Allowed

Sri Surya Prakash Charitable Society v. The Registrar Registrar of Societies, Red Hills

Telangana HC23 Mar 2022WP/3620/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order where the Registrar rejected a society's proposal for changing its executive body based on objections filed by a removed member. The court held the Registrar cannot resolve such internal disputes and remanded the proposal for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned letter rejecting the proposal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Registrar to take necessary action within four weeks.

Sri Surya Prakash Charitable Society Vs The… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 3620 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Surya Prakash Charitable Society, (subsidiary society), rep.by its President Mohd.Yousuf S/o Mohd Moulana, aged about 68 years, R/o H.No. 5-4-425. Kamalanagar, Vanasthalrpuram. Hyderabad

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Registrar Registrar of Societies, Red Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana state

¶11

2 The Government of Telangana, Rep.by its Secretary, Cooperative Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to take the proposal of the change of body of the subsidiary society as per the provision of the section 21 of the Societies Act, 2001 by setting aside the impugned order of the respondent bearing letter No. 1 134200215OC12021 dl. 29.12.202'1 declaring the same to be illegal and against the law.

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶16

suspend the letter issued by the^{respondentbearing letter No1134-} 2OO21SOC12O21 dl. 29.12.2021, as^{otherwisethe petitioner would be put to} irreparable loss and^glave suffering.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI K. ANANTHA RAO}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FORCO-OPERATIVESOCITIES}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEKREDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.3620 of 2022 ORDER:

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader fol Cooperation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I and 2. With their consent, the present Writ Petition is being disposed ofat the admission stage.

¶24

Seeking to declare the letter of the respondent No.l vlde No. I I 34-2002 lSOCl2021 , dated 29.12.202 1, as illegal and against the law, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petitron.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No.1 has not acted on the application of the^petitioner society, but taking into consideration the objections filed by one Smt.Rehana Sultana and her Advocate, the respondent^{No.1 has} passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner, rejecting the application of the petitioner for inducting a new member to the society. Learned counsel has^produced a copy of^Emergencyand General Body Meeting of the petitioner society held^on 24.11.2021 , which shows that the said Rehana Sultana^has been

¶26

¶27

¶28

AAR, J !i P.No 3620 of 2022

¶29

removed from the membership of the society and in her place, another person was sought to be inducted as a member. Learned counsel has further stated that except endorsing on the Resolution passed by the petitioner so.ciety, the official respondents have no business to pass any order and that in case, the said Rehana Sultana had any grievance against the removal from the membership, then her remedy lies elsewhere under the provisions of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (fbr shorr, 'the Act,), but, the respondent No.1, on the ground that the said Rehana Sultana has filed an objection petition, simply cannot reject or return the proposal submitted by the petitioner society for change ofbody.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has stated that due to the objections filed by the Rehana Sultana, the official respondents had to take necessary steps and retum the proposal sent by the petitioner society for the change of body. Learned Govemment Pleader has fufther stated that the petitioner has an alternative and effective remedy of filing of an appeal and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

¶31

itI Il' II

¶32

3 AAR, J W.P.No 3620 of 2022

¶33

A perusal of the impugned order shows that basing on the objections filed by Rehana Sultana, the respondent No. I has returned the proposal sent by the petitioner society. Under the provisions of the Act, the society has only to intimate the change of body to the Registrar of Societies. The respondent No.l, on the basis of the objections filed by the 3'd party, cannot enter into the arena ofresolving the dispute. The person, who is aggrieved by the removal from the roles of the society, has to seek necessary remedy elsewhere, but, he/she cannot file the objections before the authority concerned fbr the change ofExecutive body.

¶34

Having regard to the same, this Courl is of the prima facie opinion that the impugned Ietter sent by the respondent No.l rejecting the proposal sent by the petitioner society is without any application of mind, and therefore, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.l to take necessary action on the proposal sent by the petitioner society, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.

¶35