AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanju Panda, J.—In this writ application, the Petitioner has challenged the Order Dated 9.10.2009 passed by the Inspector General of Registration (IGR), Cuttack approving reconstituted Governing Body & the amended bye-law of Mahila Vikash (NGO), Tarbod in the district of Nuapada.
Mahila Vikash, Tarbod in the district of Nuapada is a nongovernmental organisation established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter called "the Act") in the year 1994 & duly registered before Opp. Party No. 1 bearing Registration No. 19474/87 of 1993-94. The Petitioner claim''s to be the Founder Member-cum-Treasurer of the said organisation. Opp. Party No. 2 is the Under Secretary (Registration) Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Cuttack. Opp. Party No. 4 is the Founder Member-cum-Secretary of the said organisation. As per the bye-law, both the Petitioner & Opp. Party No. 2 are joint signatories in respect of any transaction with the Bank. The organisation has been running smoothly with the cooperation of all members & District Administration & funding agencies. As per the bye-law, the Governing Body of the said Organisation was constituted consisting of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer & General Body Members & it has been running the Society from the date of its foundation.
While the matter stood thus, the entire dispute started in the year 2008 & all members of the General Body expressed their concern with regard to the interference of outsider, who is the brother of Opp. Party No. 4 & non-transferring of ownership of the vehicle & office building in the name of the Society & monetary transaction.
The Petitioner received an information that a sum of Rs. 2,30,319 was to be withdrawn from the Accounts of the Organisation by Opp. Party No. 4. Hence, he filed objection before the IGR, Cuttack not to approve the allegedly reconstituted Governing Body & the amended bye-law. As regards the illegal withdrawal of money, he intimated all the Banks not to allow any withdrawal from the Bank. He also filed ICC Case No. 36 of 2008 before the Learned S.D.J.M., Nuapada which is pending. The anticipatory bail application filed by Opp. Party No. 4 was rejected by this Court. The IGR, Cuttack also requested the Addl. District Magistrate- cum-District Registrar, Nuapada to enquire into the matter & submit his report. In his turn, on 21.1.2009 the Addl. District Magistrate, enquired into the matter & submitted his report (vide Annexure-1) holding that the reconstitution of the Governing Body of the Organisation, removal of the Petitioner & withdrawal of money by Opp. Party No. 4 were illegal. The IGR on receiving the said enquiry report & after perusal of the entire record, by his Order Dated 17.3.2009 rejected the proposed amendment of bye-law due to procedural irregularity & also the constitution of the Governing Body. Opp. Party No. 4 neither challenged the said order nor preferred any writ application. A meeting of the Executive Body was convened on 19.4.2009 at Bhubaneswar & the present Petitioner was asked to attend the same. By the time the Petitioner arrived there, nobody was present there except Opp. Party No. 4. He was insisted to sign on the blank Resolution Book which the Petitioner refused.
Thereafter, behind the back of the Petitioner, they passed a resolution to hold General Body meeting & election on 4.5.2009 to elect the new Executive Body of Mahila Vikash, Tarbod. Therefore, the Petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 42 of 2009 before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada praying that the amendment of the bye-law & the resolution in question be declared as illegal, invalid & inoperative, Opp. Party No. 4 be injuncted from holding election on 4.5.2009 & the Organisation be not allowed to operate the Bank Account standing in its name. On 2.5.2009, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed an order of status quo. The lower Court record reveals that Opp. Party No. 4 filed a Caveat petition before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) & challenging the order of status quo Opp. Party No. 4 preferred M.J.A. No. 4 of 2009 before the Learned Additional District Judge, Nuapada. On 22.5.2009, the Learned Additional District Judge stayed the order of status quo passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) till 23.6.2009. However, in the meantime, Opp. Party No. 4 proceeded with the election on 4.5.2009 in spite of the order of status quo. The present Petitioner challenging the Order Dated 22.5.2009 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, filed W.P.(C) No. 8272 of 2009 before this Court. The said writ application was disposed of with a direction to the Addl. District Judge to hear the appeal & pass a reasoned order & till that date the stay order passed by the Learned. Addl. District Judge on 22.5.2009 was stayed. The Learned Addl. District Judge heard the matter on 9.7.2009 & allowed the appeal by setting aside the ad interim order of status quo passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) & directed the Court below to hear the suit & dispose of the same within a period of six months. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 10245 of 2009 before this Court which is pending. While the matter stood thus, on 9.10.2009 the IGR approved the reconstituted Governing Body as per the election dated 4.5.2009. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed the instant writ application.
Opp. Party No. 4 also filed two suits, i.e., Civil Suit Nos. 81 & 82 of 2009, before the Court below for a declaration that the Governing Body reconstituted on 4.5.2009 be declared as legal & a direction to the Bank authority to allow them to operate the Bank Account. Both the suits are pending as the State Bank of India of Nuapada Branch & Komna Branch did not allow it to operate the Bank Accounts.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that while the order of status quo dated 2.5.2009 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Civil Suit No. 42 of 2009 was continuing, Opp. Party No. 4 conducted the election on 4.5.2009. Therefore, the holding of the election & the declaration of the result thereof are illegal as the same were done in violation of the Court''s order. Hence, no action should have been taken in approving the said election.
Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 4 submitted that in the meantime Opp. Party No. 4 has withdrawn Civil Suit Nos. 81 & 82 of 2009 filed by it. However, to that effect, he filed a memo along with an affidavit of the Learned Counsel who was engaged in the Court below. In the said affidavit, it was stated by the Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 4 that in Civil Suit-Nos. 81 & 82 of 2009 the Plaintiff was no longer interested to proceed with both the suits & had instructed him to withdraw the same. However, because of illness of the Plaintiff, the same could not be filed earlier. He further submitted that since the Appellate Court directed the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) to conclude the trial of Civil Suit No. 42 of 2009, this Court may direct to conclude the same within a specified time.
Section 4 of the Act provides that the list of office bearers of the managing committee/executive body is to be filed before the Registrar of Societies once in every year on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the Society, the annual general meeting of the Society is held. So far as the State of Orissa is concerned, it has amended the Act by the Societies Registration (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1969 inserting Sections 4-A, 4-B & 4-C in the Act. Section 4-A provides that in case there is any change in personnel on the list filed u/s 4 during the year to which such list relates, it shall be intimated to the Registrar of Societies within two months of such change.
Section 4-B imposes obligation on the office bearers to send the list of changes.
Section 4-C provides that non-compliance of preceding provision that is Section 4-A would be a punishable offence & the person found guilty of, can be imposed a fine.
From the aforesaid statutory provisions it is evident that the list of the office bearers of the managing committee shall be made available to the Registrar of Societies on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the date of annual general body meeting of the Society. If there is any change subsequent thereto, it shall also be communicated.
From the facts narrated above, it appears that while the order of status quo dated 2.5.2009 was continuing, Opp. Party No. 4 amended the bye-law of the society & re-constituted the Governing Body. The IGR without taking note of the said fact approved the amended bye-law & the newly constituted Governing Body. Hence, the Order Dated 9.10.2009 passed by the IGR is kept in abeyance.
A memo has been filed by Opp. Party No. 4 on 4.2.2010 along with a certified copy of the Order Dated 1.2.2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuapada in Civil Suit No. 81 of 2009 showing therein that Civil Suit No. 81 of 2009 is disposed of as withdrawn. While considering the reconstitution of the Governing Body, the Court below will take into consideration the provisions of law referred to above & examine whether the said re-constitution of the Governing Body was in conformity with the provisions contained in the Act & fulfils the other requirements mentioned in the bye-law & whether the termination of Membership of the Society is in accordance with the bye-law.
In the result, this Court sets aside the approval Order Dated 9.10.2009 granted by the IGR & directs the Trial Court to conclude the suit as early as possible keeping in mind the observations made in this writ application.
The writ application is accordingly disposed of.