AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satyabrata Sinha, J.—The Court: this application is directed against an Order dated August 27, 1993 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Additional Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal and the order dated Match 8, 1994 passed by the Respondent No. 1, Registrar of firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal as contained in Annexures ''E'' and ''G'' respectively to the writ application. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. There exists a society commonly known as ''United Bank of India Scheduled Casts/Scheduled Tribes Employees'' Welfare Council'' (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Society''). The said Society has its Registered office at 16, Old Court House Street, Calcutta-700001. The Petitioners who are 14 in number and the Respondents Nos. 3 to 20 claim themselves to be the office bearers and/or members of the said Society: The inter se disputes between the Petitioners and the private Respondents appear to be that they are managing and/or controlling the affairs of the said Society, the Petitioners, however, contend that the said Respondents were removed from the committee and, in fact, the erstwhile General Secretary, Shri Amalendu Haider, was removed from the primary membership of the Committee.
2, Pursuant to the order of this Court records of the matter have been placed before me by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has. i and 2. From the said records it appears that a letter had been written by the General Manager of the United Bank of India on October 28, 1993 addressed to the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations stating.
The United Bank of India S Cs/S Ts Employees'' Welfare Council is a Registered Body under Registration No. S/30010 issued by your office and the said Council is operating in our Bank for the welfare of SC/ST employees. Recently it is observed by our Bank that two of the leaders representing two factions of the said S Cs/S Ts. Employees Welfare Council filed their annual Returns to your office separately on different dates for renewal of registration. One of them Sri Amulya Kr. Majumder submitted to us one letter; field (copy enclosed) and the other Sri Amaiendu Haider; submitted one Money Receipt (copy enclosed) issued by your Office claiming as the true holder of the Registration Certificate issued under Serial No. S/30010.
In view of the above we are not in a position to ascertain out of the two groups of the claimants who is the true holder of the Registration Certificate No. S/ 30010 issued by your Office.
We shall deem it a favour if you kindly enlighten us as to the actual position in this regard. The additional Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-trading Corporations, however,? was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction in such matters. It, however, appears that by a. letter dated August 27, 1993 Shri Amulya Kumar Majumder was informed that with reference: to his prayer dated August 18, 1993 a list of the Central Committees of the said Society for the term 1993 to, 1995, as was evident from the Annual Return of the Society for the year 1992 had been submitted on August 2, 1993. It further appears that Shri Amaiendu Haider was directed by the said Additional Registrar of Firms, Societies and Non-Trading Corporations, West Bengal by a letter dated February 8, 1994 to bring the pass Book of account No. S/3019 of the said Society of any other. documents from the Bank to justify the Annual Return. The said direction was issued to Shri Haider by the said Authority in exercise of his power conferred upon him u/s 22(1) of the West Bengal Societies'' Registration Act, 1961 (hereinafter called and referred to as ''the said Act'').
From the impugned order as contained in Annexure ''G''-to the writ application it appears that an opportunity of hearing was given to the parties whereafter a purported declaration was made that Shri Amulya Kumar Majumder was declared to be the General Secretary of the said Society.
Mr. Jishnu Sana, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, has raised four contentions in support of this writ application. Mr. Saha firstly submitted that the Respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in terms of the provisions of the said Act, He further submitted that in any event from the Notice served upon the parties it would be evident that the parties were directed to use the documents in respect of the Annual Return submitted by both factions and, thus, the parties had not been given an opportunity of being heard as to whether the said Shri Majumder was the General Secretary of the Committee or not. The Learned Counsel further submitted that a bare perusal of the Notice dated February 8, 1994 would reveal that no application had been filed by the private Respondents and, thus, no dispute having been pending for adjudication by the Respondent No. 2, he had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It was lastly contended by Mr. Saha that no dispute having ever, been raised as to who was the validly elected General Secretary, the Respondent No. 2 could not have adjudicated thereupon.
The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners drew my attention to the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition to the effect that the Petitioners have suppressed the material facts with regard to the pendency of the two suits. The Learned Counsel in this connection has drawn my attention to the statement made in para. 28 of the writ application and submitted that from a bare perusal thereof it would appear that the Petitioners, in fact, have disclosed the factum of pendency of the aforementioned suits in the writ application.
It has further been stated that two parallel organizations are being run and both of them have been registered by the Respondent No. 2. The said contention is denied and disputed by the Respondents.
The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 3,7,8,10,12,19 and 20 on the other-hand submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Section 17, read with Section 22, of the said Act it would appear that the Respondent No.2 had the requisite jurisdiction to consider the question as to whether the Petitioners and/or the private Respondents had been managing the affairs of the said Committee.
The Learned Counsel further submitted that from the fact as revealed by the records, it would be evident that prior to the passing of the impugned order both the parties have been given a fair opportunity of being heard and keeping in view the fact that the Petitioners having appeared before the said authority without any demur, are estopped and precluded from questioning the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 2. The Learned Counsel further drew my attention to various statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition and particularly those made in paras. 19, 20, 21 and 22 thereof for the purpose of showing that some of the Petitioners have preferred an appeal against the interim order of injunction passed by the City Civil Court in the aforementioned suits and they have suppressed the said fact. It further stands admitted that one of the said suits has since been dismissed for default. The Learned Counsel appearing oh behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also supported the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondents. He further drew my attention to the constitution of the Committee and fairly placed the records of the matter.
The West; Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was enacted to provide for the registration of Literary, cultural, scientific, political, Charitable, religious and certain other kinds of societies and for matters connected therewith. The word ''Secretary'' has been defined in Section 2(1) of the said act-to mean the Secretary or the principal executive officer by whatever name; called, of a society, and includes a person who for the time being acts as Secretary. Section 14 of the said Act mandates every society to maintain at its registered office, a register of its members and to enter therein the following particulars, viz., (a) the name and address of each member, (b) the date on which the member was admitted and (c) the date on which a member ceased to be such. Section 15 of the said Act states that every society should keep at its registered office proper books of account. Section-17.of the said Act reads as follows:
Annual and other returns to be forwarded to Registrar.-- (1) Within thirty days after the holding of every annual general meeting, there shall be*tiled with the Registrar --
(a) a list of the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the Governing Body, the -President, the Secretary and of other office-- bearers of the society ;
(b) an annual report by the Governing Body on the; working of the society for the previous year:
(c) a copy each of the balance-sheet and the auditor''s report certified by the auditor under Sub-section (2) of Section 15;
(2) The list and the annual report referred to in Clause (d) and (b) of Sub-section (1) shail be certified by the President and the Secretary;
(3) If any change occurs in the composition or the Governing Body or in the holder of the office of the President or the Secretary at any time for any reason whatsoever, such change shall, within thirty days, be notified to the Registrar.
(4) For any contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3), every officer in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees. Section 22(1) of the said Act reads as follows:
Power of Registrar to call for information or explanation.- (1) The Registrar may, by written order, call on a society to furnish in writing such information or explanation within such time, not being less than two weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the society, as he may specify in the order in connection with the affairs of the society or any documents filed by the society under this Act.
As indicated hereinbefore, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that in terms of the aforementioned provisions, the Additional Registrar had the requisite jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders.
This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Mukund Ram Tanti Vs. S.I. Raza, Registrar, Trade Unions and Others, In the aforementioned case, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court was construing the provisions of Sections 3 and 8 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which appeared to be in pari materia with Sections 17 and 22 of the said Act.
The Division Bench, in that case, held as follows:
It, therefore, appears, that, if there is a failure to submit return as required u/s 28 of the Act, the officers of the Trade Union have to be prosecuted with the previous sanction of the Registrar under the Act. According to Regulation 14, the returns have to be submitted to the Registrar by the 31st day of July in each year. It is conceded that the old office-bearers continue up to the 31st day of March of a particular year and the new off ice-bearers start functioning from the 1st day of April, of that year. It is, therefore, manifest that the returns required by Section 28 of the Act, which have to be filed by the 31st of July in each year, will have to be filed by the new office-bearers, although the statements made in the returns related to the period when the old office-bearers were functioning. If, therefore, the new office-bearers do not submit the returns, they may have to be prosecuted with the previous sanction of the Registrar for failure to submit the same, and, in order that the Registrar could give sanction for prosecution of, such new office-bearers, it is essential and a part of his duty to ascertain and know who those new office-bearers were. In. other words, the Registrar, for the purpose of the Act, has to maintain an up to date register recording the names of the office-bearers existing at, the relevant time. Without maintaining such register with names of new office-bearers substituted for the old ones, the Registrar, in my opinion, cannot be expected to see that the provisions of the Act have, been legally complied with. In substituting the names of the new office-bearers, the Registrar has, therefore, to find if those new office-bearers were legally elected because, if their election is not legal, there may be a grave doubt whether they could be prosecuted for failure to submit the returns.
It is obvious, therefore, that, on being informed about the election of the new office-bearers, the Registrar is within his rights to ascertain whether they were legally elected so as to be recorded in the register maintained for the purpose and to be bound for compliance of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the Registrar has full jurisdiction to enquire about the legality of the new election for the purpose of maintaining a proper register showing the harries of the office-bearers who may be at the relevant time required to comply with the provisions of the Act or to be dealt with in accordance therewith. In this particular case, the order of the Registrar clearly shows that the election of the new office-bearers was not accepted by him to be legal only for the purpose of maintenance of records in his office to facilitate the administration under the Act.
Moreover, the Petitioner having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Additional Registrar, at this stage cannot turn round and question his jurisdiction to decide the said matter. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, has submitted that from the order dated August 27, 1993, which is contained in Annexure ''E'' to the writ application, it would appear that the Additional Registrar had already stated as to who were the office bearers of the Association.
According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Additional Registrar had passed *he said order without there being any complaint made by any person whatsoever. The said order was passed only with reference to the prayer of Sri Amulya Kumar Majumder without a dispute having been raised before, which might have fallen for adjudication. The Learned Counsel has pointed out that the complaint, if any, by the United Bank of India was made for the first time on October 28, 1993. But at that point of time also, the Additional Registrar stated that he had no jurisdiction in the said matter.
However, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that the Additional Registrar changed his position and issued a notice upon the Petitioner only on February 8, 1994 and has made the impugned declaration on March 8, 1994. The Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the Petitioner cannot be said to have a fair trial in the matter and thus even if the said authority is asked to comply with the principles of natural justice, the Petitioner would be prejudiced as it has formed a bias with regard to the subject matter of the case.
The Learned Counsel appears to be correct. From the notice dated February .8, 1994, it appears that the Petitioner was not informed as to the nature of the enquiry which was going to be made by the said authority ;''. the Petitioner was only directed to bring documents of submission of annual return and the passbook of the bank-account of the Association, the Petitioner even at that point of time was not intimated that the said authority intended to adjudicate upon the question as to whether the Petitioner or the private Respondents were managing the affairs of the Association in question. The said authority in the said notice even did not refer to the alleged complaint dated October 28, 1993 made by the United Bank of India. Evidently, therefore, the Petitioners did not receive a fair trial at the hands of the concerned Respondents.
In the above view of the matter, in my opinion, the matter should be considered again by the appropriate authority after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Keeping in view the fact that the Additional Registrar has already formed an opinion, in my opinion, it would be proper if the Registrar himself should apply his mind to the fact of the matter and pass an appropriate order. Before passing the order, the Registrar shall give opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties and shall allow both of them to adduce their respective evidences.
This order is being passed as, admittedly, the Registrar had no occasion to apply his mind on the controversy between the parties. Being a statutory authority and having been empowered to adjudicate upon a dispute of the nature involved in the writ application, the Registrar, must act fairly and in a reasonable manner.
I am not oblivious of the fact that the order .passed by the Registrar, if any, would not, be final as the self same matter is pending consideration before a competent civil Court.
Keeping in view the implication of the order that may be passed by the Registrar in favour of the Petitioners or the private Respondents, particularly the financial implication, it would be desirable that the learned Presiding Officer of the Eleventh Court of the City Civil Court at Calcutta shall dispose of the Title Suit No. 1206 of 1994 at an early date, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order.
The Registrar is hereby directed to conclude the hearing and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in terms of this judgment and Order, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
In the result, this application is allowed in part. The impugned orders as contained in Annexures ''E'' and ''G'' to the writ application are quashed and the matter is remitted with the aforementioned observations and directions.
All parties concerned shall act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment upon usual undertaking.