Disposed

Willingdon Enclave Owners Association v. the District Registrar (General)

Kerala HC13 Sept 2021WP(C)/11596/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order by the District Registrar under the Societies Act. It directed the Registrar to hear the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing, without deciding the merits of the jurisdiction or legality issues.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to hear the grievance of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties and pass orders within two months.

Willingdon Enclave Owners Association Vs the District… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11596 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

WILLINGDON ENCLAVE OWNERS ASSOCIATION WILLINGDON ENCLAVE, PANDIT KURUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA FERRY, ERNAKULAM-682 013, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.M.S.NAIR, S/O.LATE GOPALA PILLAI, B-1A, WILLINGTON ENCLACE, THEVARA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.K.LATHA SMT.M.UMA DEVI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) ERNAKULAM-682 011.

¶11

2 TISSAN.J.THACHANKERY, PRESIDENT, WILLINGDON ENCLAVE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, WILLINGDON ENCLAVE, PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, THEVARA FERRY, ERNAKULAM-682 013.

¶12

BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.G.P. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 11596 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶18

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P-7 order and quash the same.

¶19

(ii) issue a writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to consider any objection with respect to the legality or illegality of the resolution if any, adopted by the petitioner society, which is submitted under Section 22 of the Act;

¶20

And

¶21

(iii) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems, fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

¶22

2 . The petitioner is an Apartment Owners

¶23

Association regis tered under Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1965. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 bye-law all the present owners of the apartments are the members of the association and members are entitled to vote in the meeting of the association either personally or through duly nominated proxies. According to the petitioner, nonresident owners give proxies to one or two persons to

¶24

WP(C) NO. 11596 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

participate in a meeting on their behalf and they constitute more than the members who are physically present in the meeting. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that a proposal was submitted by a few members in accordance with the provisions of the bye-law to amend the bye-law limiting the number of the proxies, who can represent a person in a particular meeting. It is the specific case of the petitioner that joint executive committee, which considered the proposal unanimously decided to place the proposal in the Extraordinary General Meeting vide Ext.P3. It is also stated in the writ petition that Extraordinary General Meeting of the General Association was held on 13.02.2020 and the meeting passed the proposed amendment with majority of votes vide Ext.P5 minutes of the meeting. Later, the petitioner association produced the amendment before the 1^st respondent under Section 22 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1965. Ext.P7 is a letter sent by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent. That letter was

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO. 11596 OF 2020

¶29

issued based on a complaint from the 2^nd respondent and others. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for 2^nd respondent.

¶31

The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition and the also submitted that Ext.P7 proceedings is issued by the 1^st respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The counsel also raised the question of jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent to pass such an order. The Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P7 is a letter issued by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent. The Government Pleader also submitted that the amended bye-law is not produced by the petitioner. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge the same before this Court by filing writ petition. The counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that they are not aggrieved

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO. 11596 OF 2020

¶34

by Ext.P7 and therefore, this Court may not interfere.

¶35

After hearing both sides, according to me this

¶36

writ petition can be disposed with a direction to the 1^st respondent to hear the grievance of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the 2^nd respondent. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition can be heard by the 1^st respondent. The question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner to issue Ext.P7 proceedings is also left open. The petitioner is free to agitate the same before the 1^st respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed with following directions:

¶37

(a) The petitioner will submit a representation narrating their grievance to the 1^st respondent within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment.

¶38

(b) Once such a representation is received, the 1^st respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 11596 OF 2020

¶41

orders on it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶42

¶43

(d) All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner is free to agitate the same before 1^st respondent.

¶44

(e) Till final order is passed the status quo as on today will continue.

¶45

Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶46

scs

¶47

WP(C) NO. 11596 OF 2020

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11596/2020

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND BYLAWS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION AS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION (19/2/2009). EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY 25 MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION DATED 15.5.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 12.09.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION DATED 12.12.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE GENERAL ASSOCIATION DATED 13.02.2020. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 25.05.2020.

Willingdon Enclave Owners Association v. the District Registrar (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Willingdon Enclave Owners Association v. the District Registrar (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beaulah Grace Albert Vs Rose Jose

Dr. Amrutha K Sadasivan Vs National Medical Commission

Ashraf C.A. Vs the Secretary

Sundara Rajan .P Vs the District Collector

Anila George Vs State of Kerala

M and T Constructions Vs State of Kerala