AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri P. Tomcha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri T. Rajendra, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and Smt. Th. Sobhana, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.
By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 02-11-2016 passed by the Registrar of Societies, the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Registrar") and also for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to allow the former Executive Committee to arrange for holding an election of the members of the new Managing Committee under the Regulations.
1. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 while the petitioner No.2 is the Secretary of the Society. The term of the Managing Committee of the Society which is three years, had expired on 11-05-2009. The Managing Committee under the leadership of the petitioner No.2 held an Annual General Body Meeting on 20-05-2015 and the proceedings thereof as regards the various resolutions including that of the transfer of the Head Office of the Society, were submitted to the Registrar for necessary approval/ acknowledgement vide his letter dated 20-07-2015. On the same day, he submitted a representation for initiating an enquiry into the affairs of the Society. In the meantime, the private respondent issued a notice for holding an Emergency Assembly of the Society vide his letter dated 03-07-2015, the agenda of which was to discuss about the centre. The Special Emergency Assembly was held on 17-07-2015, a copy of the proceedings thereof was submitted to the Registrar vide letter dated 22-07-2015. As per the order dated 01-09-2015 of the Joint Registrar, Shri Ksh. Bikram Singh, Inspector held an enquiry and submitted his report along with his letter dated 27-09-2015 by which he has held that the Societies have no authority to shift their office without prior permission from the concerned department. 3.2. In the meantime, the petitioner No. 2 came to know on the basis of legal opinion sought for by him from his counsel that in terms of Regulation 19(h) of the Regulations, since the term of the Managing Committee had already expired on 11-05-2009, the Managing Committee did not have any right thereafter to function except for holding an election of a new Managing Committee. Accordingly, the petitioner No.2 submitted a representation dated 10-08-2015 to the Registrar requesting him to provide a list of upto date bonafide members and as the Registrar failed to provide the list of bonafide members of the Society, the petitioners approached the Hon''ble High Court by way a writ petition being WP(C) No. 831 of 2015 wherein counter affidavits on behalf of the respondents were filed including that of the respondent No.5 therein who filed his counter affidavit enclosing therewith a copy of his enquiry report. On 03-08-2016 this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition being WP(C) No. 831 of 2015, the relevant direction of which is given as under:-
" ... In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Registrar (respondent No. 2) shall consider the applications dated 20-07-2015 and 22-07-2015 as well as the report submitted by the respondent No. 5 and take an appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if necessary, after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties. It is made clear that if any of the parties is aggrieved by the decision made by the Registrar, it is open to them to approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances."
3.3. In compliance with the said direction given by this Court, the respondent No.3 issued summon dated 06-09-2016 to the petitioner No.2 to appear either in person or through an authorised pleader. In response thereto, the petitioner No.2 along with his counsel attended the office of the Registrar on 19-09-2016 but was told to wait for another date which was fixed on 06-10-2016 on which the Registrar was not present and therefore, their points of argument were submitted with a request for fixing a date of hearing but without hearing the parties, the Registrar issued the impugned order approving the proceedings dated 17-07-2015 and the election of the New Managing Committee.
In order to contest the said writ petition, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the private respondent wherein it has been stated that the petitioner No.2 is no longer the Secretary of the Society and as per the Regulation 38 of the Society, it is the President who can sue and be sued on behalf of the Society. Since the petitioner No.2 is no longer the Secretary of the Society, he is not competent to file the present writ petition on behalf of the Society. The Society is a registered Society consisting of 5 (five) Parishes with 32 (thirty two) Church members across Manipur, Assam and Nagaland. Prior to the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee, the petitioner No.2 was the Secretary and the private respondent was the President of the Society. In a meeting held on 20-05-2015 at Kangpokpi, out of 5 Parishes, Parish No.2 did not receive even notice and so far as Parish Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, they were represented by only three delegates and the purpose of holding the said meeting was to shift the Headquarter of the Society from Churachandpur to K. Chingkhong Village. Therefore, a Special Meeting was convened on 17-07-2015 wherein it was resolved that a Special General Body Meeting be held at Maova Village, Nagaland which was held on 17-07-2015. The Special General Body Meeting was attended by 21 (twenty one) different Churches with 101 (one hundred and one) delegates in which it was resolved that the Head Office of the Society be not shifted to Kangchup Chingkhong Village and the election of new 13 (thirteen) members of the Managing Committee was approved. It is also stated in the affidavit that in the 34th General Assembly of the Society held from 24th to 27th February, 2010 at the office of the Society, the new office bearers for the year 2010-2013 were elected and in the 37th General Assembly of the Society held from 4th to 5th April, 2013, it was resolved not to hold the election of the Managing Committee of the Society.
The only grievance of the petitioners is that the Registrar, before passing the impugned order, has not given him the chance of hearing and that the Registrar has not properly considered and appreciated the documents as directed by this court. While disposing of the writ petition being WP(C) No.831 of 2015, this court has directed that the Registrar shall consider the applications dated 20-07-2015 and 22-07-2015 as well as the report submitted by Shri Ksh. Bikram Singh, Inspector and take a decision thereof. Therefore, two points have arisen for consideration by this court - one, whether the petitioner No.2 is competent to file the writ petition on behalf of the Society and two, whether the Registrar has properly considered and appreciated the documents as directed by this court or not. As regards the first point, Shri T.Rajendra, the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent has submitted that in terms of Regulation 24(f), the Society may sue or be sued through the President only and since the petitioner No.2 is no longer the Secretary or even assuming that he is the Secretary of the Society, he cannot file the present petition on behalf of the Society. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent appears to be correct to that extent but Section 19(1) of the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 provides that every society may sue or be sued in the name of the President, the Secretary or any office-bearer authorised by the Registrar in this behalf. Since the regulations are to be made by the Society as required under the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act, it cannot be said that the Society cannot sue or be sued by the Secretary. In addition to the Society being arrayed as the petitioner No.1 in the instant writ petition, the petitioner No.2 himself is being as arrayed as party petitioner and therefore, the present writ petition cannot be dismissed on the basis of his contention as stated hereinabove.
As regards the second point, Shri P.Tomcha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of this court''s order dated 03-08-2016, the Registrar is required to consider the applications dated 20-07-2015 and 22-07-2015 as well as the report submitted by Shri Ksh. Bikram Singh, Inspector; take a decision thereafter and since the Registrar has failed to consider the said documents properly, the impugned order passed by it is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsels appearing for the respondents including the State Government, is that the Registrar has considered all the said documents and passed the impugned order accordingly. In order to appreciate the impugned order, the same is reproduced herein below:
"GOVERNMENET OF MANIPUR
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, MANIPUR
....
No. Q-Coop/Case/W.P.(C) No. 831 of 2015
HEARING IN COMPLIANCE OF THE HON''BLE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
IN W.P.(C) NO. 831 OF 2014.
CHRISTIAN REVIVAL CHURCH
-Vs-
THE STATE OF MANIPUR & 5 OTHERS.
In compliance of the Hon''ble High Court of Manipur order dt. 03/08/2016 in W.P.(C) cited above hearing of the disputant parties as means of being heard were held on 06/10/2016 and 07/10/2016 after due summon notice for the purpose. The hearing proceedings are noted below:-
Hearing of the petitioner:
The petitioner along with his Ld. Counsel was present. A written point of argument was submitted on behalf of the petitioner. And as per the statement supported by verbal argument, the last executive committee was approved by the Registrar''s office on 02/05/2006 for a term of three years and the term expired on 01/05/2009. The statement also quoted the Assn.''s regulation 19(h) which provides that the Executive Committee has no right to function except to arrange meeting for election of new Managing Committee. Further, the petitioner party blames the enquiry officer for not noting the presence of non members in both the meetings of the contesting parties.
Finally the petitioner party pleaded for meeting of the Assn. to elect a new Managing Committee.
Hearing of the respondent:
As scheduled, the respondent party along with their Ld. Counsel were present and submitted a written statement in support of their point of argument which is summarised as follow:
A) The statement/argument of the respondents party depicted Shri Seilun Sitlhou, former Secretary''s activities as detrimental to the interest of the society on the following grounds:-
(i) Shri Seilun Sitlhou is paid secretary (employee) of the society i.e., C.R.C. And his filing of a case against the president on behalf of the C.R.C. is in violation of the C.R.C. Regulation 38 which provide that all suits by or against shall be in the name of the president;
(ii) Shri Seilun Secy. Did not maintain books & records in the registered address - K. Phaicham C.C.Pur. This is confirmed by the enquiry officer''s report.
(iii) The written statement & argument of the respondents charged Shri Sitlhou as misappropriating C.R.C''s fund amounting 1 to 2,61,340/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty one thousand three hundred and forty) only.
(iv) Shri Sitlhou collected some follower and started another Centre as office address of C.R.C. in his locality for his self interest, without proper sanction of C.R.C. and without permit from the Registrar of Societies, Manipur.
The respondents argue that the above points are clear indication of Seilun''s activities against the interest of the C.R.C. so, he be removed from the list of membership of C.R.C. vide Regulation 9(e).
Finally, the respondent party pleaded for approval of the meeting proceedings dt. 17/07/2015 submitted on 22/07/2015.
The enquiry report of the respondent No. 5 has been examine and found done neutrality.
OBSERVATION/CONCLUSION:
From the above statement/argument the petitioner party admits the nullity of the meeting proceedings dt. 20/05/2015 submitted on 20/07/2015. And the request for general body meeting to elect a new Managing Committee seems to be to negate the meeting proceedings dt. 17/07/2015 chaired by Shri Doupu - the respondent. The blame on the enquiry officer for not noting the present of non-members in both contesting parties'' meeting is irrelevant because the enquiry was ordered and conducted on the affairs of the society and not to observe the meeting proceedings.
The respondents charges against Shri Seilun Sitlhou former Secy. of C.R.C.''s activities level as detrimental to the interest of the Society (C.R.C) has been examine in the context of the relevant provisions of the Act & rules as well as the Bye-Laws of C.R.C. and found maintainable. He deserved to be removed from the list of membership of C.R.C., C.R.C. under regulation 9(e) in the General Body meeting convened for the purpose.
Books & records including land pata and type writer machine not maintain in the office of the C.R.C. and deem to be with Shri Sitlhou must be returned to the C.R.C. office K. Phaicham C.C.Pur. The complain for cash misappropriation by Shri Seilun is to be proved with clear evidence and if found correct necessary coercive steps for recovery must be initiated.
The plea to approve the meeting proceedings dt. 17/07/2015 is considerable as election of new Managing Committee was done. This is the only function the expired committee can do so, baring other resolutions, the resolution electing new Managing Committee is recorded.
Yours faithfully,
(L. Nabakishwar Singh, IAS)
Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Manipur
....
Copy to:-
The Registrar, High Court of Manipur for kind information.
Shri Seilun Sitlhou, Petitioner, W.P. (C) No. 831 of 2015.
Shri Doupu Touthang, President, Christian Revival Church, Respondent No. 6 in W.P. (C) No. 831 of 2015.
Shri Ksh. Bikramjit Singh, Respondent No. 5 -do-
Guard File."
The letter dated 20-07-2015 is a letter addressed to the Registrar by the petitioner No.2 submitting therewith the proceedings of the Annual General Body Meeting held on 20-05-2015 along with statement of accounts for the year 2014-2015 for necessary approval/ acknowledgment. On perusal of the said proceedings dated 20-05-2015, it is seen that various resolutions were taken, one of which being that the head office of the Society be transferred to K. Chingkhong, Sadar Hills and Shri Upa Doupu, probably the private respondent, appears to have signed the proceedings as the Meeting Chairman and the President of the Society. The other letter dated 22-07-2015 is a letter addressed to the Registrar by the private respondent enclosing therewith a copy of the proceedings dated 17-07-2015, a list of members present and a copy of the notice. In the said meeting dated 17-07-2015 also, various resolutions were taken, some of them being that the resolution No.12 of the Kangpokpi Assembly dated 20-05-2015 be reviewed and that the General Assembly unanimously elected the persons mentioned therein as the members of the Managing Committee for the next term of three years. In view of these two proceedings dated 17-07-2015 and 20-05-2015 being submitted by the Petitioner No. 2 and the private respondent to the Registrar, the Joint Registrar appears to have directed Shri Ksh. Bikram Singh, Inspector vide its order dated 01-09-2015 to hold an enquiry into the matter and after the enquiry having been conducted by the Inspector, he submitted his report dated 27-09-2015.
On perusal of the impugned order, the Registrar, before passing it, appears to have considered the documents as is evident from the fact that the same are referred to therein and therefore, an ancillary question that arises for consideration, is as to whether the Registrar has considered the documents in the right perspective. In this regard, certain provisions of the regulations are required to be examined by this court. The regulation 19(g) provides that the function of Managing Committee will have effect only when it has been acknowledged by the Registrar and shall have a term of 3 years. The regulation 19(h) provides that after the expiry of the term, the Managing Committee will have no right to function and such Managing Committee is allowed to arrange for election of Managing Committee. In terms of the provisions under Regulation 13, the power of electing members of the Managing Committee is conferred upon the General Body. It is not in dispute that the term of the Managing Committee had expired on 11-05-2009 and immediately thereafter, the Managing Committee had no authority to function at all except for arrangement of an election of the new Managing Committee. In the normal course, the Managing Committee, before the expiry of its term, ought to have taken appropriate steps to hold the election of the new Managing Committee. In the present case, it appears that the Managing Committee had failed to do that, as a result of which the present controversy had arisen leading to two factions in the Society -one, led by the petitioner No.2 and another, by the private respondent which is not a healthy sign for the Society. It further appears that the Managing Committee continued to function, even after the expiry of its term and any such action taken by the Managing Committee is rendered invalid and illegal, as it is impermissible in law. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private respondent, it has been stated that the 34th General Assembly of the Society was held from 24th to 27th February, 2010 wherein the new officer bearers were elected and three years later, in the 37th Assembly, it was resolved that no election be held and the persons mentioned therein would be the officer bearers. It has further been stated therein that instead of forwarding the said resolutions to the Registrar for approval/ acknowledgment, the same were being kept in his custody by the Secretary. These averments clearly show that there was no valid election of the new Managing Committee but the Managing Committee continued to function without any authority and consequently, all actions taken by the Managing Committee were rendered invalid. While passing the impugned order, this aspect has not been considered by the Registrar who appears to have proceeded on the assumption that the proceedings dated 17-07-2015 and 20-07-2015 are valid. In other words, the Registrar has not examined whether the said proceedings have been adopted in accordance with law, even though he is aware of the fact that the term of the Managing Committee had expired on 11-05-2009. Therefore, this court is of the view that since the Registrar has not considered the said documents in a right perspective, the impugned order being bad in law, is not sustainable.
As has been stated hereinabove, the whole controversy has arisen on account of the election of the new Managing Committee not being held in time. Although the term of the Managing Committee had expired on 11-05-2009, the election of the new Managing Committee was allegedly held on 24th February, 2010 but the same could not be said to be a valid election because no approval had been granted by the Registrar. The Managing Committee appears to have continued to function without any authority and only on 17-07-2015, the alleged election of the new Managing Committee was held. But the validity and correctness of the proceedings dated 17-07-2015 is being disputed by the petitioner No.2 on the inert-alia grounds that the meeting held on 17-07-2015 was not the one for holding election only but for many other purposes; that the persons who are not members, are alleged to have been elected as members of the Managing Committee; that the meeting was held at Maova Village, Nagaland wherein a large number of persons who are not members, attended it and that the said meeting was held in six years after the expiry of its term. Since the validity and correctness of the said proceedings dated 17-07-2015 is not the subject-matter in issue in the present case, this court will not go into it but the fact remains that the Registrar appears to have not examined whether the proceeding dated 17-07-2015 was validly prepared by the Managing Committee which was in existence as on 11-05-2009 but has simply proceeded on the assumption that it is valid and has passed the impugned order by observing that the resolution for electing new Managing Committee is recorded. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law but mere quashing it will not solve the problem. Keeping in mind the interest of the members and in order to avoid further complication in the matter and to solve the problem once and for all, this court is of the view that the election of the new Managing Committee of the Society is a must and that too, it be held by the Managing Committee which was in existence as on 11-05-2009.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The Registrar shall verify, from the records, the names of the members of the Society as on 11-05-2009 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and prepare a list of bonafide members;
(b) The Registrar shall direct the Managing Committee which was in existence as on 11-05-2009, to arrange for a General Body Meeting for election of a new Managing Committee on the basis of the list of bonafide members as directed (a) above.