Shiksha Samiti Degree College and Others vs Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits

K.C. Agarwal, A.C.J.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur Ghazipur, and others for quashing the order of the Registrar (Respondent) passed u/s 12D of the Socities Registration Act.

There is society at Ghazipur known as Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur, Ghazipur. The registration of the society was being renewed from year to year. On November 5, 1978, the general body of the society passed a resolution in accordance with Rule 19 of the bye-laws making certain amendments in the same. The amendment was sent to the Registrar u/s 4A of the Socities Registration Act for incorporating the same in the Register of the bye-laws maintained by him. The amendment was consequently allowed by the Registrar on November 5, 1978 and thereafter intimation of incorporation was sent to the parties concerned on November 30, 1978 by ordinary post and by registered post on December 4, 1978. In October 1980 an application was filed by the contesting Respondent for recalling the incorporation of the amendment on the ground that by the same, the basic structure of the society had been modified and changed which power the society did not possess and also stated that the amendment had been obtained by illegal and fraudulent means. This application was not headed under any specific provision. We can, however, trace out the power of the Registrar by resorting to Section 12-D of the Act.

After having considered the explanation the Registrar found that the amendment allowed on November 5, 1978 by him run contrary to the objects of the society and as they had been procured illegally. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

Counsel for the Petitioner urged that u/s 4A of the Act the Registrar had a limited jurisdiction of seeing as to whether fact of holding of the meeting bad taken place or not. He did not and could not have any power to notify the amendment by resorting to indirect method as it was in the instant case. Counsel urged that Section 12D did not apply and, therefore, there was no power in the Registrar to cancel the registration.

From the Societies Registration Rules it appears that the Registrar has to grant a certificate, which is renewed from year to year. If the same is according to the provisions of the Act and the rule, the registration is accompanied by the bye-laws of the society. It is these Bye-laws which became part and parcel of the registration certificate. If an amendment or amendments are made in the Bye-laws, they have to be incorporated in the Register u/s 4A of the Act. The Registrar at that time is entitled not only to find as to whether the meeting which made the amendment had taken place or not, but also to consider and apply his mind to the controversy if it arises before him whether the amendment is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules. It has further to be seen that the amendment is not such which destroys the very purpose of the society for which it was incorporated. Furthermore, the Registrar u/s 12D of the Act could cancel the registration of any society in the circumstances enumerated in Sub-section (1) of the said Section. These'' circumstances have been mentioned in Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (I) of Section 12D. This power could be exercised also in respect of the amendment, which has been procured and got incorporated if a case falls under Clauses (a) to (c) In the instant case the Registrar found that the amendment was illegal and the same run contrary to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12D. In our opinion the Registrar had the power to do so and it is not correct that only an application u/s 12D is made, the Registrar should simply find out the fact of passing the resolution by the Committee of Management and nothing more or nothing less if power is curtailed to the extent indicated by the Counsel for the Petitioner, the object of making amendment be bye-passed.

In the instant case, to us, it further appears that exercise of power u/s 12D is erroneous. The rights of the parties lay in convening a meeting and passing a resolution either amending the bye-laws or refusing to do so. This is a democratic body and convening of meeting and passing of resolution by majority is the only method provided for or contemplated by the principles of corporation which have to be considered while judging the legality or illegality of the action. In the instant case the order passed is eminently correct and fully justified.

Sri. S.K. Verma, Counsel for the Petitioner, referred to a decision of a Division Bench reported in 1984 AWC 474, Maha Narayan Pandey v. Registrar. His submission is that the power of the Registrar is limited to examine the fact of resolution having been passed or not and that it does not have the power to go into legality or illegality of the resolution in support, reliance has been placed on paragraph 9. Curious it is, that Sri. R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent, also placed reliance on that very paragraph.

For what we have said, we find that in the context of the case the law laid down is perfectly correct and we find no reason to take a different view from what has been expressed in the above case. The writ petition is dismissed.