AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the Managing Committee of an institution called the Ram Mohan Roy Seminary. It is registered in the State of Bihar where the Seminary is located.
The Respondent No. 5 claims to be a Society that was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act (Act 21 of 1860) and claims to be actually entitled to manage and control the said Ram Mohan Roy Seminary.
By reason of Section 36 of the West Bengal Society Registration Act, 1961 all societies registered under the 1860 Act and functioning within the State of West Bengal were deemed to have been registered under the 1961 Act.
The respondent no. 6 is the Secretary claims that it is in management of the said Ram Mohan Roy Seminary, which is registered in the State of Bihar. The only issue in substance that can be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the society lawfully exists within the meaning of 1961 Act.
Section 23 of the 1961 Act authorizes the State to form an opinion as regards the affairs of any particular society. The State Government has been empowered to appoint a competent person called a Commissioner for conducting an enquiry for such purpose. The allegation of the petitioner in is that the respondent no. 5 is non-functional since no annual reports or accounts have been filed for over 50 years.
A coordinate Bench of this court by order dated December 15, 2011 passed in WP 18373 (W) of 2011 directed an enquiry commission to be constituted under Section 23(1) of the 1961 Act to look into the functioning of the society. The order that passed by the Commission is subject matter of challenge in the instant proceeding.
The Commissioner has held that he could not conduct the investigation by reason of pendency of several civil proceedings between the parties. The respondent, however, could not demonstrate any restraint order from any civil court preventing the Commissioner from conducting the investigation as ordered by the coordinate bench of this court.
It is interesting to note that none of the parties, including the respondent no. 5, could produce any valid up-to-date registration certificate and related documents in respect of the said society.
In the circumstances aforesaid, this court finds that the order of the Commissioner is, ex facie, perverse and is liable to be interfered and is hereby set aside.
The State Government shall, therefore, within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order appoint a Commissioner who shall conduct the enquiry into the affairs of the respondent no. 5 and submit a suitable recommendation to the State after giving a detailed and comprehensive report within a period of two months thereof. The Commissioner shall, particularly, look into as to whether the statutory requirements of the society under the 1961 Act have been complied with by the respondent no. 5.
The State may take suitable steps, under the 1961 Act, after receipt of such report from the Commissioner.
With these observations, the writ-petition being WP 18320 (W) of 2017 stands disposed of. No order as to costs.