Dismissed

Dommeti Satyanarayana v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Oct 2023WP/24124/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that a Registrar's endorsement on a society list is merely a filing acknowledgement, not an order on merits. However, since serious disputed questions of fact and law regarding the election were pending in a separate civil suit, the writ petition for mandamus was dismissed for lack of maintainability.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dommeti Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^320s ]

¶2

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

¶3

I,{ONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24'124 OF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

Dommeti Satyanarayana, S/o.Veeranna, Aged about^{76 years,} Occ;^Retired, R/o. Flat no.4o2, Sai Balaji Apartment, Padma^{Nagar, Phase-ll,NearRing Road,} Behind-Rao's High School, Qutubullapur^{Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Registration^and Stamps Department, Telangana Secretariat^{Building, Hyderabad.}

¶12

The Commissioner and lnspector General^{Of Regislrationand Slamps,} Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Registrar, Registrar of^{Societies, Nampally,Red Hills, Hyderabad.}

¶14

M/s. Youths Fraternal and Cultural Association^(YFCA), Represented^{by its} President [l1r. Dampanaboina Srinivas, S/o. Late Chinnaswamy^{Aged about50} years, Office al 1-2-59713O1D, Near lndira Park, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶15

Dommeti Srinivasa Murthy, S/o.^{SuryanarayanaMurthy,Aged about 56 years,} Occ. Business, R:/o 8.21, 16-2-751110111,^{SBH Colony, Saidabad,} Hyderabad.

¶16

Gubbala W Satyanarayana, S/o.^{Late G. Adinarayana, Aged54 years,Occ.} Business, Rr/o Ptot No.29-174, Flat No. 201, MK. Residency,^{New Vidyanagar,} Neredmet, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶17

Vasamsetty Babu Rao, S/o Ramaswamy, Age 69^years, Occ.^Retired,Ryo. Plot No.8-954, NGO Colony Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

¶18

Dommeti YerrappaSetty, S/o.DN.Setty, Age.^{66 years,} Occ.^{Advocate,Fyo 7-} 1-67, Flat No.204,Swarna Plaza, Dharam Karan Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶19

A.Sridhar, S/o Nagabhushanam,^Age 58^{years, Occ-} Business,^{R/o- Flat} No.03, AGR Towers, Saleemnagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶20

G_uttula Apparao, S/o. NarasimhaM urty, Age 5g years, Occ Business, R/o.4_ 42/2, StreeL No. 10, S.S.Colony, Gurrhmg-uda, Nadergul nuraf HyOeiaUaO

¶21

K.Venkat,lswara Prasad, S/o KRK Harnadha Baba, Age 60 years, Occ. 9usiness^{R/o Si, 8-394,Sachivalayanagar Nr. Gayat"nBhavan,} Vanastha rpuram, Hyderabao

¶22

.,...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition Llnder Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia pray ng that in the circumstances r;tated in the affidavit fired therewrth the High court may be pleased to issur: an Order or direction, more particularly a Writ of fVlandamus declaring the a) endorsement dated 25-10-2022 in c.c.No.518/2022 issued by the official Respondent.no 3 upon the letter dated 23-07 -2022 submitted by the unofficial Respondents.no 5 to 11 declaring themselves as Executive committee of the Respondent.no.4 Association in contrary to section g and 14 (3) and other provisions of societies Registration Act, 2001 as arbitrary, illegal and same is liable to be set aiide, b) declare that the 4rh respondent association is deemed to be complied with the provision section g and '14 of the act and recognize the 4th respondent's Ele:ted Executive Body in accordance with the act, c) declare the in-action of official Respondent.no.3 in not considering the correspondence letters dated. 2A-)2-2M2, 10-06-2022,29-06-2022,22-07-2022 submitted by the Respondent. no.4 Association as improper, unjust, and violative of Articre 14 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶24

|.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fil€d in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the endorsement vide C.C No. 51A|ZOZ2 made on 25-10-2022 issued by the Respondent.no.3 on the letter daled. 23-07-2022 submltted by the Respondent.no.5 lo 11 pending disposal of the writ petitron.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.L.B.KUMAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI B.DILEEP KUMAR, AGp FOR REVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Rerspondent Nos.4, 6 to 11 : SRI T.SURYA SATISH

¶29

Counsel for the Re,spondent No.5 : SRI p.BHASKAR

¶30

The Court made the following ORDER

¶31

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.24124 OF 2023

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Heard Sri K.L.B.Kumar, learned counsel lor the writ petitioner and Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4, 6 to 11. Also heard Sri P.Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶35

Sri B.Dileep Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration, who is representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, seeks the Court to pass orders on merits.

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following substantive reliefs

¶37

"a) endorsement dated 25.10.2022 in C.C.No.S18 of 2022 issued by the oflicial respondent No.3 upon the letter dated 23.O7.2022 submitted by the unofficial respondent Nos.S to 11 declaring themselves as Executive Committee of respondent No.4-Association in contrary to Sections 9 & 14(3) and other provisions of Societies Registration Act, 2O0l as arbitrary, illegal and sarne is liable to be set aside;

¶38

b) declare that the 4h respondent association is deemed to be complied u,ith the provision Sections 9 and 14 of the

¶39

2 Dr.CSL, J w.l' \o )1 124 of 2023

¶40

¶41

1'ct and recollnize I he 4rh respondcnt's E1(rcte(l Execr-ttive tlody in accordancc rvith the Act;

¶42

c) declare the in-action of official respondent No.3 in not considering thc correspondence lctrers datcd 20.o2.2022, tO.06.2022, 29.06.2022, )2.O7.2022 submitted by respondent No.4 -Associatio n as improper, unjust, and violative of Articlc 14 of thc^{(lonstitution} of India;"

¶43

Makin6l his submission^q,ith regard to the rnerits of the matter, lear-ned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent i\o.4 is an Association registered uncler Societies Registration Act. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is the ersl.rvhile President of respondent No.4-Association. Respondent Nos.S to 11 committed several irregurlanties with regard to thr: rnanagement of the affairs of respondent No.4 Association. Without following the procedure established by law, resporldent Nos.S to 1l submitted a letter, dated 23.07.2022 stating that they were elected as Executive Committee of respondent No.4-Association and indeed, they were not duly elected. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.3 i.e., the District Registrar of Societies endorsed the said subr.rission, which is illegal and therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel states that without \

¶44

¶45

DT,CSL,,J W.P.No.24124 of 2023

¶46

conducting^{any enquiry and withoutconsideringthe documents} submitted^{by thepetitioner, orderslvere passed bythe} Registrar^{ofSocietiesand therefore, aggrievedby the said} arbitrary^{act, the petitioner is before this Court'}

¶47

On the other^{hand, learned counsel appearing for} respondent^{Nos.4,6 to 11 submitsthat the list submitted by} respondent^{Nos.S to 11 was taken on record by the Registrarof} Societies^{and that does not mealr passing of any orders on} merits.

¶48

Learned counsel^{for the petitionerstating that makingan} endorsement^{would mean passing of an order, relied upon the} decision^{that is renderedby the High Court of Andhra Pradesh} in W.P.No.13192^{of 2O2ldated 2l-12'2021between} Dr.Raghauarao^{Polauarapu ond tuo otLers us. The State of} Andlva^{Pradesl\represented bg ifsPrincipalSecretary,} Department^{of Reuenue.However,said decision does not} indicate^{that making an endorsement would mean passing of} an order.^{In the decision that is relied upon by the learned} counsel for^{the petitioner,Iearned Judge had clearly stated that} the Registrar^{has no power either to accept or reject an annual} \

¶49

r!FEI\ ': .',

¶50

¶51

l)r.C)1. ,-l V,/.P ito. :1124 of )02-1

¶52

¶53

list filed un(ier Section 9 of the Societies Registration Act and what the Rcgistrar can only do is acknowledge its receipt and file the sam€. The concluding paragraph of the order reads as under

¶54

"l'herefore, for all the above rnentioncd rei:sorrs this Court finds that the Registrar erred in givinq an endorsenrent "accepting" thc document filed br the unofficial respondents and "rejecting" the document hied by the petitioners. The statements that the pr:Liti,rncrs' documenrs are "rejected" and that the resPondents' documen,s are "admitted/accepted' are both u.rong in Lhe opinion of this Court. Even the reasons lurnishc d by the Registrar for coming to a conclusion arc crroncous and contrary to law. Therefore, the prayer in Writ l)r:tition is partially allowed. This Court holds that the Registrar has no power either to "accept' or to 'rcject" an annual lisr filcd under Se,:tion 9 of the Act. He can only acknori'ledge its receipt and hle the same. A Mandamus is issuerl against the acceptance of one list while rejecting the othcr. Since there arr: seriously disputed questions on fact and law in this Writ Petition, this Court is not entering in to those areas. Therefore, the other prayers made are reje<:ted. The parties are left to choose their own options and to pursue their legal remedies as mandated by law inclurling the correctn€:s,s or otherwise of the lists etc., hled by them pursuanl to tl.e meetings held on 24.06.2O21. With these observations the Writ Petition is partially allou'ed and endorsemr:nts given by the Registrar (as accepted / rej ected) are set aside. The lists filed by both the parlies are directed

¶55

Dr.CSL, J t\i.P. No.24124 of 2O23

I I ! I I

I \

-v

to be kept in the record of the 2.d respondent. They shall necessarily be subjcct to thc ftnal decision ol a competent Court or arbitrator as the case may be. There shall be no order as to costs. "

¶61

In the case on hald, the endorsement made bv the

¶62

Registrar of Societies reads as under:

¶63

"Registration No. : 45 / 1967 Serial No. of the Document : C.C.No.5I8 ot2023 Name of the Societlz : Youths Fraternal and Cultural Association Description of the Document Date of Submission : 23.07.2022 Entry Date of Record :25.7O.2022"

¶64

8 The above endorsement does not mean passing of any order on merits. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there IS nothing to interfere with the endorsement made by the Registrar of Societies.

¶65

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4, 6 to 11 informed that S.O.P.No.39 of 2023 is pending before the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where all the issues including the issues that are raised in the present Writ Petition are raised. The petitioner a_iso contended the same thing, more particularly, at para No. 15 of the affidavit.

¶66

.-=-

¶67

¶68

Dr.^('.\l-. i i . \o - i i:,1 ({ :L)a3

¶69

1o' Therefrrrc. this court holds that the prescn t wr-it petition

¶70

u.holh' lacks mcrits.

¶71

11 Resulte,n tly, the Writ petition is dismissed u,ithorrt costs

¶72