Disposed

Anjuman-E-Mohafizul- Islam, v. The District Registrar

Telangana HC15 Dec 2009WP/24450/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the District Registrar's refusal to process a society's renewal request due to alleged member disputes. The Court held that the Registrar could not rely on Section 23 to delay action where no specific order mandated dispute resolution first and directed the Registrar to proceed under Sections 8 and 9.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent to take further steps under Sections 8 and 9 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 within four weeks.

Anjuman-E-Mohafizul- Islam, Vs The District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.24450 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Anjuman-E-Mohafizul-Islam, Regd.No.583/1990, Eluru, West Godavari District, rep. by its Secretary, rep. by its Secretary Md.Saadiq

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The District Registrar, West Godavari District, Eluru

¶11

..... RESPONDENT

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondent.

¶14

2. This court issued rule nisi on 08-12-2009.

¶15

3. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in not considering and taking action on the representations of the petitioner dated 02-07-2009 and issuing the Memo No.Societies/583/1990 dated 29-08-2009 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and consequently to set aside the said Memo as the same is illegal and contrary to law and pass such other

¶16

suitable orders.

¶17

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the registered organization under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act vide registration No.583/1990. The petitioner was registered with an object to protect the interest of the Muslim Community. The petitioner has its own bye-laws and the Elected Committee has to act in accordance with the bye-laws. As per the bye-laws the Muslims from Eluru and Sanivarapupet alone are entitled to admit as members. The General Body has to elect its committee members and the term of the committee is for a period of three years.

¶18

5. Further it is stated that the petitioner was registered in the year 1990 and the same is being renewed from time to time by the respondent. The petitioner had been functioning without any complaint from any corner duly following the prescribed bye-laws. The election for the managing committee was held in the month of June 2006 and the term of the existing managing committee was expired in the month of June 2009. The existing committee is continuing as Adhoc Committee since the election could not be held due to arbitrary exercise of power by the respondent.

¶19

6. It is also stated that the existing managing committee had made an application for renewal of the petitioner organization along with the list of members of the executive committee and also submitted another representation requesting the respondent to ratify the amendments made by the General Body to the bye-laws of the petitioner organization. The said representations were made on 02-07-2009.

¶20

7. Further it is stated that the respondent instead of taking necessary action on the basis of the representations made by the

¶21

petitioner to renew the registration of the petitioner organization duly accepting the list of Members of the Executive Committee and also to approve the amendments made by the General Body, by his proceedings No.Societies/583/1990 dated 29-08-2009 informed that the representation of the petitioner dated 02-07-2009 are not taken on record in view of the objections received in the reference III cited therefore, the dispute among the members of the society with regard to the management of the society or any other matter may be settled in accordance with Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act 2001 (hereinafter referred in short as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience). The said proceedings of the respondent are impugned in the present writ petition. The respondent cannot keep the representation of the petitioner pending on the ground that there is a dispute among the members of the society and it is to be resolved under Section 23 of the Act. There is no statutory bar in considering the representations of the petitioner organization for renewal and to approve the amendment bye-laws since there is a dispute among the members of the registered organization. Section 23 of the Act cannot be precedent to service for considering the representations made by the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and contrary to law.

¶22

8. It is further averred that it seems the representation refer to in the reference 3^rd cited was submitted to the respondent by some of the members of the petitioner society without any basis and to create some litigation in the adverse interest of the society. The said complaint was obtained under Right to Information Act, thereafter the petitioner society has discuss about the said representation and it was came to light that the said representation was prepared on a fabricated letter head prepared for the said purpose, therefore, the petitioner got issued notices to the persons

¶23

who subscribed their signatures in the said representation. Having received the notices some of them denied the making of such representation to the respondent by executing the notarized affidavits and others did not admit that they have made such representation. The said issue was brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District. It is stated that the said representation is fictitious one and made with a dishonest intention to create unnecessary complications.

¶24

9. It is also stated that the said representation had been made by the persons who are acting adverse to the interest of the petitioner organization for unlawful gain and to defame the petitioner. It is relevant to mention here that if any member had any grievance or dispute in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, the said member may proceed with under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 or may file an application in the District Court, but no such steps have been taken by any member of the society, therefore, the respondent cannot state that there is a dispute and it is to be resolved for considering the representations made by the petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

10. Further it is stated that the election to the executive committee was held in the month of June, 2006 and one Mr.S.A. Raheem was elected as Secretary. Though it is the duty of the Elected Secretary to apply for renewal of the society, he failed to apply within time and ultimately he submitted resignation and the petitioner was elected as Secretary in his place. Two members have filed O.P. challenging his election as Secretary and it is pending, virtually the said O.P. had become infructuous since his term completed. The said O.P. does not come in the way of the respondent in considering the representations of the petitioner.

¶26

Having noticed that the Secretary failed to apply for renewal the petitioner had applied for renewal through the President along with the required documents and also made a representation for ratification of the bye-laws amended by the General Body. The respondent ought to have considered the representations made by the petitioner in accordance with law and he ought not to have kept the same pending on the premise that there was dispute among the members. It is relevant to mention here that the term of the executive committee was expired in the month of June 2009 and the existing committee was continuing as Adhoc Committee. The election could not be conducted having issued notification in view of the impugned order passed by the respondent. It is also relevant to mention here that absolutely there is no dispute pending before any authorities as per Section 23 of the Act, therefore, the question of resolving the dispute for considering the representations does not arise. Even assuming for a moment that there was a dispute it does not come in the way of the respondent to consider the request for renewal since there is no statutory bar, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this court.

¶27

11. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that Section 23 of the Act clearly says that in the event of any dispute arising among the committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit.

¶28

12. Further stand had been taken that in view of the objections filed by Sri S.A. Raheem and others claiming under

¶29

Anjuman-E-Muhafizul Islam, Eluru, the then District Registrar had not taken the annual lists and amendments on record in respect of the petitioner Society and advised them to settle the issue in accordance with Section 23 of the Act. The other averments also had been denied.

¶30

13. Specific stand had been taken that the writ petitioner had to adjudicate its rights before the competent Civil Court. Sections 8 and 9 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 had been relied on. Section 8 of the Act deals with Amendment of memorandum and Bye-laws and Section 9 of the Act deals with filing of annual list.

¶31

14. Section 8 (4) of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 specifies that if any alteration of the memorandum is filed with the Registrar and if they are not contrary to the provisions of this Act, he shall register the same and shall certify the registration of such alteration under his hand and seal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the resolution. The certificate shall be conclusive evidence that all the requirements of this Act with respect to the alteration and the certification thereof have been complied with and henceforth the memorandum as so altered shall be the memorandum of the society.

¶32

15. Section 9 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 deals with filing of annual list and specifies that every year the society shall, within fifteen days from the date on which the General Body meeting was held, furnish a list to the Registrar of Societies which shall contain the names and addresses of the members of the Managing Committee and Officers entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Society.

¶33

16. Certain submissions were made that there is no dispute

¶34

at all to be resolved under Section 23 of the Act. This court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to this aspect. However, in the light of Sections 8 and 9 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 referred to above the respondent is bound to take further steps in this regard.

¶35

17. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to take further steps in this regard, in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 at the earliest point of time, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶36

___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J

¶37

December 15, 2009. Note: Furnish CC by one week. B/o.Pn

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA

¶39

WRIT PETITION No.24450 of 2009

¶40

December 15, 2009

¶41

Note: Furnish CC by one week. B/o.Pn

Anjuman-E-Mohafizul- Islam, v. The District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjuman-E-Mohafizul- Islam, v. The District Registrar

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

Rachakonda Balabikshapathy Vs The Chief Engineer (Rws)

B.D.Narayan Reddy Vs The District Co-operative Officer

Banne Buchiraju Vs The Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer

R. C. Ranga Reddy Vs G.C. Somi Reddy

Vemuri Narayana Vs Sri S.D.Koushik

Smt. Battipalli Ramchandramma, Vs Sri Chandra Sekhara Sastry IAS