helm of affairs at the time of the institution of the suit, filed a written statement denying the allegations, the fifth defendant, who is none else than the sister's husband of the second defendant, has filed a written statement affirming the allegations. The fourth defendant, who is the sister of the second defendant originally requested the Interim Administrator to lodge a criminal complaint against the second defendant. She was a party to a resolution passed to the said effect. Later, the fourth defendant came up with an application in A.No.2673 of 2006 under Ex.P119, to direct the Interim Administrator to lodge a criminal complaint against the 2nd defendant. But subsequently, she turned a volte-face and sought to withdraw the said application. Now, the fourth defendant has adopted the written statement of the second defendant. 12.3. Despite the fact that defendants 2 to 4 have opposed the framing of a Scheme, and despite the fact that the stand of the fourth defendant had changed from time to time, there is no dispute between the parties at least with respect to one thing, namely, that the Trust in question is a public charitable Trust. It was established as such by its Founder M.Namasivayam and an exemption was also obtained under Section 12-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is not and it cannot be disputed that the Trust is a public charitable Trust. 12.4. The deed of Declaration of Trust executed on 04.11.1987 by M.Namasivayam and registered as document No.1356 of 1987 on the file of the Registrar of Madras (North) is filed as Ex.D1. The said document describes M.Namasivayam as the Founder of the Trust and M/s. P.Srinivasan and M.Govindarajan as the Trustees. 12.5. The salient features of the deed of Trust are as follows: (i) The preamble states that the Founder of the Trust had a keen and earnest desire to help and serve the mazdoors working in the Railways and people belonging to socially and educationally backward classes in general and that the Trust was born out of the said desire; (ii) it is also stated that the Founder set apart a sum of Rs.1,000/- to form the corpus fund of the Trust; (iii) though the objects of the Trust are stated in very broad terms and the beneficiaries are indicated to be the poor and needy in general, the Trust was named as the Mazdoor Welfare Trust and one of the objects was stated to be to establish and administer the Mazdoor School of Trade Unionism; (iv) clause (i) of the deed of Trust explains that the constitution of the Board of Trustees shall not exceed five members, including the Founder. While the Founder was named as the Trustee for life, the first set of Trustees, namely, M.Govindarajan and P.Srinivasan were given a tenure under clause (ii) of the deed of Trust, of two years and three years respectively. That was with a view to ensure that both of them did not retire on the same date, after the creation of the Trust; (v) under clause (iii), the tenure of office of subsequent Trustees was prescribed as two years and the vacancies were directed to be filled up by nomination by the Life Trustee and the Trustee continuing in office; (vi) the Founder cum Life Trustee was also named as the Managing Trustee and the Trustees retiring by rotation were made eligible for re-appointment/re-nomination; (vii) the Trust was made irrevocable and it was stated that if the Trust failed for any reason, the net assets of the Trust shall be handed over to any other Trust having the same objects; (viii) interestingly, though the Trust was created as a public charitable one, the last clause of the deed stipulated that in respect of all the other matters not specifically provided therein, the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act would apply. In other words, the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which is not normally applicable to public charitable trusts, is made applicable by a provision incorporated in the deed itself. 12.6. The deed of Trust, Ex.D1, was amended thrice, under Exx.D2 to D4, respectively dated 29.3.1988, 10.12.1994 and 28.11.1998. The first amendment dated 29.3.1988 was made with a view to incorporate certain provisions to bring it in tune with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, so that the Trust became eligible for exemption under the Income Tax Act. The second amendment dated 10.12.1994 was made with a view to enable the Trustees to borrow or accept the deposits from Banks and financial institutions. The third amendment dated 28.11.1998 was made to include three clauses in the original deed of Trust, to enable the Founder cum Life Trustee to resign from the Office of the Managing Trustee and to enable the remaining Trustees to elect one among them as the Managing Trustee. Under the third amendment, it was also stated that even if the Managing Trustee resigned from his office, he would continue to be a Life Trustee. 12.7. The original deed of Trust dated 04.11.1987 and the amendments made thereto, under Exx.D2 and D3 dated 29.3.1988 and 10.12.1994, contained only the names as well as the signatures of M.Namasivayam, P.Srinivasan and M.Govindarajan. It is only in the third deed of amendment, Ex.D4 dated 28.11.1998, that the names of defendants 2 to 4 find a place, as Trustees. Therefore, it is clear that P.Srinivasan and M.Govindarajan, who were members of the first Board of Trustees, went out of the Trust somewhere during the period 1996-1998. 12.8. It appears that as per clause (ii) of Ex.D1, M.Govindarajan, held office for two years up to November 1989 and the continuing Trustees, namely M.Namasivayam and P.Srinivasan re-nominated Govindarajan for another two years, with effect from November 1989. Similarly, when P.Srinivasan's first tenure expired in November 1990, by virtue of the same clause (ii) of Ex.D1, he was re-nominated for two years by the continuing Trustees, namely, M.Namasivayam and M.Govindarajan. This process continued from time to time with M.Govindarajan getting re-nominated in November 1991, November 1993 and November 1995. Similarly, P.Srinivasan got re-nominated in November 1990, November 1992, November 1994 and November 1996. 12.9. However, under Ex.P59 dated 24.6.1996 Govindarajan resigned. The resolution of the Board accepting the resignation of M.Govindarajan is signed by M.Namasivayam and P.Srinivasan in Ex.P59. But, even before the said date, the fifth defendant S.Tamilarasan, who was the sister's son as well as the son-in-law of M.Namasivayam, was appointed by the Board, as the Correspondent of the College, by a resolution dated 14.5.1996, filed as Ex.P58. It appears that thereafter, this fifth defendant was also inducted as a Trustee in the place of M.Govindarajan. 12.10. Subsequently, on 06.6.1998, P.Srinivasan resigned and by a resolution dated 06.6.1998 filed as Ex.P65, defendants 2 to 4 were nominated as Trustees. This resolution was signed by M.Namasivayam and S.Tamilarasan (D5). 12.11. Thus, the Mazdoor Welfare Trust formed with effect from 04.11.1987, had only three Trustees by name M.Namasivayam, M.Govindarajan and P.Srinivasan, for a full period of about nine years, until the resignation of M.Govindarajan on 24.6.1996 and the resignation of P.Srinivasan on 06.6.1998. Defendants 2 to 4 got inducted into the Trust only on 06.6.1998 and the fifth defendant got inducted in 1996. 12.12. Thus, what was created as a public charitable Trust in 1987 by Namasivayam, with no involvement of any of his family members, turned out to be an exclusive family club after 1997. I do not know if this happened out of a sense of detachment that Namasivayam developed after his son's untimely demise or out of a sense of attachment and insecurity that enveloped his mind. Whatever be the real reason, it is a matter of record that until this Court appointed an interim Administrator in April 2005, the affairs of the Trust were run by the daughters and son-in-law. It is also a matter of record that there was no unity among them. Out of the three daughters of Namasivayam, one became the Managing Trustee. The second as well as the husband of the third, hurled allegations against the Managing Trustee. In the course of hearing of the main suit, the second daughter joined hands with the Managing Trustee daughter, but the husband of the eldest daughter, who is the fifth defendant, has not chosen to retract from the allegations made by him in the written statement itself. The fourth defendant, who made serious allegations against her sister and who even insisted upon a criminal complaint of misappropriation and breach of trust being lodged against the second defendant, has now cemented ties with the second defendant and withdrawn her petition making allegations. What is worse is the fact that she has taken a stand that she was constrained to make allegations against the second defendant, at the instance of the Interim Administrator appointed by this Court. Such a stand does not inspire my confidence. On the contrary, I am convinced that the act of the fourth defendant in withdrawing her application containing allegations against the second defendant is only a temporary truce, to ward off outsiders from getting into the Trust. Beyond proving that blood is thicker than water, the fourth defendant's act of joining hands with the second defendant does not merit acceptance. I have one more reason for this conclusion. While the allegations made by the fourth defendant as against the second defendant resulted in a criminal complaint in Crime No.14 of 2006 being registered as early as in 2006, the request made by the fourth defendant for the withdrawal of the complaint was made after three years on 08.9.2009 under Ex.P109. Even in Ex.P109, the fourth defendant did not make any allegation against the Interim Administrator to the effect that he compelled her to give a complaint. 12.13. Therefore, it is clear that the solidarity now expressed before this Court at least by the fourth defendant with the second defendant, is a hoax and an alliance of convenience and I cannot go by the same. The fifth defendant has stuck to his guns in demanding the framing of a Scheme. Therefore, there are two reasons as to why a Scheme should be framed. They are (i) that a public charitable Trust created in 1987 and kept by the Founder, out of the reach of his family members for a period of ten years, cannot be allowed to become a family business, and (ii) that in any case, the members of the family of the Founder have no unity among themselves. The attempt to stage manage a show of unity in the course of the trial, does not inspire my confidence. Therefore, I am of the view that a Scheme needs to be framed. 12.14. One of the grounds on which the plaintiffs seek the framing of a Scheme is that the defendants 2 to 5 have no authority to continue as Trustees, since their continuation in office after the year 2000, was not in accordance with the provisions of the deed of Trust. 12.15. While the fifth defendant was inducted in May 1996, the defendants 2 to 4 were inducted under Ex.P65 on 06.6.1998. Their tenure came to an end in the year 2000. But, they got their term of Trusteeship extended once in two years thereafter. According to the plaintiffs, the provisions of the deed of Trust are drafted in such a manner that a retiring/ outgoing Trustee can get renominated, only by a resolution passed by the continuing Trustees. In other words, no Trustee will be a party to a resolution by which he is appointed or renominated. But after 1998, the defendants 2 to 4 renominated themselves as Trustees once in two years. Therefore, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the continuance in office of the defendants 2 to 4 was contrary to the terms of the deed of Trust. 12.16. Though technically the above contention of the plaintiffs is correct, that may not by itself provide a justification for framing a scheme. The Founder of the Trust - Namasivayam was alive in the years 1998 and 2000. He was a party to Ex.P65 by which the defendants 2 to 4 were inducted into the Trust on 06.6.1998. Since all of them (D2 to D4) were inducted on the same date, namely 06.6.1998, their retirement was also on the same date. The Trustees who could have continued at that time were only Mr.Namasivayam and the fifth defendant. No institution can tolerate any vacuum. Therefore, the clause contained in the deed of Trust providing for the filling up of the vacancies by nomination, by the life Trustee and the other Trustee holding office, cannot be construed to mean that the renomination of the defendants 2 to 4 in the years 2000, 2002 and 2004 was illegal. Hence, I would not proceed to hold Issue No.(i) in favour of the plaintiffs, solely or merely on the ground that the continuance in office of the defendants 2 to 4 after the year 2000 was illegal. 12.17. Coming to the allegations of misappropriation and breach of trust, it is seen that a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as Interim Administrator on 29.4.2005. In the first meeting convened by him on 18.5.2005, the defendants 2 to 4 had participated, as seen from the minutes of the meeting, filed as Ex.P82. Item No.7 of the minutes of the said meeting shows that about 100 persons had been appointed as non teaching staff without any orders of appointment and that the second defendant was directed to give details of such persons. The second defendant is a party to this decision. 12.18. In the meeting held on 30.8.2005, the minutes in respect of which are filed as Ex.P84, it was recorded that the accounts for the year 2004-2005 could not be finalised by the Auditor, since vouchers for the huge amounts drawn by employees as well as third parties, were not made available. The second defendant did not attend this meeting. 12.19. The reports of the Chartered Accountant are filed as Exx.P86, P88 and P89. These reports show (i) that payments were made for purposes other than that of the college; and (ii) that bearer cheques were issued in the name of some employees, to the tune of thousands of rupees. These reports were taken note of in the meeting held on 22.02.2006, whose minutes are filed as Ex.P90. The second defendant was a party to the said minutes. 12.20. Subsequently, some of the records relating to period 2004-2005 were handed over to the Auditor, as seen from the letter of the Principal filed as Ex.P91. Upon receipt of the records, the Auditor seems to have completed the task of writing the accounts up to 31.10.2004. While communicating this fact, by his letter dated 16.3.2006, filed as Ex.P93, the Auditor also pointed out that the bank balance as on 31.10.2004 as per the passbook was Rs.4,08,47,372/-, while it was Rs.4,01,28,476/- as per the College ledger. Thereafter, the second defendant herself sent a letter dated 18.3.2006 filed as Ex.P94 requesting one month time to complete the writing of accounts. 12.21. Pointing out the fact that bearer cheques were issued by the second defendant to the employees of the College for the withdrawal of huge amounts from the banks and also pointing out that the counterfoils of the cheques were not produced by her, the Interim Administrator appointed by this Court filed a report on 24.4.2006. A copy of the said report was filed as Ex.P99. This report was also placed in a meeting of the Board convened on 17.5.2006. The minutes of the meeting held on 17.5.2006 is filed as Ex.P100. During the said meeting, the plaintiffs gave a letter requesting the Administrator to initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible for misappropriation. The fourth defendant - N.V.Usha also gave a letter dated 07.5.2006 and the fifth defendant's wife - N.T.Selvarani gave a letter dated 09.5.2006, requesting the Administrator to take criminal action. 12.22. Thereafter, a first information report was lodged in Cr.No.14 of 2006 on 20.6.2006 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Tiruvarur, for alleged offences of misappropriation and breach of trust of the funds of the Trust to the tune of Rs.31,87,220/-. The second defendant, who issued the cheques and the employees who encashed those cheques were made the accused. A copy of the FIR is filed as Ex.D46 by the defendants themselves. 12.23. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.461 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mannargudi on 29.8.2007. The copy of the same is filed as Ex.D48. Thereafter, the second defendant as well as the co-accused have filed petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.23059, 24700 and 25422 of 2010 on the file of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge sheet. On those petitions, this Court appears to have granted a stay of further proceedings, as seen from Ex.D49 and Ex.D50. 12.24. The Administrator thereafter moved two applications before this Court in A.Nos.6020 and 6021 of 2010, seeking the removal of the second defendant and also seeking a direction to the second defendant to secure the records. The copies of these applications are filed as Ex.D77 and Ex.D78. An interim order was passed in these applications which also eventually led to a notice of contempt issued against the second defendant. But the said interim order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, has been stayed by the Division Bench in an appeal in O.S.A.No.15 of 2011. The copies of the interim orders passed in the said applications and the copy of the stay order granted by the Division Bench are filed as Exx.D78, D81, D82 and D86. 12.25. In retaliation to the application filed by the Administrator for her removal, the second defendant filed an application in A.No.293 of 2011 for the removal of the Administrator himself, alleging collusion between him and the plaintiffs 2 and 3. As I have pointed out in the first part of this judgement, both parties advanced arguments, first on this application for removal of the Administrator. But after I reserved orders in that application, the parties requested me to take up the suit itself for disposal. 12.26. The above sequence of events, which had taken place after this Court appointed a retired Judge as an Administrator in April 2005, would go to show that very serious allegations of misappropriation and breach of trust have been made not only by the plaintiffs, but also by the fourth defendant and the fifth defendant's wife against the second defendant. Apart from giving a letter dated 07.5.2006 to the Administrator (recorded in Ex.P100) to take criminal action against the second defendant, the fourth defendant also came up with an application in A.No.2673 of 2006 before this Court seeking the removal of the second defendant from the post of Trusteeship. The affidavit filed by the fourth defendant in support of A.No.2673 of 2006 is filed as Ex.P119. But, subsequently, the fourth defendant changed her mind and filed a reply affidavit in another application A.No.293 of 2011, seeking to withdraw A.No.2673 of 2006. The said reply affidavit is filed as Ex.D96. Interestingly, the reason stated by the fourth defendant for retracting from her earlier stand is that she made allegations against the second defendant at the instance of the Administrator, out of fear that she herself might be implicated otherwise. But, this is something that needs to be condemned. An affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Condemning such an action and attitude on the part of litigants and witnesses, the Supreme Court pointed out In Re: Suo Motu proceedings against R.Karuppan, Advocate ((2001) 5 SCC289, as follows: ".It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, concededly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time. The present case is no exception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country.". Therefore, the attempt made by the fourth defendant through Ex.D96 to withdraw the affidavit filed in Ex.P119, is actually contemptuous. If Ex.P119 discredited the second defendant, Ex.D96 discredited the fourth defendant. Through Ex.D96, the fourth defendant cannot sail the second defendant to safety, but, at the most, the fourth defendant can also sink with the second defendant. In any case, what was withdrawn by the fourth defendant was only the application A.No.2673 of 2006 containing allegations against the second defendant. The withdrawal of an application would tantamount only to the withdrawal of the prayer made therein, but not to an automatic withdrawal of the allegations contained therein. 12.27. But the second defendant is sought to be defended against these allegations by Mr.S.Prabhakaran, her learned counsel, on the following basis : (i) that the allegations were made on account of non availability of the records for the period 2004-2005, for which the plaintiffs and not the second defendant, is to be blamed; (ii) that the huge withdrawals from banks through bearer cheques, were for the purpose of making payment to the daily rated workers, employed for construction and maintenance work in the college and (iii) that the stay of further proceedings granted by this Court in the criminal case would show that the allegations have no legs to stand. 12.28. According to the learned counsel for the second defendant, the Administrator first appointed a person by name Dr.Pawnraja to enquire into the missing of the records. He filed a report naming one Mr.V.S.Kumar. Later a retired District Judge was appointed to enquire into the matter. But he returned the papers citing ill-health. It is the contention of the second defendant that in the light of these facts and also in the light of the complaint made by the second defendant and the statements made by the staff of the College, filed as Ex.D29 to Ex.D31, the second defendant cannot be held responsible for the missing of the records. 12.29. But I am not concerned here, with the issue relating to missing records. The fact remains that due to the missing of the records, the accounts could not be finalised and the exemption granted under the Income Tax Act got withdrawn, as a consequence. As a person who was the Managing Trustee up to the date of appointment of an Interim Administrator in April 2005, the second defendant had a duty and responsibility to keep all the records in safe custody. Assuming without admitting that there is no criminal intent, the second defendant cannot escape at least vicarious responsibility. 12.30. The second defendant's contention that the payments to be made to daily rated workers involved in construction and maintenance justified huge withdrawals, cannot be accepted. The affairs of a public charitable Trust cannot be run like private business concerns. Even in relation to private property, in a country like ours, Mahatma Gandhi advocated the public trust doctrine. Therefore, the withdrawals of huge amounts on a single day through the employees by issuing bearer cheques, cannot be accepted. 12.31. The stay of further proceedings granted by this Court in the quash petitions, cannot be taken to be a clean chit to the second defendant. The filing of the final report by the police after investigation and the Criminal Court taking cognizance, would at least show that the allegations of misappropriation and breach of trust were not made either wildly or in an irresponsible manner. 12.32. Therefore, I hold on issue No.(i) that the plaintiffs have made out a strong case for the framing of a Scheme for the proper administration of the Trust. The following factors, namely, (i) the allegations traded by the defendants 2 to 5 against each other; (ii) the complaints of criminal offences given by the fourth defendant and the fifth defendant's wife against the second defendant; (iii) the removal of the fifth defendant, by the second defendant, both from the Trusteeship and from the post of Correspondent, forcing the fifth defendant to file two suits; (iv) the cognizance taken by the Criminal Court, of a final report filed by the police, after investigation into allegations of breach of trust and misappropriation against defendants 2 and 3; and (v) the subsequent act of the fourth defendant in withdrawing the application A.No.2673 of 2006 containing allegations against the second defendant, to put up a mock show of unity among the three sisters, are more than enough to hold that there is something seriously wrong in the management and administration of the affairs of the Trust. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding under Issue No.(i) that a Scheme deserves to be framed. 12.33. The contention of the second defendant that in pursuance of an order passed by the Apex Court, in a Special Leave Petition arising out of an order of the Division Bench, the records have already been submitted, does not convince to me to answer Issue No.(i) against the plaintiffs. The show of unity now put up by the three sisters, is nothing but an alliance of convenience and purely opportunistic in nature. Even assuming without admitting that this litigation has brought the three sisters together, it is no ground to refuse the framing of a Scheme. As pointed out earlier, the Trust is a public charitable Trust and the jurisdiction of this Court is parens patriae. Therefore, the management and administration of the affairs of such a public charitable Trust, cannot be left entirely to the members of a family, as though it is a private family business concern. 12.34. Moreover, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed some documents to show that the Trust bought properties and developed the educational institution out of the donations collected by Namasivayam from his friends and philanthropists. These documents have been filed primarily with a view to show that the Railway Union had nothing to do with the Trust. But the contention that Railwaymen had nothing to do with the Trust is uncharitable and the documents filed to show private donations are unbelievable. This is nothing but an attempt to keep the Trust as a closed door club. 12.35. Drawing my attention to the legal notice dated 01.9.2003, issued by the plaintiffs and filed as Ex.D10, Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 contended that the original and only intention of the plaintiffs was to induct their own members into the Trust and that the plaintiffs had come up with allegations of breach of trust and misfeasance, only after the defendants resisted the attempt of the plaintiffs to gain control over the Trust. Under Ex.D1 - Trust Deed, the maximum number of Trustees is prescribed only as 5. But, the demand made by the plaintiffs was to include 5 members of their Trade Union by amending the Deed of Trust. Therefore, the learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 contended that the plaintiffs wanted to go beyond the scope of the deed of Trust and gain control over the affairs of the Trust and that after their failure to coerce the defendants 2 to 4 to induct 5 members of the trade Union, they have started throwing false allegations. In other words, it is the personal interest of the plaintiffs that had motivated the Scheme suit and hence, there is no public interest warranting the framing of a Scheme. 12.36. But, I am unable to sustain the above objection. Even if the plaintiffs had been driven by the motive of inducting their own men into the Trust, I cannot really find fault with the same. As I have found out earlier, the workmen of the Southern Railways had contributed little drops of money, that ultimately became an ocean. Even if the Trade Union had not come up with the above Scheme suit, but two workmen of the Railways had come up, I would have done the same thing, holding that a Scheme needs to be framed. 12.37. Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned senior counsel for the fourth defendant, who has now crossed floors, raised a legal contention to the very entitlement of the first plaintiff Trade Union to stake a claim in a public charitable Trust. After referring to the definition of the expression ".Trade Union". in Section 2(h) and the provisions of Section 6 and 15(h) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the learned senior counsel contended that there are lot of restrictions both about the activities that could be undertaken by a Trade Union and about the objects on which the general funds of the Union may be spent. According to the learned senior counsel, the first plaintiff Union would have actually violated all the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, if they had done what they claim to have done. Since there is no presumption in favour of an unlawful activity, the learned senior counsel contended that the claims made by the first plaintiff about the contributions made by the Union to the Trust in question have to be rejected outright. 12.38. I am not concerned here about the legality or otherwise of what the first plaintiff Trade Union had done. Whatever the first plaintiff Trade Union had done or not done, has to be traced only to the fourth defendant's father Namasivayam. Once I find on facts that the first plaintiff Trade Union had carried out certain activities that entitle them to seek the framing of a Scheme for the Trust in question, I cannot desist from recording such a finding merely because of the adverse consequences that would flow to the Trade Union. The documents filed before me clearly show that huge amounts of money were collected by the Trade Union from the poor workers, for the purpose of enabling the Trust in question to establish an Engineering College. Therefore, the only question is whether the Trust is a public Trust and whether persons at the helm of affairs of the Trust have been guilty of breach of trust or not. Both these questions have to be answered only in the affirmative and hence, I hold on Issue No.(i) that it is a fit case where a Scheme has to be framed by this Court. Issue No.(ii): (Persons who are entitled to be appointed as Trustees and the nature of the provision to be made for Trusteeship in the first defendant Trust?.) 13.1. Once it is found that a Scheme has necessarily to be framed for the administration of the Trust, then the next question to be considered is as to the persons who could be nominated as Trustees and the kind of provisions to be made in the deed of Trust, for a smooth devolution and transition of the office of Trusteeship, after the expiry of the tenure of each set of Trustees. 13.2. On the issue as to who are the persons who could be appointed as Trustees, the plaintiffs contend (i) that since the Mazdoor Welfare Trust was created for the benefit of the Railwaymen, with liberal contributions made by the Mazdoors employed in the Railways, the representatives of the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union should be nominated to the Board, and (ii) that since the members of the family of Namasivayam discredited themselves by indulging in acts of misappropriation, breach of trust, etc., they should have no place in the Board of Trustees. 13.3. Per contra, defendants 2 to 4 contend (i) that since the Mazdoor Union has nothing to do with the Trust, neither its Office bearers nor its representatives have any role to play in the Board of Trustees, and (ii) that since the properties of Namasivayam and his family members were utilised for developing the educational institutions, the family members should constitute the Board of Trustees, as Namasivayam himself had done in 1998. 13.4. Therefore, in order to find an answer to the second issue arising for consideration in the suit, it is necessary to find out (i) the role played by the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union or at least the Mazdoors employed in Southern Railway, and (ii) the role played by the family members of Namasivayam or at least the role played by Namasivayam as an individual. Role played by the Union or the Mazdoors:

13. 4.1. As pointed out earlier, it was stated in the preamble of the deed of Trust dated 04.11.1987 (Ex.D1) that the Trust was created by its Founder on account of his desire to help and serve the Mazdoors working in the Railways and people belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. At the time when the deed of Trust was created, the Founder was the General Secretary of the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union and the Co-Trustees named by him under Ex.D1 were also Office bearers of the Railway Union. 13.4.2. In the resolution passed at the 33rd Annual General Body Meeting of the Union on 22.6.1998, a copy of which is filed as Ex.D5, it was resolved that the Mazdoor Welfare Trust was an independent body and that the Union had no control over the Trust. Reliance is placed by the defendants on this resolution, to contend that the Union has nothing to do with the Trust. But, it is stated in the very same resolution that Railwaymen/members of the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union contributed largely to the Trust. It was further resolved in the same meeting, assuring Namasivayam that the Union will render all assistance by contributing as hitherto. 13.4.3. A booklet titled ".Mazdoor Welfare Trust (Reflections and Recollections)"., circulated on 08.11.1987 by Mr.M.Namasivayam himself on the occasion of the launching of the Trust at the Railway Community Hall known as Nakkeerar Arangam, near Egmore Railway Station, Chennai 600 008, is filed as Ex.P1. A list of donors is appended to this booklet, which shows that a sum of Rs.4,05,585/- was the total amount of donations collected up to 05.11.1987. That this amount constituted the seeds sown at the earliest point of time, for the growth of the finances of the Trust into a huge tree at a later point of time, is borne out by the statement made by Namasivayam in the last but fourth paragraph of the booklet Ex.P1. A look at the list of donors annexed to Ex.P1 shows that the entire amount of Rs.4,05,585/- had come from the employees of the Railways at various branches and divisions. Not a single penny, out of the said amount, had come from any third party. Interestingly, while the cover page of the booklet contains the title ".MAZDOOR WELFARE TRUST (Reflections & Recollections)"., the cover page at the back carries the title ".Support SOUTHERN RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION (Affiliated to AIRF)".. 13.4.4. During the period from 1989 to 1994, the Founder of the Trust M.Namasivayam had issued several circulars, in his capacity as General Secretary of the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union. These circulars are filed as Exx.P2 to P8. While Ex.P2 contains the list of donations received from the Madras Division, Mysore Division, Bangalore Division, Workshop Division, Madurai Division, Trivandrum Division, Tiruchirapalli Division and Palghat East and West Divisions, totalling to an amount of Rs.11,53,322/-, Ex.P3 is a circular conveying various decisions taken in the meetings of the Central Working Committee of the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union. Decision No.15 taken by the Central Working Committee of the Union and communicated under Ex.P3 reads as follows: ".The College proposed to be started by Mazdoor Welfare Trust may be located in the Divisional Head Quarters which stands constantly in first place in bonus donation collection in the ensuing years 1989, 1990 and 1991.". Ex.P3 is signed by M.Namasivayam as the General Secretary of the Union and he was obviously a party to the above decision taken at the Central Working Committee of the Union. 13.4.5. Ex.P4 is also a circular sent by M.Namasivayam in his capacity as General Secretary of the Union. It is titled ".Organisation Circular No.70". and is addressed to all Divisional Secretaries, Branch Secretaries and Central Office representatives of the Union. But, the only purpose for which the said circular had been issued, is to show that a total amount of Rs.13,24,366/- had been collected from the Railwaymen, for the Trust. Ex.P4 not only contains a list showing details of donations Division wise, but also evaluated the performance of the Divisions, on the basis of the total amounts collected. Both Exx.P2 and P4 would show that the poorest of the employees of the Railways had each contributed small amounts, exhibiting large heartedness. 13.4.6. Ex.P5 is a circular dated 09.11.1990. It was also issued by Namasivayam in his capacity as General Secretary of the Union. It is also addressed to Branch Secretaries and Central Office representatives of the Union and it is also titled as ".Organisation Circular No.86".. The only purpose of the circular is to indicate that the collection for the Trust was already over and that the amounts collected should be remitted immediately. 13.4.7. Ex.P6 is again a circular dated 09.4.1994 sent by Namasivayam to Branch Secretaries and Central Office representatives of the Union. The contents of this circular require reproduction, since they would, by themselves, indicate the answer to be given to the issue on hand. Hence, Ex.P6 is extracted as under: ".You are specially requested to go through this circular carefully.

1. You must complete 50% of remittance before 1st of May '94. Note: The balance 50% remittance must be over by 31.05.94. The Working Committee Members and other Office bearers including Divisional Office bearers will be decided in the General Body meeting on 26.06.94, on the basis of the remittance as on 31.05.94. This will be on the basis of merit from among these who have completed 90% and above, as on 31.05.94.

2. Changes of Office bearers are done frequently. I will outline a practical conditions for acceptance of change of Office bearers in the Working Committee.

3. All Working Committee Members and Branch Secretaries may come to Tanjore on the 1st of May 1994, so that, all can go and see the land purchased for Mazdoor Welfare Trust. The Train for Kovilvenni station will leave from Tanjore (TJ-NGT line) at 09.00 hrs. and all will go by this train. The Train will reach Kovilvenni station in an hours time. We will be returning to Tanjore by the Train which leaves Kovilvenni by 13.30 hrs.

4. Donation Books will be distributed directly to the Branch Secretaries at Tanjore. Area Incharges will get the Books where the Branch Secretaries are not present. The Donation Collections should start immediately and at least 40% of the target must be over before Bonus payments.

5. The target for each branch is based on the total number of employees at the rate of Rs.100/- per head. It means, the contact with the Workers must be very close and every Worker should feel proud, that for the first time in the Indian Railways history, a Trade Union is opening one (i) Engineering College and (ii) Polytechnic. We are also planning to start I T I (Industrial Training Institutions), all the three simultaneously. This will be followed by a number of Technical institutions like (i) College of Pharmacy (ii) College of Nursing (iii) College of Physiotherapy, (iv) Arts College, (v) College for Advance course in Computer Science, (vi) College for Post Graduate studies, all within another 3 to 4 years of time. The proposed campus with an area of more than 100 acres will be a Model for the whole country.

6. First of all, you must be proud. Then only, you will be able to make other Workers feel proud. The difficulty with me is, that 50% of Office bearers are half-hearted and they must change their minds immediately. If you accept to continue beyond 01.05.94, it means, that you will fully agree for the collection at the rate of Rs.100/- per head, and you will fully devote your time for collection from Railwaymen and Outsiders. Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter. Yours fraternally, Sd/- (M.NAMASIVAYAM) GENERAL SECRETARY. Note: There will be Working Committee Meeting for only one day i.e. on 01.05.94. All Working Committee Members and all Branch Secretaries should be available and ready at Tanjore Railway Station to leave for Kovilvenni by 09.00 hours train.". 13.4.8. It may be noted from the contents of Ex.P6 extracted above that the Founder of the Trust called upon the Mazdoors to be proud of creating history in the Railways, by establishing an Engineering College, a Polytechnic and an Industrial Training Institute. He also convened the Working Committee Meeting of the Union at the venue where the College was to be located. Therefore, the Founder of the Trust appears to have identified the Trust, at least mentally, as an extended arm of the Union, though he maintained the Trust as an independent entity, legally. 13.4.9. Ex.P7 is also a circular dated 16.4.1994 issued by the Founder of the Trust to all Areas-In-Charge, calling upon them to account for the collection and remittance of subscriptions and donations. In the note appended to the said circular, he indicated the time of arrival and departure at Kovilvenni, so as to enable the Central Executive Committee members to visit the location of the College. Similarly, Ex.P8 is a notice dated 26.5.1994 for the meeting of the Central Working Committee of the Union, scheduled to be held on 04th and 05th July 1994 at Thanjavur, to enable the members to visit the site purchased for the proposed Engineering College. 13.4.10. The above documents Exx.P1 to P8 indicate (i) that large amounts of donation poured into the Trust only from small Mazdoors employed in the Railways, and (ii) that at every stage, the Founder of the Trust involved the Office bearers, Branch Secretaries, Areas-In-charge and members of the Central Working Committee of the Union, in the blossoming and shaping of the Trust. 13.4.11. Apart from the contributions made by the employees of the Railways in both physical and fiscal terms, the Railway Administration itself, appears to have made a very valuable contribution, in the form of land. This is seen from Exx.P9, P15, P16, P46, P49, P50, P51, P52, P53, P55, P57 and P60. Ex.P9 is a letter written by the Founder of the Trust to the General Manager of Southern Railways, requesting the Railway Administration to assign a land of the extent of 3 acres in S.No.510, which was sandwiched between the Railway Station at Kovilvenni and the land already purchased by the Trust for locating the Engineering College. In order to convince the Railway Administration to part with this land, the Founder of the Trust represented to the General Manager of the Southern Railway (i) that he had an ambition to provide technical education to the wards of Railwaymen, as the problem of finding seats for the children of Railwaymen was getting acute, and (ii) that the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union, which was seized of this problem, started looking for a suitable site to construct an Engineering College and a Polytechnic, to begin with. It is interesting to note that in the fourth paragraph of the said letter, the Founder of the Trust actually stated that the cause (wrongly typed as cost) for which the SRMU acquired the land was noble. It is also interesting to note that Ex.P9 has been typed on the letter head of Mazdoor Welfare Trust. However, M.Namasivayam had signed it as General Secretary, though his designation is indicated in prints as ".Founder-Managing Trustee".. Thus, even for Namasivayam, the line of demarcation between the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union and the Mazdoor Welfare Trust was very thin and his role as the General Secretary of the former and the Founder of the latter got mixed up many times. Ex.P46 is a note by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer of the Southern Railway dated 09.12.1994, expressing doubts about the feasibility of allotting Railway land to the Trust. But, under Ex.P49 letter dated 24.4.1995, the Chief Engineer informed the Executive Director, Land Management of the Railway Board, that with the specific approval of the General Manager, an exchange of land could be recommended. By a reply dated 09.5.1995, filed as Ex.P50, the Executive Director expressed the desire of the Railway Board to constitute a High Level Team to visit the site and to submit their recommendation. This was followed by a telex message dated 07.6.1995 from the Railway Board, filed as Ex.P51, seeking a report at an early date. Therefore, by a letter dated 12/14.9.1995, the Chief Engineer wrote to the District Collector seeking his concurrence for the acquisition of 4.38 acres of land by the State Government, to enable the Railway Administration to transfer their own land to the Mazdoor Welfare Trust. This letter, filed as Ex.P52, shows that the Railway Administration understood the Trust to be an outfit of the Union. This is why the Railway Administration actually bent backwards to go ahead with the proposal. Ex.P52 was followed by Ex.P53 dated 16.10.1995 sent by the General Manager of the Southern Railway to the Executive Director requesting him to consider the proposal of the Trust favourably. Both in Exx.P52 and P53, the Railway Administration described the Trust as ".Mazdoor Welfare Trust of the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union".. Ex.P15 is a letter dated 17.11.1995 issued by the General Manager of the Southern Railways calling upon the Founder Managing Trustee to furnish information about the formation of the Mazdoor Welfare Trust and its link with Southern Railway Mazdoor Union. In response to Ex.P15, Namasivayam wrote a letter dated 06.12.1995, filed as Ex.P16, enclosing copies of the Trust deed and also informing the General Manager of three important facts, namely, (i) that the Trust was managed by three Trustees, all of whom were not only retired Railwaymen, but also the Office bearers of the Union, (ii) that the Trust has an unbreakable link with the Union, and (iii) that funds were collected from Railwaymen and outsiders. At last, under Ex.P55, letter dated 23.01.1996, the Executive Director, Land Management of the Railway Board, communicated the approval of the Ministry of Railways for the relinquishment of title to the Railway land of the extent of 1.774 hectares (about 4.39 acres), on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The Founder of the Trust communicated his acceptance under a letter dated 01.5.1996, filed as Ex.P57. Thereafter, by a letter dated 27.11.1996, filed as Ex.P60, the Founder Managing Trustee requested the District Collector to arrange for the early acquisition and transfer of land for the construction of College building. In this letter, Mr.Namasivayam himself described the Trust as ".Mazdoor Welfare Trust of Southern Railway Mazdoor Union".. 13.4.12. The decisions taken at the meeting of the Central Working Committee from 06.7.1994 to 09.7.1994, are filed as Ex.P10. The first and foremost decision taken in the meeting, speaks for itself, with a tone more convincing than any argument could do. Therefore, it is extracted as follows: Decision No.1 This CWC Meeting is gratified beyond words that for the first time, in Indian History, a Trade Union sponsored Trust, is starting an Engineering College, of its own. This meeting is further gratified, that this Engineering college is coming up by the initiative of all Railwaymen, without any financial help from Governmental sources. This meeting gives a call to all functionaries of the Union at all levels, that this is a golden opportunity before them to establish a track records in the Country's Labour front, that the Railwaymen have the nerves and commitments, to fulfil their own aspiration for an Engineering College, near Kovilvenni Railway Station in Nagapattinam Kaithe Milleth District, now in 1995. This meeting assures the Founder Managing Trustee of Mazdoor Welfare Trust and the General Secretary/SRMU that the entire Railwaymen as a Class, will stand behind him to start other Technical colleges also in 1996 and thereafter. The CWC fixes the following contributions from the Divisions, this year. MAS division - 50 Lakh WORKSHOP Division - 30 Lakh Palghat Division - 25 Lakh Trichy Division - 25 Lakh Madurai Division - 20 Lakh TVC Division - 15 Lakh SBC Division - 15 Lakh MYS Division - 15 Lakh All contributions mentioned above should reach Mazdoor Welfare Trust, before 31.12.1994. This meeting is also very happy that the work connected with the construction of the proposed Engineering college, has been undertaken in right earnest and the Architect is on the job. This meeting is also gratified that the Founder Managing Trustee of Mazdoor Welfare Trust and GS/SRMU has visited 6 to 7 Engineering colleges already and has a fairly good idea to fashion the Anjalai Ammal Mahalingam Engineering college, as a MODEL College.". 13.4.13. Ex.P11 is a circular dated 13.7.1994 issued by M.Namasivayam as the General Secretary of the Union to Branch Secretaries, Areas-In-Charge and COAs, conveying the decision of the Madras Divisional Council to make every Office bearer donate Rs.1,000/- and exhorting the Central Office bearers, Divisional Office bearers, Branch Presidents and Branch Secretaries to make similar contributions and also requesting the other Office bearers to make a contribution of a lesser amount. As seen from paragraph 1 of the circular, the donation was for the benefit of the Trust. Paragraph 2 of the circular shows that Mr.C.A.Raja Sridhar, the second plaintiff, also donated Rs.1,000/- on the spot. 13.4.14. Ex.P12 series comprise of the booklet issued by the Anjalai Ammal - Mahalingam Engineering College, the letter of the Founder Trustee to the AICTE, a statement of the financial position, a certificate issued by the Syndicate Bank, an affidavit filed by the Founder Trustee, the letter of the Bharathidasan University for the grant of affiliation and several reports that appeared in various newspapers, both English and vernacular. A reference to the newspapers, was objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, on the ground that newspaper reports have no evidentiary value. Without going into the said question, I shall, for the present, ignore the newspaper reports and deal only with the other documents constituting Ex.P12. 13.4.15. The first document comprised in Ex.P12 series is an appeal by Mr.M.Namasivayam for donations. What is stated in Tamil in the said letter, when translated, would read as follows: ".We are poor: lesser mortals. We bound ourselves to establish, for the first time in the annuls of the history of the working class, an Engineering College by the workers, only after receiving donations to the tune of Rs.2.5 Crores from the Railway workers. ... Lakhs and lakhs of Railwaymen and their families would always bless the donors and their families.". Though this appeal which forms part of Ex.P12 series was made in the letter head of the College, with M.Namasivayam signing it for and on behalf of the Mazdoor Welfare Trust, the contact address given at the bottom described him only as the General Secretary of the Union with the address and phone numbers of the Office of the Union. 13.4.16. In the appeal for donations, made in English on 24.7.1994, which also forms part of Ex.P12 series, M.Namasivayam described Mazdoor Welfare Trust as an outfit of Southern Railway Mazdoor Union, established in 1987, with an avowed goal of selfless service to all classes of Railwaymen, besides socially and economically backward sisters and brothers. It was also stated by him in the first paragraph of the said communication that through contributions from Railwaymen alone, the Trust purchased 60 acres of land spread between Kovilvenni Railway Station and Tanjore-Nagapattinam Trunk Road. In the third paragraph, Namasivayam claimed that for the first time in the Nation's long history, the Railwaymen were writing a unique chapter with the moulding of an Engineering College. 13.4.17. In the next communication which forms part of Ex.P12 series, M.Namasivayam informed all concerned that the Expert Committee of the All India Council for Technical Education had completed the inspection. In the last paragraph of the said communication, he proclaimed proudly that it was the first ever Engineering College run by the workers. Similarly, in the letter addressed to the Chairman of the All India Council for Technical Education, M.Namasivayam claimed that the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union founded the Mazdoor Welfare Trust in 1987 and that Anjalai Ammal Mahalingam Engineering College was the brain child of the Union. In paragraph 2 of the said letter, the Founder Trustee claimed that the donation collected from the workers, was for the purpose of spreading the field of activity from pure Trade Unionism to the area of Constructive Education. In the penultimate paragraph, he claimed that it was the first ever ".WORKERS MANAGED". Model Engineering College. A copy of this letter is also filed separately as Ex.P45. 13.4.18. Ex.P13 is a letter sent by the Commissioner of Agriculture dated 15.11.1994 requesting the Joint Director of Agriculture, Nagapattinam, to advice M.Namasivayam to apply with necessary details for the grant of a No Objection Certificate for the conversion of wet lands, for the purpose of constructing buildings for the Engineering College. Interestingly, the very application for conversion of land appears to have been made by Namasivayam, not in the name of the Trust and not in his capacity as Managing Trustee, but in the name of the Union and in his capacity as its General Secretary. 13.4.19. Similarly, Ex.P14 is the minutes of the meeting of the Central Working Committee of the Union, held on 19.7.1995 at Chennai. It was presided over by the second plaintiff. Decision No.5 taken at the said meeting was to hold the meeting of the General Body of the Union at Kovilvenni, to coincide with the inaugural function of the Engineering College. 13.4.20. The calendar of Anjalai Ammal Mahalingam Engineering College for the year 1996-97, filed as Ex.P17, contains a brief history of the College. It is stated therein that for the first time in the history of our country, workers formed a Trust and started a Self Financing Engineering College. 13.4.21. Ex.P18, which is a minutes of the meeting of the Central Working Committee held from 21.5.1996 to 24.5.1996, shows that a decision was taken therein (Decision No.5) to admit two wards of Railwaymen for the academic year 1996-97 in the College started by the Trust. The Union promised to provide education to them free of cost. 13.4.22. The Souvenir of the College published in the year 1997 and filed as Ex.P20 contains a message from M.Namasivayam stating that the Engineering College was the only Self Financing Engineering College managed by workers in the whole of Asia. 13.4.23. Ex.P21 is the minutes of the monthly meeting of the Office bearers of the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union. Interestingly, it was held at the Conference Hall of Anjalai Ammal Mahalingam Engineering College, Kovilvenni on 19.7.1998. It was presided over by the second plaintiff. As the Correspondent of the College, the fifth defendant welcomed the Office bearers of the Union, as seen from paragraph 2 of Ex.P21. If the Union had nothing to do with the Trust or the College, the College had no business to permit the Union to have the monthly meeting of its Office bearers at the College premises. The fact that the fifth defendant, who is the son-in-law of the Founder and who was then the Correspondent of the College, welcomed the Office bearers of the Union on that occasion would show that the family members also had knowledge of the involvement of the members of the Union in the affairs of the Trust. 13.4.24. In a letter dated 24.11.1998, addressed to the All India Council for Technical Education, filed as Ex.P22, seeking their approval for starting Post Graduate courses in Mechanical and Computer Engineering, the Founder of the Trust indicated in paragraph 6 that the College was funded by lakhs of Railwaymen. 13.4.25. Apart from the above documents, namely, Exx.P1 to P22 (except Ex.P19), which show the role played by the workers and the Union in the formation of the Trust and the establishment of the College, the plaintiffs have also filed the Audit certificate for the years 1988-89, Audit certificate for the years 1996-2001, Extract of summary of money collections for Mazdoor Welfare Trust, Mazdoor Welfare Trust income and expenditure for the period ending 31.3.1988, Mazdoor Welfare Trust receipts and payments for the period ending 31.3.1989, Mazdoor Welfare Trust receipts and payments for the period ending 31.3.1990, Mazdoor Welfare Trust receipts and payments for the period ending 31.3.1991, Mazdoor Welfare Trust receipts and payments for the period ending 31.3.1992 and Mazdoor Welfare Trust receipts and payments for the period ending 31.3.1993, as Exx.P28 to P36. The receipts and expenditure account of the Mazdoor Welfare Trust for the period ending 31.3.1994, 31.3.1995, 31.3.1996, 31.3.1997 and 31.3.1998 are also filed as Exx.P43, P47, P56, P62 and P64 respectively. All these documents show the collection of donations by the Mazdoor Welfare Trust. The amount of collections indicated in these documents are corroborated by the statements made from time to time by M.Namasivayam about the collections that had come up from the Railwaymen. Exx.P28 and P29 also show the loan granted by the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union to the Mazdoor Welfare Trust. 13.4.26. Ex.P37 is a letter dated 14.9.1993, sent by M.Namasivayam as the Managing Trustee of the Mazdoor Welfare Trust, to the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), seeking renewal of the exemption under Section 80-G. The letter mentions the collections as on 05.11.1987 as Rs.4,05,565/-, which tallies with the amount mentioned in Ex.P1. 13.4.27. Ex.P38 is another letter addressed to the same person for the same purpose. In paragraph 5 of the said letter, Mr.Namasivayam had given the details of year wise collections. In paragraph 6, he also indicated in a tabular column, the number of Railway Divisions, the number of Branches, the number of workers, the total collections and the average collection per worker per year. In paragraph 7, Mr.Namasivayam himself had mentioned that the funds indicated therein were collected from workers employed in the Southern Railway and that funds were collected from the members of the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union, who are the sponsors of the Mazdoor Welfare Trust. In paragraph 9 of Ex.P38, Mr.Namasivayam described the manner in which collections were made and receipts were issued. The contents of paragraphs 9 and 10 are very significant and hence, they are reproduced as follows: ".9. The Mazdoor Welfare Trust in Madras prints and supplies receipt books to the branches and the branches in turn collect donations from the workers and issue them receipts. The donations collected from the workers are small denominations like Rs.20, 30, 50, 100, etc. A mention is made in the receipt book that the donations are made for purpose of corpus fund. ....

10. It would be difficult to get individual confirmation from each of the workers who have given donations since the number of employees who contribute are more than 60,000, 70,000. Further more, it is relevant to mention that the collections are made at that time of Bonus Payment which will be regularly 4 or 5 days every year in the month of October and one can imagine the impossibility of getting signature from so large a number in so short a time. Hence we would request you to kindly accept the confirmation certificates issued by Divisional Secretaries for the donations collected in their divisions.". Again in paragraph 13 of Ex.P38, Mr.Namasivayam stated that ".our organisation is a charitable organisation started for bona fide charitable purpose of establishing educational institutions for low category of railway workers employed in the Southern Region".. 13.4.27. In a Note on the Activities of the Mazdoor Welfare Trust, which is undated and which is filed as Ex.P66, M.Namasivayam had indicated in the first paragraph itself that the Trust was a creation of the Union. It is extracted as follows : ".More than 1 lakh railwaymen are members of Southern Railway Mazdoor Union. For a noble cause, this union (SRMU) has created a trust called 'MAZDOOR WELFARE TRUST', in the year 1985. This trust has grown steadily and we collected donations every year from railwaymen. In the year 1993, it was proposed to start an Engineering College and therefore purchased 65 acres of land at Kovilvenni village near Thanjavur.". Though this Note is undated, it clearly relates to the later half of 1997, since the progress of construction of the buildings for the College up to the third phase in 1997 are discussed in this letter. 13.4.28. The plaintiffs have also filed a set of 95 donation receipt books as Ex.P114 series. The authenticity of these receipt books is very hotly contested by the defendants. The first objection raised by the defendants is that the plaintiffs should explain as to how they could produce receipt books of the Mazdoor Welfare Trust. The second objection is that the counterfoils of receipts contained in these books, do not reflect the purpose for which the receipts were issued or the donations were made. 13.4.29. But, I do not think that the objections of the defendants are well-founded. Ex.P114 series are not the only documents that the defendants rely upon, to show that the Trust collected donations from Railwaymen. A host of other documents, to each of which I have made a reference in the preceding paragraphs, are relied upon by the plaintiffs. All the documents referred by me in the preceding paragraphs disclose in unequivocal terms, the following : (i) that the intention of the Founder of the Trust, in creating the Trust and establishing an Engineering College, was primarily for the benefit of the children of Railwaymen, apart from socially and educationally backward communities; (ii) that hundreds of thousands of poor workers/mazdoors of the Railway, contributed donations to the Trust, on the strength of the promises held out by their leader and on the basis of the high ideals projected by their leader, who founded the Trust; (iii) that from the date of creation of the Trust in the year 1987 till the Engineering College got established with a good and sufficient infrastructure in the year 1997, the Founder of the Trust involved only the Railwaymen (Office bearers of the Union) in the Board of Trustees; and (iv) that the Office bearers of the Union, who joined the Founder, as his co-Trustees in the year 1987, were jettisoned in 1997, after the college was firmly and safely launched into the orbit and after it reached a stage when the Trust and the College could take care of themselves without any support from the Union or its office bearers. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that the Trust and the Engineering College were born out of the sweat, blood and toil of poor mazdoors of the Railway and it would be a travesty of justice to belittle the role played by those little men. 13.4.30. Based upon Ex.D5, which is a resolution passed in the 33rd Annual General Meeting of the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union, held on 22.6.1998, it was contended by Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 that the Union has nothing to do with the Trust. But unfortunately for the defendants, Ex.D5 is neither a relinquishment of any rights of the Union to have the affairs of the Trust properly managed nor an acknowledgement of lack of any right for the railway workmen in the Trust. The said resolution merely records a statement of fact that the Union has no control over the Trust legally. As a pure and simple proposition of law, it is also true, since the liberal contributions made by the members of the Union would not confer a right upon the Union to have control over the Trust. Therefore, Ex.D5 merely stated the obvious, both in terms of fact and in terms of law. 13.4.31. The defendants 2 to 4 have forgotten for a minute that what is examined by me is not the right of the Union over the Trust, but the role played by the Union in the creation of the Trust and the establishment of the College. Therefore, Ex.D5 will not help the defendants 2 to 4 to keep away the workers of the Railways. Role played by the family members of Namasivayam :

13. 5.1. Interestingly, the defendants 1 to 4 do not claim even in their pleadings that the family members ever contributed either in terms of money or in terms of physical labour, to the creation of the Trust or the establishment of the College. As pointed out earlier, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed a written statement, which has come to be adopted by the defendants 3 and 4. The fifth defendant has filed a separate written statement. The written statement filed by the fifth defendant does not dispute the role played by the Union and the Railwaymen. 13.5.2. A careful reading of the written statement filed by the second defendant would show that she does not make any claim to the effect that there was any great contribution from the members of the family. Admittedly, the Founder had three daughters and a son. The son died at a young age in 1997. All the three daughters were married. One son-in-law, who is the fifth defendant herein, was employed in the Department of Animal Husbandry in the State of Tamil Nadu. He was brought in by Namasivayam as the Correspondent of the College in the year 1996. One son-in-law is employed as an Officer in the Reserve Bank of India. Another son-in-law of the Founder recently retired from the Railway. Therefore, they do not make any claim as though that they contributed in any measure, either to the creation and establishment of the institution or to its development. The only contribution that they could now take credit for, is perhaps the legal battle into which the institution is plunged for the past about 8 years. 13.5.3. However, the fifth defendant has maintained a consistent and believable stand, both in respect of the role played by Railwaymen and in respect of his own role as the Correspondent as well as Trustee from 1996. 13.5.4. Apart from the fact that the defendants 1 to 4 do not plead about any contribution made by the family members, they could not also file any proof to show the role played by the family members in establishing and developing the institution. The only attempt made by the defendants 1 to 4, is to show (i) that the contributions collected by the Founder from philanthropists were greater than the contributions collected from Railwaymen (ii) that the local villagers sold their lands for small amounts, only due to their affinity to the family of the founder and (iii) that some properties of the family were used for developing the college. 13.5.5. The documents filed by the defendants 1 to 4 as Ex.D98 series, seek to establish that several philanthropists and several social welfare organisations contributed liberally to the Trust in question. Before examining the genuineness of these documents, which is also in question, it will be useful to present the contents of the documents in a tabular form. Ex.D98 series comprise of about 24 letters written by various fora to the second defendant, confirming the fact that they had made donations to the Trust in the past. The contents of the documents are tabulated as follows : SL.No.Date of Author of the Letter/Letters Year/Date Amount letter/letters of donation in Rs. 1 01.8.2011 TN Gandhi Mandra Iyakkam, Madurai-20. 1993 1 lakh 2 10.7.2011 All India Soniya Ghandhi Peravai, Tamilnadu Madurai-16. 1992 25 lakhs 3 10.7.2011 Tamilnadu Dhevar Peravai, Thiruvegampathu Post, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai Dist. 1993 25,000/- 4 01.8.2011 A.Ramachandran, Organiser, Maavatta Kallar Peravai, Valanai Post, Tiruvadanai Taluk, Ramnad District. 1992 25 lakhs 5 05.8.2011 Tamilnadu Moovendhar Panpattu Kazhagam, Ramnad District 1992 25 lakhs 6 10.8.2011 Sukra Travels, Sivagangai. 1993 20 lakhs 7 14.8.2011 Ka.Karuppiah, District Vice President, Bharatiya Janata Party, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. 1993 2 lakhs 8 05.6.2011 Yours Travels, Trichy-1 1992 15 lakhs 9 10.7.2011 Ma.Balasubramanian, Organiser, Marudhupandiyar Peravai, Sooraanam Post, Ilayankudi Taluk, Sivagangai District 1992 5 lakhs 10 05.8.2011 Mu.Sekar, Panchayat Union President, Bharatiya Janata Party, Kalayarkoil Panchayat, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District. 1992 1 lakh 11 01.8.2011 Sheik Welding Works, Ilayankudi, Sivagangai District. 1993 500/- 12 10.4.2011 Indian Human Rights Movement, Sivagangai District 5 lakhs 13 10.8.2011 Ma.Sathiah of Sivagangai District 1992 2001/- 14 25.8.2011 Kai.Velu of Sivagangai District 1992 25,000/- 15 10.7.2011 T.Velayutham of Trichy-8 1993 3,000/- 16 10.7.2011 S.Subbiah of Poolangudi, Sengudi Post, R.S.Mangalam (via), Ilayankudi Taluk 1993 5,000/- 17 V.Darmalingam of Devakottai 1993 3,000/- 18 S.Saraswathi of Devakottai 1992 5,001/- 19 Ma.Murugesan of Sivagangai District 1992 5,000/- 20 02.9.2011 S.M.Thirumaran 1993 10,000/- 21 16.8.2011 K.Karunanidhi of Mariyammankoil 14.03.1993 50,000/- 22 26.8.2011 K.Raja 08.12.1992 20,000/- 02.12.1993 15,000/- 16.01.1994 15,000/- 23 25.8.2011 R.Saravanan 02.01.1995 10,000/- 10.02.1995 10,000/- 20.03.1995 10,000/- 24 25.8.2011 N.Sivashankar 10.01.1993 40,000/- 20.02.1993 20,000/- 15.04.1995 15,000/- 02.06.1995 25,000/- 13.5.6. As rightly contended by Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, the above documents filed as Ex.D98 series have no evidentiary value and no credibility. There are any number of reasons why these documents are unreliable to prove the purpose for which they are marked. At first, they are issued by persons who claim to have either paid or collected huge amounts as donations for the Trust, about 16 to 18 years ago. The donations said to have been paid or collected by the authors of these documents, were very substantial, in the years 1992 to 1995 and they could not have paid or collected these amounts, without proper receipts, as all the donations to the Trust were exempt under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act. These payments could not have been made by way of cash. Therefore, at least bank records or books evidencing such huge payments should have been produced. Secondly, the signatures found in some of the documents are that of the very same persons representing different institutions which claim to have collected money from others, to make donations to the Trust. As a matter of fact, some of the outfits, on whose behalf these documents have been issued, are by themselves, non-governmental organisations. Their capacity to raise funds to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs, especially for payment to another Trust, is highly doubtful. Unless these organisations were themselves rolling in unaccounted receipts and donations to the extent of crores of rupees in those days (1992-1995), they could not have paid amounts like Rs.25 lakhs to the Mazdoor Welfare Trust. Therefore, it is clear that Ex.D98 series are documents which are created and fabricated by the second defendant, for the purpose of the case. 13.5.7. The fact that Ex.D98 series have been allowed to be marked in evidence, is no ground to conclude that the contents thereof stood proved. The marking of these documents in evidence would take the second defendant only to the extent of making me to accept that the persons who issued those documents, did issue them. The contents of these documents cannot be taken to have been proved, merely because of their getting marked as exhibits. 13.5.8. In any event, it is not even necessary for me to go into the question whether the donations indicated in Ex.D98 series would have in fact been collected and paid to the Trust or not. Let me assume for a minute that Ex.D98 series contain the Gospel truth. Even then, it is not an indication of any contribution by the members of the family of the Founder, to the Trust. At the most, these documents may prove (and that is what the second defendant also seeks to prove) that Mr.Namasivayam received huge donations from philanthropists for establishing the College and that these donations were far in excess of the amounts collected from Railwaymen. 13.5.9. Ex.D98 series are marked by the second defendant for two purposes viz., (i) to show that the contributions collected by Namasivayam from outsiders were larger than those collected from Railwaymen and (ii) to seek a berth for the family members in the Board of Trustees. But both these purposes would not get served by these documents. For a moment, let me assume that the donations collected by Namasivayam from outsiders were far in excess of the donations collected by him from Railwaymen. Even then, it would neither belittle the contributions made by those little and humble men, belonging to the working class, nor make those collections made by Namasivayam from outsiders, his family property. The capacity of the Founder of the Trust to collect huge donations, cannot enure to the benefit of the family members. Mr.Namasivayam's ability to mobilise donations, was itself attributable to the position he occupied in the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union. Assuming that the contents of Ex.D98 series are true, the same would only indicate that the donors were impressed by the objects of the Trust and not by the individual personality of Namasivayam or his family background. Therefore, even if Ex.D98 series are taken to be true and genuine, they would not lend any credibility to the claim of the family members of Namasivayam to Trusteeship. 13.5.10. Apart from Ex.D98 series, the defendants could not lead any evidence to show that the family members ever contributed anything, to the establishment or the development of the Trust. The office of Trusteeship is not a property available for inheritance. The deed of Trust does not contain any role for the members of the family of Mr.Namasivayam. The deed of Trust also does not contain any provision for hereditary Trusteeship. As pointed out earlier, the family members of Mr.Namasivayam were nowhere in the picture from the date of creation of the Trust in the year 1987 till it was launched into the orbit in 1996-1997. The first person from the family, to be inducted into the management of the College was the fifth defendant. He was inducted as a Trustee as well as the Correspondent of the College by a resolution dated 13.5.1996, as seen from the letter dated 14.5.1996 sent by Namasivayam, filed as Ex.D99. Interestingly, the fifth defendant is addressed in the said letter, as a ".Comrade".. The fifth defendant was the son-in-law of the Founder and he was employed in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences of the Government of Tamil Nadu. But, the Founder of the Trust chose to address him as Comrade, proving that habits die hard. 13.5.11. Therefore, the family members of Namasivayam, who had no role to play, either at the time when the first seeds were sown or at the time when the plant was nurtured or at the time when it was watered or at the time when it was protected from pests or at the time when it blossomed and showed earliest signs of bearing fruits, cannot demand a role when it was time for harvest. The defendants 2 to 4 have not shown, by any evidence worth consideration, that they ever contributed anything by way of sweat, blood and toil, for the establishment or the development of the Trust. Even the contribution of the fifth defendant, which started after 10 years of the creation of the Trust, was confined to physical labour, time and energy. Therefore, the defendants 2 to 4 cannot, as a matter of right claim their induction into the Board of Trustees. The contribution made by Namasivayam and the fact that the Trust was his brain child, is no ground to hold that the defendants 2 to 4 inherited a right to Trusteeship. 13.5.12. As a matter of fact, the family members of Namasivayam have not contributed in any great measure, to the Trust. On the contrary, the Railwaymen have contributed not only financially, but also otherwise, even when Namasivayam issued a call for blood donation, purely for personal and sentimental reasons. As pointed out earlier, Namasivayam had a son by name Balamurugan, who died a pre-mature death at an young age. Though it was purely a personal loss for Namasivayam, he made it a point to make the Railway workers donate blood at the Children's Hospital, in the memory of his son Balamurugan. Though an issue was issued by the defendants 2 to 4 that the Union claimed huge amounts for the refreshments served at the time of blood donation, the fact remains that in order to commemorate the memory of the son of Namasivayam, the poor workers of the Railway donated blood. Thus Karl Marx's perception that exploitation of the proletariat could happen only at the hands of the upper class, was proved wrong by Namasivayam. Therefore, it is clear that the contribution of the Railway workers was not only made to the Trust, but also made to fulfil the personal sentiments of the Founder of the Trust. But the family members had nothing to contribute or even reciprocate. In other words, blood flow was only in one direction and the defendants 2 to 4, who jumped into the bandwagon at the time of the harvest season, cannot claim a better right than the poor workers, whose contribution is not merely in terms of money, but also in terms of actual blood. It must be remembered that very small contributions made by little men, engaged as khalasis in the Railway, have a greater value than huge contributions made by men, who did not earn all that money in the righteous way. 13.5.13. The fact that the Founder of the Trust himself inducted the defendants 2 to 5 into the Trust during period from 1996 to 1998, cannot really be taken advantage of, by them. A public charitable Trust is not a proprietary concern, to be run according to the wishes and dictates of the Founder. While the wishes of the Founder may be of value, insofar as the objects of the Trust are concerned, the Court framing a Scheme for the administration of a public charitable Trust, need not go entirely by the wishes of the Founder. 13.5.14. In Mahomed Ismail Ariff vs. Hajee Ahmed Moolla Dawood {1916 IV L.W. 269}, the Privy Council made it clear that in appointing new Trustees, the Court is entitled to take into consideration, not merely the wishes of the Founder, but also the past history of the institution and the way in which the management had been carried on in the past, in conjunction with other existing conditions that might have grown up since its foundation. Quoting with approval the said decision, the Privy Council again held in Mahomedally Adamji Peerbhoy v. Akberally Abdulhussein Adamji Peerbhoy (AIR1934Privy Council 53) that the primary duty of the Civil Court is to consider the interests of the public or that of the public for whose benefit the Trust was created, though it may defer to the wishes of the Founder so far as they are conformable to changed conditions and circumstances. The Court may in its discretion vary any rule of management which it might find either not practicable or not in the best interests of the institution. 13.5.15. Even in a case where a person was named as a successor to the head of a mutt, by a will executed by the Founder of the mutt, the Privy Council opined in Gurunatharudhaswami Guru Shidharudhaswami v. Bhimappa Gangadharappa Divate (61 L.W. 722) that in settling a Scheme for the administration of a charitable Trust, the Court is bound to secure persons whom it regards as suitable. It was further held therein as follows : ".The fact that the Swami desired that the appellant should succeed him does not fetter the discretion of the court or preclude consideration of the conduct of the appellant, both before and since the death of the Swami.". 13.5.16. It is well settled that in relation to public charitable Trusts, this Court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction. As pointed out by Prabha Sridevan,J, in Rajagopal v. Balachandran, Uma Maheswari & Padmini (2001 (3) L.W. 637), the Courts are duty bound to zealously guard the interests of the Trust and the Courts are bound to exercise a vigilant control and keep the welfare of the Trust as of supreme consideration. Therefore, the fact that the Founder of the Trust kept ex-Railwaymen and the office bearers of the trade Union as co-Trustees from 1987 till 1996 and that thereafter, he himself slowly converted the trust into a private family affair, would not persuade me to be guided by such selfish wishes of the founder and ignore the welfare of those for whose benefit the Trust was created and innumerable workmen who contributed their mite. Persons to be appointed as Trustees :

13. 6.1. Having analysed (i) the role played by the Railwaymen and (ii) the role played by the members of the family of the Founder, let me now turn on to the question as to the composition of the Board of Trustees and the line of succession to the office of Trusteeship. 13.6.2. For determining the composition of the Board of Trustees and the persons who could be appointed to the Board, I must keep in mind, the following crucial factors : (i) that the Trust was created for the benefit of Mazdoors working in the Railway and the socially and educationally backward people in general; (ii) that thousands of Railwaymen contributed their mite, both financially and otherwise, to the Trust; (iii) that the very career and thinking of the Founder of the Trust, was actually shaped by his peers in the trade Union and in his office; and (iv) that the object of the Trust was primarily to run Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics. 13.6.3. Therefore, persons appointed to the Board of Trustees should have, apart from the common denominator of public spiritedness, something to do either with the field of education or with Railways, so that its field of activity, namely education is strengthened and its beneficiaries get a chance to participate. 13.6.4. In Application No.2949 of 2005 in C.S.No.117 of 1973, filed for amendment of a Scheme framed earlier, for the management and administration of the affairs of a similar public charitable Trust by name Sir Theagaraya Chetty Educational Trust, which runs a school and a college in North Chennai, I framed a scheme by a judgment dated 20.6.2008 amending the existing Scheme. While doing so, I provided among other things, for the composition of a broad based Board of Trustees for streamlining the administration, which had long been plunged into a series of litigation. In the said order, the composition of the board of Trustees was provided as follows: (i) two Trustees to be nominated by the members of the family of one branch of the Founder; (ii) two Trustees to be nominated by the members of the family of another branch of the Founder, subject to the condition that all of them so nominated should have Post Graduate degrees or professional qualifications and should not be less than 30 years of age; (iii) one retired officer of the Indian Administrative Service co-opted by the four Trustees belonging to the family of the Founder; (iv) an industrialist with at least twenty years of experience in successfully running an industry, to be co-opted from among the list of persons sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce or the Confederation of Indian Industry; (v) a retired Professor and Head of the Department of any discipline co-opted from among a list of names sponsored by the Vice Chancellor of the University of Madras; (vi) a retired Professor and Head of the Department chosen from a list of names forwarded by the Vice Chancellor of the Annamalai University; (vii) one Chartered Accountant chosen from the list of persons sponsored by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India; and (viii) two Ex-officio members, namely, Principal of the College and Headmaster of the High School. 13.6.5. The Scheme so framed by me came to be approved by a Division Bench of this Court with a very small modification and the same was also confirmed by the Supreme Court. After framing of the Scheme, the new blood infused into the institution, brought about a sea change in the management of the educational institutions run by the trust. 13.6.6. Similarly, I happened to frame a Scheme by my judgment dated 28.7.2001 in a Scheme suit in C.S.No.1047 of 2010 (R.Ramadoss v. Chairman, Sriram Educational Trust), for the management and administration of the affairs of another educational Trust by name Sriram Educational Trust, also running an engineering college. In the Scheme so framed, I provided for the constitution of a board of Trustees comprising of seven persons, of whom, one should be the Chairperson and another the Secretary. The composition was directed to be as follows : (i) The Chairperson of the Trust should always be a retired Vice Chancellor of any one of the Universities recognised by the University Grants Commission; (ii) one member, who is a retired officer of the Indian Administrative Service; (iii) three members from among the family of the Founder; and (iv) two distinguished academicians of great reputation in the field of education, who have nothing to do with the family of the Founder. 13.6.7. The Scheme so framed by me for the aforesaid Trust also came to be approved by a Division Bench of this Court. Though there are subsequent applications filed in the said suit C.S.No.1047 of 2010, it is found that the judgment dated 28.7.2011 was confirmed by the Division Bench. 13.6.8. I have chosen to make a reference to the Scheme framed by me in respect of Sir.P.T.Theagaraya Educational Trust and Sriram Educational Trust just for the purpose of showing that when a public charitable Trust running educational institutions is packed with Academicians, who are outsiders and when the number of representatives from the family of the Founder, on the board of Trustees is reduced to a minority, the objects, for which the Trust is established, get fulfilled much better. Therefore, I am of the view that the board of Trustees should comprise of (i) Academicians; (ii) Administrators; (iii) representatives of the Railway workmen, but for whose contributions, the Trust could never have come into existence; and (iv) one representative of the family of the Founder. 13.6.9. Insofar as the representation from the family of the Founder is concerned, it is seen from the pleadings that late Namasivayam had three daughters and a son. His son died even when Namasivayam was alive. The defendants 2, 4 and the fifth defendant's wife are the three surviving daughters of late Namasivayam. The third defendant is the husband of the second defendant. 13.6.10. Very serious allegations of misappropriation, breach of trust, etc., have already been made against the defendants 2 and 3. A charge sheet laid before the Criminal Court against them has been stayed by this Court. But, the order of stay does not remove the stigma. Originally, the fourth defendant launched a tirade against the defendants 2 and 3, alleging irregularities. But subsequently, she has cemented ties with them and I have already expressed my reservations about her present alliance with defendants 2 and 3. I have also pointed out that if defendants 2 and 3 are facing serious allegations of misappropriation and breach of trust, the fourth defendant is clearly guilty of filing a false affidavit before Court. In addition, the defendants 1 and 2 are also guilty of fabricating documents and cooking up evidence for the purpose of the case. A close look at some of the documents filed by them, such as Ex.D24 series, shows that they are all letters issued in the year 2011, in respect of payments allegedly made in 1994. Similarly, the series of letters marked as Ex.D98 series are dated July and August, 2011, and they do not even indicate the dates of payment made to the Trust. Ex.D98 series simply claim that donations were made in 1992 and 1993 to the Trust. Interestingly, Ex.D98 series was filed much after Ex.D24 was filed. The donations to which these Ex.D24 and Ex.D98 series allegedly relate, are not even reflected in the annual statement of affairs filed by Namasivayam, for and on behalf of the Trust. Therefore, there are only two inferences possible, namely, (a) that Namasivayam himself siphoned off these donations; or (b) that these documents are fabricated ones, with scant regard for truth. Inasmuch as Namasivayam is not alive, I should only choose the second inference. If so, the defendants 2 to 4, who are guilty of fabricating documents, can hardly have any berth in the Trust. 13.6.11. Insofar as the fifth defendant is concerned, there are no allegations against him. He is a person, on whom Namasivayam himself appears to have reposed confidence. He was a Veterinary Surgeon employed with the Government of Tamil Nadu. He was made by Namasivayam to resign his job and take up Correspondentship. He is a permanent resident of Thanjavur and the first registered Office of the Trust itself was located at his place in Xavier Nagar, Thanjavur. He has been a Trustee as well as the Correspondent from 14.5.1996, as seen from Ex.D99. Under Ex.D101, a fax message dated 12.8.1999, late Namasivayam wanted the fifth defendant to take charge of the College fully for all practical purposes. Interestingly, Namasivayam directed the fifth defendant under Ex.D101 to be a signatory even to operate the bank account. Ex.102 is another letter dated 17.3.2000 sent by Namasivayam to the fifth defendant congratulating him for holding a colourful first convocation of the College and the methodical approach of the fifth defendant. This letter contains a reference to one Mr.Paramasivam, who was an employee of the first plaintiff Trade Union. In another letter dated 08.7.2000, filed as Ex.D103, Namasivayam hailed the fifth defendant as a better administrator than him and praised him as having excelled the Founder himself. But, the defendants 2 and 3 joined together and threw the fifth defendant out, forcing him to file two suits challenging his removal. 13.6.12. Interestingly, it was the fifth defendant who was compelled by force of circumstances, to preside over the Governing Council meeting held on 22.9.2004, as seen from Ex.D18. This meeting was attended by the former Vice Chancellors of the Bharathiyar University and Annamalai University, apart from the Director of CECRI, who happened to be the Anna University Nominee. This meeting was held after the alleged removal of the fifth defendant. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs have filed the Minutes of a meeting of the Board of Trustees allegedly held on 27.02.2002, as Ex.P79. By the said resolution, the defendants 2 and 3 claim to have dissolved the Governing Council of the College. But, Ex.D18 shows that the Governing Council was functioning even in 2004. 13.6.13. The plaintiffs have filed a letter allegedly written by hand by Namasivayam on 17.02.2001. The xerox copy of the said letter is marked as Ex.P78. Though the marking of this letter is objected to by the defendants 1 and 2, the fifth defendant has filed the original of this letter dated 17.02.2001, written by hand by Namasivayam. But, the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 objected to the marking of this document as an exhibit on the side of the fifth defendant and I reserved my verdict on the same. Therefore, I shall now consider the question of admissibility of the said document filed by the fifth defendant. 13.6.14. The letter dated 17.02.2001 is written by hand on the letter head of M.Namasivayam, as Patron of the sixth defendant College. The letter is addressed to all the three daughters of Namasivayam as well as to the fifth defendant. The manner in which Namasivayam has written his name and his signature found on this document, tally with his other admitted signatures of Namasivayam, as found even in the documents filed by defendants 1 and 2, such as Exx.D6, D23, D25, etc. Therefore, the objection to the marking of this document is overruled and the letter dated 17.02.2001, signed by Namasivayam and addressed to his three daughters and the fifth defendant is marked as Ex.D105. It corresponds to Ex.P78. 13.6.15. It is stated in Ex.D105 that the fifth defendant was running the College in an efficient manner and that if there are any problems in running and administering the College, the College could be handed over to the Sri Ramakrishna Mutt, Mylapore. 13.6.16. In the light of the above developments, I am of the view that the defendants 2 to 4 should be kept out of the office of the Trusteeship, as (i) the defendants 2 and 3 are facing criminal prosecution for very serious offences in connection with the affairs of the very same Trust; (ii) the defendants 2 and 3 fabricated documents before this Court with a view to gain a mileage in the case; and (iii) the fourth defendant filed an affidavit before this Court and sought to withdraw the same on the false pretext that the Administrator appointed by this Court compelled her to file the first affidavit. At the most, the children of defendants 2 and 4 could be granted a chance to become Trustees by rotation, to keep the name of the Founder in memory. This alone will ensure two things namely (i) that the family members do not consider the Trust and the College as a legacy left behind by Namasivayam; and (ii) that at least their children realise that their role as Trustees, is only to render service, if they so choose and not to enjoy any luxuries. 13.6.17. In other words, (i) the fifth defendant can be inducted as a Trustee for a period of three years; (ii) after his tenure, one of the children of the second defendant could be inducted as Trustee for the next period of three years; (iii) thereafter, one of the children of the fourth defendant could be inducted as Trustee for the subsequent period of three years. The family of the Founder will not have a representation of more than one member at a time. 13.6.18. Insofar as representation for the workers is concerned, the plaintiffs rely upon several factors, such as the participation of the office bearers of the Union in the affairs of the Trust, even when Namasivayam was alive. The claim of the first plaintiff Union in this regard is supported by the fifth defendant. As a matter of fact, the fifth defendant filed four letters, all written by hand by Namasivayam on 17.02.2001. The marking of these documents was objected to by the learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, I reserved my verdict on the admissibility of these documents, with an indication that I would deal with these objections also, at the time of pronouncing judgment. 13.6.19. Out of those four documents, I have already allowed one document to be marked as Ex.D105, as per the reasonings contained in paragraph 13.6.14 above. The same reasons would apply even to the other three documents. These three documents are: (i) a note written in Tamil, bearing the signature of Namasivayam and addressed to his three daughters and the fifth defendant; (ii) a letter dated 17.02.2001 written in English, bearing the signature of Namasivayam and addressed to the fifth defendant; and (iii) a note dated 17.02.2001 written in Tamil, bearing the signature of Namasivayam and addressed to the fifth defendant. 13.6.20. The signatures in these documents clearly tally with the admitted signatures of Namasivayam. These notes/letters are addressed to the fifth defendant. Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 cannot have any valid objection to the marking of these documents. The primary reason as to why the defendants 1 and 2 object to the marking of these documents is that there is a reference to the second plaintiff and the person representing the first plaintiff in these documents and there is a direction to the fifth defendant to involve the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the matter of administering the Trust and the College. Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 are afraid that the marking of these documents would pave the way for the entry of plaintiffs 1 and 2 into the Trust. But, the admissibility of a document cannot be decided on the basis of the consequences that would flow out of the admission of the documents. As stated earlier, these documents contain the signatures of Namasivayam and the fifth defendant is the (or one of the) addressees. Therefore, the objections of the defendants 1 and 2 are overruled and these documents are marked as Exx.D106 to 108. 13.6.21. Even if the wishes expressed by late Namasivayam are ignored, I think it is not possible to keep the trade Union totally away from the office of Trusteeship. As a matter of fact, I examined and explored the possibility of keeping the plaintiffs completely away from the Trust, for a variety of reasons. The office bearers of the first plaintiff trade Union appear to have become invincible and unbeatable power centers, both within the organisation in which they are employed and outside. I do not know if any of the office bearers representing the plaintiff trade Union had ever gone to their offices as any other humble servant of the Railways would have. After getting appointed to clerical posts and starting a career with a humble beginning, the office bearers of the first plaintiff Union appear to have gained enormous power and clout that even senior level officers could not imagine. I can take judicial notice of the fact that the General Secretary of the first plaintiff Union has been inducted into the Trust Board of one of the largest money spinning temples of South India. Late Namasivayam himself could not have dreamt of reaching the position that he did, but for the tag of trade Unionism. It is stated by the defendants 1 and 2 that N.Kanniah, the General Secretary of the first plaintiff Union joined the Southern Railways as a Class IV employee and rose to the position of a trusted lieutenant of Namasivayam eventually to become so powerful that today no one can successfully challenge his position. This shows that power need not necessarily grow out of the barrel of the gun, but can also grow out of ballot papers. 13.6.22. The defendants 2 to 4 as well as the wife of Namasivayam, who is now no more, had made very serious allegations against N.Kanniah and C.A.Raja Sridhar, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein. They have gone to the extent of raising doubts about the alleged disappearance of Namasivayam at Haridwar. I do not venture to take these allegations for their face value. But, there can be no denial of the fact that the first plaintiff trade Union had actually catapulted ordinary clerks to become great power centers. 13.6.23. Therefore, I actually explored the possibility of keeping the trade Union away from the Trust and inducting either the Chief Personnel Officer of the Southern Railways or the Divisional Railway Manager at Tiruchirapalli of the Southern Railways into the Trust, to represent the interest of the workers. But this option appears to be saddled with lot of practical difficulties. These Officers are liable for transfer and their tenure of office at the Stations is not guaranteed. They may also be reluctant to accept the office of Trusteeship, in a Public Charitable Trust of this nature, without a clear approval from the Ministry of Railways. 13.6.24. Therefore, I am left with no opinion except to give at least one berth in the Board of Trustees to a representative of the first plaintiff trade union, to ensure that the workers have a representation in the trust. The interests of the workers could be taken care of, also by issuing certain directions, that would form part of this Scheme, so that a particular percentage of seats in the college go to the wards of the workers, without offending the principles of law laid down in the long line of decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. 13.6.25. In State of Gujarat v. M.P. Shah Charitable Trust ((1994) 3 SCC552, the Supreme Court held that there cannot be a quota for donors or founders. The Supreme Court has also held that there cannot be any institutional reservation or quota. 13.6.26. However, Courts have consistently put a seal of approval on a particular percentage of seats being reserved for Non Resident Indians. Way back in 2002, the State of Tamil Nadu issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.109, Higher Education dated 10.4.2002, providing for admission of students under the NRI quota up to 10% of the total sanctioned intake. This Government Order was issued in terms of a circular of the AICTE dated 03.10.2001. 13.6.27. Subsequently, the AICTE issued a set of regulations known as All India Council for Technical Education (Admission under Supernumerary Quota for Foreign Nationals/Persons of Indian Origin/Children of Indian Workers in the Gulf Countries in AICTE Approved Institutions) Regulations, 2004. These Regulations were issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10(o) and (j) read with Section 23(1) of the AICTE Act, 1987. These Regulations defined the expressions ".Persons of Indian Origin"., ".Foreign Nationals". and ".Foreign Students".. Regulation 4(a) stipulates that 15% of the seats in all institutions and University Departments approved by AICTE offering technical courses leading to Diploma, Degree and Post Graduate Degrees in Engineering and Technology, Architecture and Town Planning, Pharmacy, Applied Arts, MBA and MCA, Hotel Management and Catering Technology, etc., shall be allowed on supernumerary basis from amongst foreign nationals/persons of Indian origin/children of Indian workers in Gulf countries, over and above the approved intake. Though Regulation 4(b) laid down the guidelines for filling up these seats, subject to the approval of the AICTE, the second part of Regulation 4(a) indicated that the admission of students under this quota should be subject to availability of adequate infrastructural facilities. 13.6.28. At the time when the Regulations of 2004 were issued by AICTE, a seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was considering some of the issues that were purportedly left unsettled (or created) by the eleven Judge Bench in TMA Pai Foundation (AIR2003SC355 and by a five Judge Bench in Islamic Academy of Education (AIR2003SC3724. In that case which was reported as P.A.Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR2005SC3226, the Supreme Court affixed a seal of approval for this category, namely, quota for NRI seats. In paragraph 128 of the report, the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court in P.A.Inamdar could be found. It reads as follows: ".Here itself we are inclined to deal with the question as to seats allocated for Non-Resident Indians ('NRI', for short) or NRI seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to certain number of students under such quota by charging a higher amount of fee. In fact, the term 'NRI' in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get admission. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen its level of education and also to enlarge its educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get education but also get reunited with Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilized bona fide by the NRIs only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, the merit should not be given a complete go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form collected from such NRIs, should be utilized for benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the society, whom, on well defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidized payment of their fee. To prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed. So long as the State does not do it, it will be for the Committees constituted pursuant to Islamic Academy's direction to regulate.". 13.6.29. In the year 2007, an issue came up before me in Christian Medical College v. The Permanent Committee (W.P.Nos.32552, 36500 & 18384 of 2006 dated 13.02.2007) with regard to the reservation of 10% of the seats for admission to Under Graduate Medical Courses in the Christian Medical College, Vellore, for the children of the staff of the College and the Hospital attached to the College. I upheld the said reservation, after finding on facts that the institution did not want to encash on the seats that could have been reserved for Non Resident Indians. I found that the attempt of the institution to prefer investment on human resources over the investment on financial resources, to be a laudable objective. In the last but second paragraph of my decision, I held that the allotment of six seats in the Vellore Christian Medical College, for the children of the staff members, was laudable at a time when money power had come to hold a sway over educational institutions. The contention that such reservation amounted to institutional reservation, was rejected by me. My decision was also upheld by a Division Bench in the decision in P.Arun Kumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu (W.A.Nos.494, 495 & 812 of 2007 dated 25.7.2007). 13.6.30. Therefore, today it is permissible for an institution to forego the benefits that may accrue to them by filling up 15% of the seats by NRIs and choose to fill up those seats through philanthropic and charitable methods. In other words, it would be open to the Trust in question to substitute the 15% quota for NRIs with a quota for poor children of the workmen of the Railways. Hence, a condition can be incorporated in the Objects clause of the Deed of Trust, so that the original intention of the Founder is fulfilled and those humble and little workmen of the Railways, whose contributions in small trickles that made up the financial ocean for the Trust, stand to benefit. 13.6.31. In fine I hold on issue No.2 that (i) there will be only one representative from the family of the Founder at any given point of time in the Board of Trustees and they will serve for 3 years in succession; (ii) the workers will be represented in the Board of Trustees by a person nominated by the first plaintiff union; and (iii) the rest of the vacancies will be filled up from among academicians and administrators of repute as indicated in the scheme framed hereinafter. Issue No.3: (To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled to) 14. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that there must be a modified Scheme in place for the effective administration and management of the affairs of the Trust. Such modified Scheme, keeping in view the objects of the Trust and the wishes of the Founder shall be as follows:- I. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE TRUST: The name of the Trust shall be Mazdoor Welfare Trust. The address of the Registered Office of the Trust, unless otherwise changed by the Board of Trustees, shall for the present, be at the premises of the sixth defendant College at Kovilvenni, Thiruvarur District. However, the trustees can also hold meetings at Chennai or any other convenient place where the majority of the trustees reside. II. OBJECTS: The objects of the Trust are: (a) To establish, maintain and administer educational institutions, imparting general education, technical education, medical education, nursing etc. (b) To organise specialised teaching in different branches of Arts, Science, Medicine and Technology give instructions in specialised courses in the aforesaid and allied subjects that may be instituted in any of the Universities in India. (c) To establish and administer the Mazdoor school of trade unionism and impart training and development in industrial relationship and such other allied subjects. (d) To undertake publication of research studies, magazines, periodicals etc. produced by the institutions established by the Trust. (e) To hold refresher course, short courses, seminars conferences and the like on current, social and socio economic problems and on social, economic cultural and educational activity for the benefit of persons engaged in social work and/or in the teaching of the subject relating thereto. (f) To stimulate in the staff and students of the institutions a sense of social scientific and technical awareness and cultural conscience. (g) To organise special coaching and training to poor children and/or provide for free distribution of books, study materials, educational appliances, etc. (h) To give financial assistance in the form of books, scholarships, stipend etc. to poor and/or meritorious students and grant and provide for such other financial assistance to the needy as may be considered appropriate. (i) To give financial assistance or medical relief to the poor and the needy people in distress. (j) To establish, maintain and administer clinics and/or hospitals by employing Doctors and other staff to run the same. (k) To do all such other acts and things as may be necessary and conducive to the attainment of the above objectives.". II-A. SPECIAL OBJECTS: So long as it is permitted by law to fill up 15% of the seats by students belonging to the category of Non Resident Indians, as defined by AICTE Regulations of the year 2004 (modified or amended from time to time), the Engineering College run by the Trust shall allot 15% of the total annual permitted intake to be filled up by children of the workers of the Railways. To the extent that the financial resources of the Trust permit, students admitted under this category, shall be provided education completely free of cost, so that the children of the present generation of workers of the Railways, shall reap the benefits of the act of philanthropy and charity exhibited by the previous generation of poor workers of the Railways. For filling up these seats and for providing free education to the eligible children of Railway employees, the Trust shall invite applications separately from Railway employees. The Trust shall maintain a separate Register, containing details of the children of Railway employees who so benefit. III. COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES: (1) The Trust shall be managed and administered by a Board of Trustees comprising of 7 persons, one of whom shall be the Chairperson and another, the Secretary. (2) The Chairperson of the Trust shall always be a former Vice-Chancellor of a University recognised by the University Grants Commission with a good academic background and clean record of service. Alternatively, the Chairperson shall be a retired Officer of the Indian Administrative Service, with a clean record of service. (3) One Trustee from the lineal descendants of late Namasivayam. Since Namasivayam left behind 3 daughters by name Selvarani, Devi and Usha, one family member of each of these 3 daughters will be nominated to the Trust Board once in 3 years by rotation. In other words, if one of the family members of Selvarani is nominated now, he/she will hold office for 3 years. After his/her tenure, one of the family members of Devi will be nominated for a period of 3 years. After his/her tenure, one of the family members of Usha will be nominated for a period of 3 years. Thereafter, the family of Selvarani will get its second turn, to be followed in succession by the family of Devi and Usha for their second turn. By this process, it will be ensured that only one of the 3 daughters of Namasivayam will be represented in the Board of Trustees at any given point of time. For the present, I have disqualified the defendants 2 to 4 for the reasons I have indicated above. Therefore, the first turn from the lineal descendants of Namasivayam would go to the fifth defendant Dr. Tamilarasan. After he completes a term of 3 years, one of the family members of Devi can be nominated by her, as she herself is disqualified. After completion of a tenure of 3 years by a family member of Devi, one of the family members of Usha can be nominated for a tenure of 3 years. If in the long run, the family members or legal representatives of the 3 daughters do not choose one among them to be nominated to the Board, the person having the support of majority of the family members of that branch, will be nominated. (4) One representative of the first plaintiff trade Union, other than its office bearers. In other words, the first plaintiff trade Union shall nominate one serving employee of the Railways, who is not one of the office bearers of the first plaintiff Union, to be on the Board. The person nominated by the first plaintiff Union shall not be less than 50 years of age. He should possess at least the qualification of a degree and he should not have been implicated or involved in any criminal case. (5) One Chartered Accountant nominated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, residing within a radius of 60 kms. from the College. The Board may address a letter to the Institute in this regard, for sponsoring a list of persons willing to offer voluntary services for the cause of the education. From the list of persons so sponsored, the Board may select one to serve for a period of 3 years. (6) Two serving or retired Professors/Readers/Assistant Professors, with a Doctorate degree and a minimum of 20 years of teaching experience. Out of them, at least one should have served in any Engineering College or a Polytechnic. It will be open to the Chairman to get a list of eligible and willing candidates from the Anna University, as and when vacancies arise in this category. While selecting persons under this category, preference may be given to persons settled in the same Revenue District in which the College is located. (7) The Principal of the College shall be an Ex-officio member of the Trust. (8) One among the 6 Trustees (other than the Chairman), shall be elected or selected as the Secretary of the Trust. IV. GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS: (1) No person who is a minor or of unsound mind or one who is adjudged as an insolvent under the Insolvency Act, 1920, or has been convicted of any offence by a Criminal Court shall be eligible to be elected or nominated as a Trustee. (2) No one who is associated with or interested in any individual or institution, to whom a contract has been awarded by the Trust, shall be eligible to be elected or nominated as a Trustee. V. TENURE OF OFFICE: (1) Every Trustee appointed to the Trust Board shall hold office for a period of 3 years from the date of his appointment. (2) All Trustees, except those from the family of the Founder, shall be eligible to be re-appointed, subject however to the condition that no person who has served for two consecutive terms, shall be eligible for re-appointment. Insofar as the descendants of the Founder are concerned, they will be governed by clause III (3) above. VI. MEETINGS: (a) A meeting of the Board shall be conducted ordinarily twice in a month and more often, if necessary. The meeting shall be convened by the Secretary, only on the direction or approval of the Chairperson. In the case of absence of the Secretary or on his refusal to convene the meeting, the Chairperson may convene the meeting. (b) On requisition by at least two or more Trustees, an emergency meeting shall be convened by the Secretary or by the Chairperson in the absence of or refusal by the Secretary. (c) In the absence of both the Chairperson and the Secretary, a meeting may be convened on the requisition of four Trustees. (d) The meetings shall be held at the office of the Trust Board or at a place convenient for the majority of the Trustees, depending upon their places of residence. (e) Notice of an ordinary meeting, with the copy of the agenda shall be sent by the Secretary, to the Trustees at least three days prior to the date fixed for the meeting. The agenda shall be prepared by the Secretary in consultation with the Chairperson and with his/her approval. The notice shall specify the date, time and venue of the meeting. (f) The notice of the meeting may be served personally on the individual Trustees and if it is not possible, be sent by Registered Post or Courier with acknowledgement and such notice shall be deemed to be sufficient notice. (g) In case of any emergency, the Secretary or in his absence or refusal, the Chairperson may convene a Special Meeting by giving 24 hours notice to the Trustees. Notice of such Special Meeting shall be served on the Trustees either personally or on any member of their family. (h) The Chairperson or the Secretary shall convene a special or urgent meeting on the requisition in writing by three or more Trustees to convene a meeting of the Trust Board, specifying the purpose of the meeting and giving notice to the other Trustees. (i) Any member can give notice of a resolution to be moved at the meeting, which shall be delivered to the Secretary at least 3 days prior to the date of the meeting and upon such delivery, the same shall be circulated to the other members at least one day prior to the date of the meeting. (j) All papers relating to the agenda shall be made available to the Trustees for inspection at the place of meeting at the time or before the commencement of the meeting. (k) Three members of the Board shall form the minimum Quorum necessary for a meeting of the Board. No business shall be transacted at any meeting unless there is Quorum. If immediately after 30 minutes from the time appointed for the meeting, the Quorum is not present, the meeting if called on the requisition of the members, shall be dissolved. In any other case, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a date which may be agreed to by the members present and if at the adjourned meeting, there is no Quorum within half-an hour from the time appointed for the meeting, the members present shall form the Quorum. (l) Every meeting of the Board of Trustees shall be presided over by the Chairperson and in his absence, by a Trustee chosen by the Trustees present at the meeting to preside over the meeting. (m) Any question or issue which may come up before any meeting shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present and when the votes are equally divided, the Chairperson shall have the power to exercise a casting vote. But in respect of all academic matters, such as the introduction of new courses, appointment of teaching faculty, improvement of infrastructural facilities etc., the decision of the Chairperson and that of the 2 academicians shall prevail, even if the other 4 members do not agree. (n) The Board of Trustees shall maintain Minutes of the proceedings of each of the meetings by recording the same in a book kept for that purpose. It shall be signed by the Chairperson or the Trustee who presided over such meeting. The Minutes book shall be kept in the office of the Trust in the custody of the Secretary or the Chairperson. The Minutes shall be recorded in English or in Tamil. (o) The Chairperson or the presiding Trustee shall maintain order and decorum at the meetings. The subjects on the agenda shall be taken for consideration in the order in which they appear in the Agenda, unless it is decided at the meeting that they be considered otherwise. (p) All major decisions shall be taken only in the meetings of the Board and shall not be taken by way of resolutions passed by circulation unless agreed to by all the members. Any such decision taken in circulation shall be placed in the next meeting for confirmation. The question whether a particular decision is major or not, shall be decided by the Chairperson. VII. POWERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES: The Trust Board shall have the following powers:- (a) To frame Rules and Regulations, Bye-laws as may be necessary for implementing this Scheme. (b) To frame Rules and Regulations with reference to the service conditions of the teaching and non-teaching staff and prescribing proper Code of Conduct and discipline. (c) To frame a Budget of Expenditure relating to the management, accounts and for the efficient running of the institution and maintenance of the properties belonging to the Trust. (d) To issue such directions to the College Committee as may be necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the institution and properties. (e) To raise funds, if necessary, by borrowing or overdrafts as may be necessary, to receive grants, donations, gifts and such other sources for improving the infrastructure of the institutions. (f) To enter into contracts and to execute documents for the development of the Trust and such documents shall be executed by the Chairperson and another Trustee as may be nominated by the Board. VIII. DISQUALIFICATION AND REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES: (1) In the event of any of the Trustees becoming disqualified in any manner as provided in this Scheme, he shall cease to be a Trustee. (2) A Trustee is also liable to be removed if found to be unfit to continue as a Trustee as a result of any activity prejudicial to the interest of the Trust or if found guilty of any criminal offence by a competent Court. (3) The removal of a Trustee under sub-clauses (1) and (2) shall be subject to the following conditions:- (a) Any proposal for such removal shall be forwarded to that Trustee concerned giving liberty to the Trustee to show cause against the proposal, within a reasonable time. (b) The reply of the Trustee shall be considered by the Board of Trustees in a properly convened meeting and on passing a resolution for such removal at least by 2/3rd majority of the members present in the said meeting. IX. MANAGEMENT OF FINANCE: (1) Budget: The Board of Trustees shall, every year on or before the 31st of May every year, present the Budget for the institution under the management of the Trust, for the year commencing from 1st of April and coming to an end on 31st March. The budgetary provisions shall as far as possible be adhered to and no expenditure not provided for any particular purpose shall be allowed or sanctioned by the Board of Trustees except for reasons to be recorded by them in writing. (2) Operation of Bank Accounts: All the accounts in all the banks shall be operated and the cheques signed jointly by the Chairperson and the Secretary. It is open to the Chairperson and the Secretary to delegate this power to any other Trustee or Trustees. (3) Audit: The Income and Expenditure of the Trust and of the institutions run by the Trust, shall be placed every month before the Board. The accounts of the Trust and of the institutions run by the Trust shall be placed every month before the Board. The accounts of the Trust shall be audited every year at the close of the year by Auditors appointed by the Board. The remuneration of the Auditors shall be fixed and paid by the Board of Trustees from the Trust funds. X. AMENDMENT TO THE SCHEME: Any amendment to or modification of this Scheme can be effected only by the High Court of Madras, upon filing an appropriate petition with notice to all the Trustees and no amendment can be carried out without following the said procedure and the High Court approving such amendment or modification. XI. COMING INTO OPERATION OF THE SCHEME: The modified scheme shall come into force with immediate effect from the date of this order.

15. The first set of Trustees, as per the modified Scheme, indicated in the preceding paragraph, shall be the following persons:- (i) Dr.M.Rajendran, Former Vice-Chancellor, Tamil University, residing at No.H.58/F4, Marutham Apartments, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041, shall be the Chairperson for a period of 3 years from the date of taking charge. He worked as the Tamil Pandit in Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Chennai from 1974 to 1986, as Assistant Professor of Pachaiappas College, Chennai between 1980 and 1981, as a Lecturer & Special Research Fellow in Tamil University, Thanjavur from 1986 to 1989, as a Special Officer (i/c) of Kural Peedam, Tamil Nadu from 1991 to 1993, as a Director in the Department of Translation, Chennai from 1996 to 1999, as a Director in the Department of Tamil Development Chennai from 1999 till 18.6.2008, as a Director (i/c) in International Institute of Tamil Studies, Chennai from 2006 till 18.6.2008 and as a Vice-Chancellor of Tamil University from 19.6.2008 to 18.6.2011. He is an accomplished scholar with both administrative and research experience and was a member of the UGC Committee to review and recommend 10th Five Year Plan Allocation. (ii) Mr.P.Rajendra Kumar, Chartered Accountant and Senior Partner of Sanjiv Shah and Associates, Chartered Accountants, having office at II Floor, Adarsh Apartments, No.80, Vepery High Road, Chennai 600 007. He is a Fellow Member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and a Graduate Member of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India. He is currently a co-opted Member of the Indirect Taxes Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. He was elected to the Central Council of the Institute, for the term 2010-2013. He has had experience of being on three prestigious Standing Committees of the Institute, namely, Disciplinary Committee, Examination Committee and Finance Committee of the Institute. He was the Vice Chairman of Internal Audit Standards Board for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13. He was a Member of the Editorial Board of the ICAI Journal by name ".The Chartered Accountant". for the period 2010-13. In the year 2012, the Government of Tamil Nadu nominated him as a Member of the High Power Committee on Investments and Disinvestments formed under the Ministry of Finance. As per the Scheme framed by me for the management and administration of Sir P.T.Theagaraya Chetty Educational Institutions, the Institute of Chartered Accountants nominated him as one of the Board of Trustees. He later became the Chairman of the Trust Board and held the position for four years and contributed in great measure to the growth of the institution. He is acknowledged as an expert on Goods and Services Tax and was invited as a Resource Person by the Governments of Tamil Nadu and Mizoram as well as the Government of India for their Training Programmes on Indirect Taxes. He has authored two text books, one on Service Tax and another on Value Added Tax. He is an active Member of the Hindustan Chamber of Commerce and he is the Chairman of the Indirect Taxes Committee of the said Chamber. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India appointed him as the Member of the ".Help Centre for Central Excise and Service Tax".. (iii) Dr.S.Tamilarasan, the fifth defendant in the suit, who is one of the three sons-in-law of late Namasivayam. He has served as a Trustee and Correspondent of the College from 14.5.1996, till 01.5.2004, when the defendants 2 and 3 sent him out. He is a Veterinary Surgeon by profession and was an employee of the State Government before his appointment as Correspondent of the College. Since all other Trustees nominated under this judgment are going to be in the Board of Trustees for the first time, without any prior knowledge or acquaintance with the affairs of this particular Trust and also since Dr.Tamilarasan had already served as Trustee and Correspondent, he shall be the Secretary of the Trust for a period of 3 years. (iv) Dr.Harihara Subra Mani residing at No.2, IV Cross Street, Durga Colony, Sembakkam, Chennai-73. He holds a B.Sc. (Hons.) and a M.Sc., degree in Physics from the Delhi University and a Doctorate degree in Physics from the Colombia University, New York, U.S.A. He was a Scientific Officer of the National Physical Laboratory during the period 1965-1966, an Assistant Professor of the University of Michigan during 1966-1969, an Assistant Professor in I.I.T., Kanpur from 1969 to 1976 and a Professor of I.I.T., Kanpur from 1976 to 1996. He was the visiting Scientist at S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences during 2001-2003 and a Raja Ramanna Fellow of the Institute of Mathematical Sciences from 2003-2008. He is currently the adjunct faculty of Chennai Mathematical Institute. He has several Honours and Awards to his credit and has had a very vast teaching experience. (v) Dr.C.Thiruvenkadam, retired Professor and Head of the Department of History, Pachaiyappa's College, Chennai, residing at No.22, Pallavan Nagar Main Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai-95. He holds a Post Graduate Degree and a Doctorate Degree in History and has had teaching experience for 33 years from 1978 to 2011. He has been a member of the Board of Studies of various Universities. He was the Chairman of the Text Writing Committee of Tamil Nadu. He also serves as a resource person for training College Teachers for U.G.C. sponsored refresher courses. (vi) One person to be nominated by the first plaintiff Trust, within a week from today. The first plaintiff Trust shall send the name, address and other details of a nominee of their choice, to the Chairman appointed hereunder. The first plaintiff shall make sure that the person chosen by them is not an office bearer of the first plaintiff Union and is at least a graduate of not less than 50 years of age. (vii) The Principal of the College.

16. The Chairman of the Trust appointed herein above shall be paid a remuneration of Rs.30,000/- per month, apart from reimbursement of his actual expenses. The Academicians appointed hereunder shall be paid a Honorarium of Rs.15,000/- per month, apart from reimbursement of expenses. The other Members shall be paid reimbursement of the actual expenses incurred by them, in attending to the affairs of the Trust.

17. Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.Ramamurthi (Retired), who is now functioning as the Interim Administrator, shall hand over charge of all records as well as charge of administration to Dr.M.Rajendran, within a week of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

18. The suit is decreed in terms of the Scheme indicated in paragraphs 14 to 16 above. There will be no order as to costs. kpl Svn RS


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //