The High Court held that the District Registrar (General) must hear both parties before rejecting a complaint alleging misfeasance in a registered society on jurisdictional grounds, mandating a de novo consideration.
The impugned rejection order (Ext.P5) was set aside and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the matter after hearing both parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
MANI JACOB AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.M.C.JACOB, MAZHUKKATTU HOUSE, VEDIPURA LANE, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
BY ADVS. SRI.AJI V.DEV SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN LITERARY SCIENTIFIC AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ALEX GEORGE SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who claims to be an “Associate Member” of the 4th respondent – Society, which he says is registered under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, impugns Ext.P5 order issued by the 1st respondent – District Registrar (General), who rejected a complaint preferred by him before the said Authority, merely saying that none of the imputations therein come within his jurisdiction.
appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that he had preferred Ext.P4 complaint before the
District Registrar (General), wherein,
several instances of malpractices, misfeasance
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
3
and misuse of power by the office bearers of the 4th respondent - Society were cited and asserted that every one of them come within the jurisdictional ambit of the 1st respondent – District Registrar (General). He argued that if his client had been heard by the said Authority, he would have been able to convince him so, and also of the purlieus of the statutory powers vested in him, but that instead of doing so, said Authority has now issued Ext.P5 rejecting Ext.P4 merely saying that it does not come within his powers. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside and the 1st respondent - District Registrar (General), be directed to hear him, as also the other party respondents, on Ext.P4
and take an apposite decision thereon as per law.
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
4
learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent, submitted that the allegations made in Ext.P4 are reckless, without any factual edifice and that truth has been stated before this Court in the counter pleadings. He added that, contrary to the allegations in Ext.P4, every record relating to the society, including its accounts and such other, is available for inspection by any competent statutory Authority and that his client had made this clear before the 1st respondent also. He concluded his submissions saying that the intention of the petitioner are confutative and questionable and that his interest is only to colour the 4th respondent and its office bearers in a bad light and nothing more; and that two suits are already pending before the District Court,
Kottayam, for framing of a Scheme for management of the 4th respondent – Society. He
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
5
thus argued that no purpose will be served in
the 1st respondent – District Registrar considering Ext.P4 on its merits.
that, going by Ext.P4 and the allegations therein, the District Registrar (General) is incapacitated from considering them as per the provisions of the applicable Statutes and Regulations. She submitted that it is,
therefore, that said Authority had issued Ext.P5 and prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.
propose to go into the merits of any of the allegations or contra allegations of the parties. In administrative law, it is a well
recognized precept that while exercising judicial review, this Court will not normally
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
6
evaluate the decision per se, but only the decision making process.
order impugned herein, the District Registrar (General) has rejected Ext.P4 without hearing either of the parties, but merely saying that none of the allegations therein come within its jurisdictional competence. I am certain that this was not sufficient and that the said Authority ought to have heard both sides, particularly in the light of the specific
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
7
assertion of the party respondents that Scheme Suits are pending before the competent District Court.
In the afore circumstances and solely for the reasons above, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5; with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent – District Registrar (General) to reconsider the matter, after hearing both sides; thus leading to an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible.
I, however, make it reiteratingly clear that this Court is not directing the 1st respondent to act in a particular manner and that he is at liberty to consider every aspect, including the pendency of the Suits before the District Court, Kottayam, while he arrives at
any decision that he may deem fit in the circumstances.
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
8
It also goes without saying that anything contained in this judgment cannot be construed by any person to be a reflection on any of the allegations made by the parties against each other and that this Court has not considered them on its merits.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS/08/03/2022
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
9
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28120/2016
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1. | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY PROPOSED TO BE HELD ON 03.07.2016. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2. | TRUE COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOCIETY OF ST.THOMAS (CHRISTAVASHRAM) WITH ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. |
| EXHIBIT P3. | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.07.2016 ISSUED BY JIJOY VARGHESE JOSEPH AND CHRISTY JIJOY TO THE AUTHORITIES OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4. | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P5. | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DAWTED 03.08.2016 ISSUED Y THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. |
| Exhibit P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/09/2012. |
| Exhibit P7 | PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ASHRAM AND BALAGRAM CHOIR. |
| Exhibit P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE CD COVER. |
| Exhibit P9 | PHOTOGRAPH AS PER THE ANNUAL REPORT. |
| Exhibit P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA. |
| Exhibit P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT DATED 15/06/2007 BY THE THEN ACHARYA SEVAK GRACY THOMAS. |
| Exhibit P12 | TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION BY REV. DR. |
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
10
| T.M.JOHN IN REPLY TO THE WRONG ENTRY IN MINUTES BOOK PAGE 16 R2 P/6. |
|
|---|---|
| Exhibit P13 | A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ACHARYA OF CHRISTAVASHRAMAM DATED 18/12/2019. |
| RESPONDENT EXHIBITS | |
| Exhibit R2(A) | 78TH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT FROM APRIL 2007 TO MARCH 2011. |
| Exhibit R2(B) | 79TH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT FROM APRIL 2011 TO MARCH 2013. |
| Exhibit R2(C) | 80TH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT APRIL 2013 TO MARCH 2014. |
| Exhibit R2(D) | 81ST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT FROM APRIL 2014 TO MARCH 2015. |
| Exhibit R2(E) | MANUSCRIPT OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016. |
| Exhibit R2(F) | COPY OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF 4TH RESPONDENT AS ON 31/03/2014. |
| Exhibit R2(G) | COPY OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF 4TH RESPONDENT AS ON 31/03/2015. |
| Exhibit R2(H) | COPY OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF 4TH RESPONDENT AS ON 31/03/2016. |
| Exhibit R2(I) | COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS SHOWING RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS, INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET OF 4TH RESPONDENT AS ON 31/03/2016. |
| Exhibit R2(J) | ANNUAL REPORT OF THE KERALA BALAGRAM, MANGANAM FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013. |
| Exhibit R2(K) | ANNUAL REPORT OF THE KERALA BALAGRAM, MANGANAM FOR THE YEAR 2013-2014. |
| Exhibit R2(L) | ANNUAL REPORT OF THE KERALA BALAGRAM, |
WP(C) NO. 28120 OF 2016
11
MANGANAM FOR THE YEAR 2014-2015. Exhibit R2(M) MANUSCRIPT OF ANNUAL REPORT OF KERALA BALAGRAM, MANGANAM FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016. Exhibit R2(N) COPY OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTED OF KERALA BALAGRAM, MANGANAM INCLUDING THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2016. Exhibit R2(O) COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 23/11/2016 FORWARDING THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 AND THE NAMES OF THE GOVERNING BODY (EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE) FOR THE YEAR 2016-2017 IS PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT R15. THE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL SABHA MEETING OF 4TH RESPONDENT HELD ON 03/07/2016. Exhibit R2(P) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL SABHA MEETING OF 4TH RESPONDENT HELD ON 03/07/2016.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a complaint by an associate member alleging malpractices in a registered society lies within the jurisdiction of the District Registrar (General).
Whether the District Registrar (General) is required to hear both sides before rejecting a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
MANI JACOB
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
P.K.JOHNY ACHARYA
THE TREASURER CHRISTAVASHRAM
THE SOCIETY OF ST.THOMAS (CHRISTAVASHRAM)
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
