Shiksha Samiti Degre... v. Registrar, Firms, So..., Allahabad High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur, Ghazipur, and others seeking to quash an order passed by the Registrar under Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act. The society's registration was renewed annually. On November 5, 1978, the society's general body passed a resolution amending the bye-laws, which was sent to and incorporated by the Registrar under Section 4A of the Act. The Registrar notified the parties of the amendment's incorporation. In October 1980, a respondent applied to recall the incorporation, alleging that the amendment altered the society's basic structure illegally and fraudulently. The Registrar, invoking Section 12-D, found the amendment contrary to the society's objects and procured illegally, leading to the challenged order. The petitioners filed this writ petition to challenge that order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Registrar, under Section 4A of the Societies Registration Act, has jurisdiction limited only to verifying the fact of holding the meeting and passing the resolution for amendment of bye-laws, or whether the Registrar can examine the legality of such amendments.

Whether the Registrar has the power under Section 12-D of the Act to cancel the registration of a society or recall incorporation of amendments if they are found to be illegal or contrary to the society's objects.

Whether the Registrar exceeded jurisdiction by recalling the amendment incorporation and cancelling the registration based on the alleged illegality and fraud.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The Registrar's jurisdiction under Section 4A is limited to verifying the occurrence of the meeting and cannot extend to examining the legality of the amendment.

Section 12-D does not apply in this context, and therefore, the Registrar had no power to cancel the registration or recall the amendment incorporation.

Reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision in Maha Narayan Pandey v. Registrar (1984 All LJ 583), particularly paragraph 9, to support the limited role of the Registrar.

Respondent's Arguments

The Registrar has the authority not only to verify the fact of the meeting but also to consider whether the amendment is contrary to the Act and the society's objects.

Section 12-D empowers the Registrar to cancel registration if amendments are illegal or obtained fraudulently.

The respondent also relied on the same Division Bench decision and paragraph 9, affirming the Registrar's broader jurisdiction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Maha Narayan Pandey v. Registrar, 1984 All LJ 583	Clarification of the Registrar's jurisdiction under Sections 4A and 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, particularly on whether the Registrar can examine the legality of resolutions.	The court found the law laid down in this case to be correct and followed its reasoning in holding that the Registrar's power extends beyond mere verification of the meeting to examining the legality of amendments and cancelling registration if warranted.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Maha Narayan Pandey v. Registrar, 1984 All LJ 583

Clarification of the Registrar's jurisdiction under Sections 4A and 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, particularly on whether the Registrar can examine the legality of resolutions.

The court found the law laid down in this case to be correct and followed its reasoning in holding that the Registrar's power extends beyond mere verification of the meeting to examining the legality of amendments and cancelling registration if warranted.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the scope of the Registrar's powers under Sections 4A and 12-D of the Societies Registration Act and the relevant Rules. It held that the Registrar's jurisdiction is not confined solely to verifying whether a meeting was held and a resolution passed. Instead, the Registrar must also assess whether the amendment is contrary to the Act, the Rules, or the fundamental objects of the society. The Registrar may cancel the registration if the amendment was procured illegally or fraudulently, as provided under clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-D. The court rejected the petitioner's narrow interpretation that would limit the Registrar's power to mere fact-finding. It emphasized that such a limitation would defeat the purpose of regulating amendments in bye-laws. The court also noted that the society is a democratic body where amendments are passed by majority resolutions, but the legality of such resolutions is subject to scrutiny. The court found the Registrar's order to be correct and justified, aligning with the precedent in Maha Narayan Pandey v. Registrar, which both parties relied upon. Thus, the court affirmed the Registrar's authority to recall the amendment and cancel registration when amendments violate statutory provisions or the society's objects.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition is dismissed.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the Registrar's order cancelling the registration of the society based on illegal and fraudulent amendment of bye-laws. The court confirmed that the Registrar has jurisdiction to examine the legality of amendments and to act under Section 12-D to cancel registration if necessary. No new precedent was set beyond affirming the existing law as stated in the cited Division Bench decision. The ruling reinforces the Registrar's supervisory role over societies to ensure amendments conform to statutory and constitutional principles.

Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur And Others v. Registrar, Firms, Societies And Chits, U.P Lucknow .

Hon'ble K.C Agrawal, A.C.J:— This petition under Art. 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 under Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act.

2. 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 under Section 4A of the Societies 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 12D 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.

3. Counsel for the petitioner urged that under Section 4A of the Act the Registrar had a limited jurisdiction of seeing as to whether fact of holding of the meeting had 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.

4. 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 under Section 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 under Section 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 (1) of Section 12-D. 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 ran contrary to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-D. In our opinion the Registrar had the power to do so and it is not correct that only an application under Section 12-D 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.

5. In the instant case, to us, it further appears that exercise of power under Section 12-D 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.

6. Sri S.K Verma, counsel for the petitioner, referred to a decision of a Division Bench reported in 1984 All LJ 583, 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.

7. 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.

8. The writ petition is dismissed.

9. Petition dismissed.

Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 784 of 1981

Shiksha Samiti Degre... v. Registrar, Firms, So...