AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—The first petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and it has filed the petition through the Secretary and three of its members. The Society is aggrieved with the impugned order holding that the voluntary resignation of the 4th respondent Virender Singh as President was interfered with on a finding that he had not so resigned from his office and he continued to be the member. The impugned proceedings themselves came to be passed by the authorities constituted under the Haryana Societies Registration Act on a petition filed under Section 21 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Society Act, 2012. The authorities accepted the contention raised by the 4th respondent that the letter of resignation said to have been given by him on 10.7.2102 was a fabrication and the alleged acceptance by the society on 8.8.2012 was at a meeting that was not duly convened. At the same meeting alleged to have been called under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, 4 persons namely Santosh Devi wife of the 2nd petitioner, Kanta Devi wife of the 3rd petitioner, Pushpa Devi wife of the 4th petitioner and Ravi Raj son of the 3rd petitioner were reported to have been admitted to membership of the society. This was also held to be invalid. The case was decided on the following facts: The 4th respondent was reported to have issued a notice to the Registrar Kaithal with the copy marked to the Society that he was resigning from membership as well as his post as President of the Society through a letter dated 15.02.2011. The copies had been appended with affidavit duly notorized affirming his decision as voluntary. The fact of the resignation had been referred to in the notice by the 3rd petitioner through counsel to the 4th respondent casting imputations of mismanagement of the society and calling for submission of accounts. There were also allegations that the 4th respondent had been running the affairs of the Society and the college established by it on a pretension that he was the chairman of the college and urging him to desist from such postures. While the 4th respondent denied that he had ever tendered resignation, the petitioners would refer to issuance of the notice and the fact that there was no response to this notice as betraying the falsity of the 4th respondent''s contention. They would state that such a false contention was brought for the first time only when pressures had been built for serious action against defalcation of funds against the 4th respondent. The District Registrar passed an order on 01.03.2013 holding that the 4th respondent''s resignation was not established. While so holding, the District Registrar had accepted the 4th respondent''s contention that a fabricated letter of resignation had been prepared by using the signature of the 4th respondent in his blank letter head that had been kept in the office for use during his temporary absence out of station. The Registrar made an issue of the fact that the notice of meeting dated 08.08.2012 had not been sent to any member and even the original notice for calling the meeting had not been produced. The District Registrar made reference to the fact that the Vice President appeared before him and he stated that he was not intimated regarding the meeting dated 08.08.2012 nor was his consent obtained or agenda circulated to him. The Registrar observed that in the absence of President it was only the Vice President who was competent to preside the meeting and the meeting which was admittedly not held under the Chairmanship of the Vice President could not be taken to be valid to uphold the alleged acceptance of the resignation by the society.
As regards the induction of members, the District Registrar had observed that no request letter from any of the new members for admission to membership in Form ''X'' had been produced. Admission fee was not approved by the governing body. The Form XV circulated with reference to the newly inducted members had been signed by the Secretary as officiating President when the Secretary was not competent. The subsequent election alleged to have taken place on 03.09.2012 itself, the District Registrar observed was incompetent and the list of governing body in Form XVII had not been submitted by the Secretary or the President in the office of the District Registrar.
The District Registrar also made a comparison of the signature found in the resolution for resignation of Kanti Chander and had observed that it did not match with the signature found in the affidavit and also held that the removal of the said person from the list of members was invalid.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Society would argue that when the 4th respondent had voluntarily tendered resignation, there was no scope for entertaining any enquiry regarding the voluntary resignation through an application filed under Section 21 of the Act. A finding of forgery could not be undertaken by the Registrar in the enquiry under the Act and if, at all, the 4th respondent could have been directed only to file a civil suit to establish his contentions. The counsel would refer to the said provision to contend that it could be invoked only in a case where a person was aggrieved that having been admitted as a member, he had not been included in the register of members or when any member was aggrieved with the removal of the membership of the society. Adverting to the reasoning adopted by the District Registrar that meeting dated 08.08.2012 had not been properly convened and the meeting convened by the Secretary was not valid and that further the induction of members had been brought about without receiving applications from the members in the manner required under the Rules and hence not valid, the senior counsel would argue that they were all mere procedural defects which would not come into the root of the matter regarding the membership. In any event, the whole issue would be only whether the 4th respondent could continue to claim himself to be a member and seek for adjudication in his favour in the manner that was done by the authorities.
The provision under Section 21 would require to be reproduced to consider the scope of enquiry that is possible.
"21. (1) Where any member claims to have been admitted as a member but not included in the register of members or any member is aggrieved with his removal from the membership of the Society, such person may submit a petition to the District Registrar along with prescribed fee.
(2) The District Registrar may require such person to support his petition with such documentary or other evidence, as may be considered appropriate.
(3) Upon receipt of any such petition, the District Registrar shall consider the matter and settle the disputes in accordance with the Bye-laws after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
(4) Where the Bye-laws are observed to be silent or lack clarity for addressing the dispute or are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, the District Registrar shall decide the matter in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act or the rules made thereunder.
(5) Where the Society has large number of members and it is considered expedient to verify, determine and establish the identity and genuineness of such members, the District Registrar may require all members of the Society to appear before him in person alongwith an acceptable proof of identity and address, as recorded in the register of members, within such time and in such manner, as may be prescribed.
(6) Where action is taken in accordance with sub-section (5) above and certain members do not appear before him in spite of two opportunities granted, the District Registrar shall be competent to strike off the names of such members from the register."
Section 21(1) provides for two distinct reliefs, (i) In a situation where a person is admitted as a member but is not included in the register of members, (ii) When a person is aggrieved with his removal from membership of the society. A mode of removal of membership is not so stated in the Act but the situation is dealt with under a different nomenclature ''cessation of membership'' under Section 22. The Section contemplates four different situations all of which are also required to be reproduced:-
"22. A member admitted to a Society shall cease to be so in the following events:-
(i) upon submission and acceptance of his resignation; or
(ii) if he ceases to fulfill the eligibility condition for being admitted as a member as mentioned under section 16; or
(iii) upon his failure to pay membership fee or annual subscription fee continuously for a period, as may be prescribed; or (iv) upon the death of a member:
Provided that in case of a Society registered for the purposes pursuant to the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (Act 10 of 1983), a housing Society or a resident welfare association registered as a Society for the operation, management and maintenance of facilities for the residents or civic amenities of any defined area, the nominee or the legal heir shall be enrolled as a member subject to fulfillment of qualifications as laid down in the Bye-laws and the provisions of the Act.
Section 35 of the Registration Act declares that a person shall be disqualified from continuing an office bearer of the Society as soon as he ceases to be a member of the society. I will take it that a person that tenders his resignation as a member will lose his status as an office bearer and vice versa may not necessarily happen. In this case, the alleged resignation was supposed to have been both as regards membership as well as an office bearer of the society. The Bye Laws provide for two distinct situations viz., of cessation of membership under Clause 3 and removal of a member under Clause 4. Clause 4 states that name of any member other than a life member can be removed from the membership registrar of the society by a majority vote in the meeting of general body. Clause 28 of the Bye Laws of the Society lists out five different clauses by which the vacancy would occur on the Managing Committee as under:-
(a) if any member dies
(b) if any member resigns
(c) if any member taking intoxicated things
(d) if any member become insane.
(e) if any member absents himself for more than ten consecutive meetings of the Managing Committee.
The issue now is whether by alleged resignation was true; if it was true, has it come into effect. If the resignation is true, he ceases to be a member. If the resignation is not true, he continues to be a member. Section 21 could be certainly invoked by a person who contends for a position that he continues to be a member and that an attempt of the members of the society to keep him out on the ground that he had voluntarily resigned was not true and seek for adjudication under the said provision. When the defence was that he had already tendered his resignation and sent a letter to the Registrar, the petitioners themselves are aware of the fact that a letter of resignation to the Registrar cannot be the terminus quo of his status as such President.
We have extracted the legal provision. Section 22(1)(i) would require resignation to be accepted. I will not, therefore, make an issue of whether the letter of the 4th respondent to the Registrar had indeed been written by him or not. A letter was reported to have been delivered to the society on 10.7.2012 and the society in its meeting was said to have passed a resolution on 8.8.2012 accepting the same. The resolution was said to have been passed and signed by the petitioners No. 2 to 4 and the newly inducted members as well as the member who was said to have resigned. If an acceptance was to be made by the members of the society, it has to be inevitably at a meeting lawfully convened. Clause 10 of the Bye Laws provides for calling of an extraordinary or emergency meeting of the general committee. Clause 23 provides that notice for meeting of the Managing Committee would ordinarily be given 7 days ahead of the date of meeting to the members and office bearers by the Secretary of the Society and 24 hours notice shall be given to the members and officer bearers of the Managing Committee if an extraordinary or ordinary meeting of the Managing Committee is required. It has been observed by the District Registrar that no notice of the meeting had been served on any member and the Vice President had given a statement that he had not himself received any notice. There was no attempt by the then Secretary who is the 2nd petitioner herein that he had served a notice of meeting on members. Considering the fact that it was a closely held body, it was just as well possible that even without written notice, the parties could have collected themselves to be present. In such an event, one would look at least for the presence of all the members of the Society to legitimize that there was meeting duly convened. From the memorandum and bye laws filed, it is seen that one Brishan Bhan had signed as Vice President and I, therefore, assume that he was at least required to be informed, for, in the absence of President, it could have been only the Vice President who could preside over the meeting. If the Vice President was also not present and he had affirmed before the District Registrar that he did not have the notice of meeting, then I cannot take it that the meeting was duly convened and that there could have been an acceptance of the letter of resignation. The District Registrar was, therefore, justified in stating that the meeting had not been validly convened.
I may not go as far as to state that the copy of the letter received with the signature of the 4th respondent had been filled up by the petitioners themselves. The signature of the 4th respondent in the resignation letter itself was not denied. On the other hand, the contention was that his signature in letter head had been misused by the petitioners. If recitals had been filled up on a blank paper, it would still amount forgery but assuming that it was voluntarily made, it was required to be duly accepted to operate against the petitioner from being removed from the membership and his office a President. It was also essential that the meeting had been properly convened, which I have already held was not properly done. If the meeting dated 08.08.2012 itself had not been validly convened then the induction of members on that date cannot also be said to be valid. I will not take a decision on whether Kanti Chander had been validly removed and I will find that the District Registrar was not justified in merely making a comparison of the signature from some affidavit and holding that he was not duly removed. At least, there was no plea at the instance of Kanti Chander that he had been wrongly removed from the register of members. He had himself not canvassed for his rights through any application. In any event, there was no resolution of removal of Kanti Chander on that date. It was only on a subsequent day on 22.08.2012 that the acceptance of resignation of Kanti Chander seems to have been brought about. The validity of the meeting or the competence of the body of persons who are present on that day, I am not prepared to hold either way in the absence of any complaint by Kanti Chander himself.
I will find no cause for intervention of the orders of the authorities passed under the Act accepting the contention of the 4th respondent that his removal from the membership was wrong. Even while affirming the order of the authorities as regards the 4th respondent, I set aside the finding regarding the alleged wrongful removal of membership of Kanti Chander. I uphold, however, the finding of the authorities that the induction of new members at a meeting on 08.08.2012 was not valid. I do not make any pronouncement on the validity or otherwise of the subsequent meetings. They should be merely taken as consequential to my finding that membership of the 4th respondent was not validly removed. The writ petition is dismissed.