KERALA ASSOCIATION FOR v. BHARATH SEVAK SAMAJ

hereunder:-

According to the petitioners, the 1^stpetitioner, Kerala Association for Non Formal Education and Development (KANFED), is a registered NGO. 2^Ndpetitioner is the General Secretary of the 1^st petitioner association. The 3^rdpetitioner was one of the students of 1^st respondent, in the Course, BSS Diploma in Aviation & Hotel Management.

The 1^strespondent claims to be a National Development Agency, promoted by the Planning Commission, Government of India. It further claims that the constitution and functioning of Bharath Sevak Samaj (BSS) is approved unanimously by the Indian Parliament. According to prospectus issued by them, it is an organization conducting 978 courses in various fields, and has more than 2000 franchisee all over India. The prospectus of the said BSS does not disclose the registration number of the said, even though they claim it as a registered society. Further, it keeps silent about its recognition by any University scheduled by UGC. The certificate and statement of marks issued by the 1^strespondent to one of its students, in the year 2010, also do not disclose their registration number, but they have

4

used the "Asoka Sthambham" / "Asoka Pillar" in their certificate, which is an offence under Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The 1^strespondent in their certificates, have repeated their claim in respect of Planning Commission, Indian Parliament etc. Since the Certificate issued by the 1^strespondent has no validity, the 3^rdpetitioner is unable to apply for any job for which, diploma is basic qualification. The 3^rdpetitioner is thus cheated by the 1^strespondent.

Petitioners have contended that the 1^strespondent, in their advertisement and in their website also, claims that it is a Government of India Organization. Advertisement for Course on Marine Engine Mechanics of Eeuro Maritime Academy shows that it is approved by the "Bharat Sevak Samaj, Govt. of India". The accounts of the organization is to be audited by the Local Fund Audit Department of Kerala Government. However, it has never been audited by the Local Fund Audit Department of the State.

Petitioners have further contended that in the year 2007, students who had studied one of the courses conducted by the 1^st respondent, approached this Court in WP(C) No. 28744 of 2007,

5

stating that the Computer Word Processing Course conducted by the 1^strespondent is to be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. In the said issue, as per the instructions, the Kerala PSC submitted that 1^strespondent is not a Government of India undertaking, and it is only a private agency, and their courses cannot be treated as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. Petitioners have also contended that the Central Information Commission, in the matter of Mr. Samar Singh Yadav v. Lok Sabha Secretariat, clarified that the 1^strespondent is a non-governmental organization.

Government of Kerala, vide its Order G.O. (P) No. 09/2013 dated 05/01/2013, approved the DCA of the 1^strespondent as a qualification desirable to jobs of Government of Kerala and PSC. It was approved without constituting Expert Committee to examine its curriculum, text books, and mode of conducting examinations. The approval is granted by the officials by undue influence of the 1 ^st respondent. The only course of 1^strespondent which got any recognition by any Government authority is the DCA course mentioned, even though the said recognition was obtained under

6

political influence, without due regard to statutory formalities regarding the same.

The 1^strespondent is not recognized by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, All India Council for Technical Education, National Council for Teacher Education or any University scheduled by UGC. The 1^strespondent is conducting classes illegally and obtaining huge amounts as their course fees and other expenses allied to the courses offered by them. They are misleading the public and playing fraud on the students to make illegal and unlawful enrichment. The 1^strespondent is making frivolous claims and cheating the public at large.

The petitioner has submitted a complaint to the Chief Secretary of the State, to enquire into the granting of recognition, without due process, and about the working and financial background of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner also submitted a complaint to the 5^th respondent, to enquire into the registration, its administration, accounts, and functioning of the 1^strespondent. Till this date, no action has been taken on the complaints of the petitioner. The inaction is politically orchestrated by the 1^strespondent. The 1^strespondent

7

continues to mislead the public in the name of vocational education and issuing invalid certificates to their students, which does not even bear any registration number. The petitioner has filed a complaint to the Chairperson, Kerala Nurses and Midwifery Council, to investigate about the Nursing and Midwifery courses being held by the 1^st respondent. Nothing has been done till date.

3. Denying the averments made in the statement of facts filed along with the writ petition and the claim of the 2^ndpetitioner, i.e. General Secretary of the 1^stpetitioner, a detailed counter affidavit dated 13.09.2021 has been filed, as hereunder:-

"2. The address of the first petitioner given in the writ petition is wrong and has been deliberately made with the intention of projecting a false case. The petitioners have deliberately given wrong addresses of the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. The 1^strespondent described in the writ petition is the Regional Office of the 2^ndrespondent at Chennai. The address of the 2^ndrespondent given in the writ petition is wrong. The correct address is Satbhavana Bhavan, Brahmins Colony, Kowdiar PO, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695003. I am advised that the writ petition as framed is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

3. The petitioner has suppressed material facts and alleged falsehood.

8

4. The writ petition is an abuse of process of law filed with oblique motives and on the basis of wild and reckless allegations.

5. The 1^stpetitioner has been wrongly cited as a petitioner. The 2^ndpetitioner is not an office bearer of the 1^st petitioner association and has never been so. The claim of the 2^nd petitioner that he is the General Secretary of the 1^stpetitioner is totally false and has been invented by him for the purpose of this Writ Petition. The 1^stpetitioner is not properly represented and the 2^ndpetitioner has absolutely no right to represent the 1^st petitioner. The Writ Petition is therefore is to be dismissed in- limine on account of fraud on the part of the 2^ndpetitioner claiming himself to be Secretary of the 1^stpetitioner.

6. The 2^ndpetitioner is not in any way connected with the 1^stpetitioner. The certificates and documents produced along with the writ petition are not those pertaining to the 2^ndpetitioner. The 2^ndpetitioner has no locus standi to question Exts-P2 and P3.

7. It is submitted that I am also the Chairman of the Kerala Association for Non-formal Education and Development (in short KANFED). It is submitted that the KANFED is governed by the byelaws, rules and regulations contained therein. True copy of the byelaws of the Kerala Association for Non- formal Education and Development (for the sake brevity herein after referred to as KANFED) is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(a).

8. It is submitted that the KANFED is a body registered

9

under Act 12 of 1955 as registration No.317 of 1977. KANFED has been established with a view to provide opportunity for youth and adults to access education, vocations skills and life skills. The governing body of the 1^stpetitioner consists of founder members and (1) twelve representative elected from the life members of KANFED Society (2) the five leading academicians/social workers/ distinguished leaders, specializing in the fields relating to development (3) three nominees elected from the representing the State and the Central Government. The executive committee of the 1^stpetitioner is composed of (1) Chairman of the governing body; (2) Secretary of the governing body; (3) founder member of the KANFED society; and (4) any other 5 members of the governing body to be nominated by of whom one will be representative of the district level KANFED society. There is no post of General Secretary in so far as the 1^st petitioner is concerned and the claim of the 2^ndpetitioner that he is the General Secretary of the 1^stpetitioner is false and is denied. Appropriate action has to be taken against the 2^ndpetitioner for making a false claim and instituting a Writ Petition under the guise of a false office bearer ship.

9. It is submitted that the 2^ndpetitioner is involved in fraudulent activities and is claiming himself to be the General Secretary of the 1^stpetitioner association. The 2^ndpetitioner has never been associated with KANFED or its activities at any point of time. It is submitted that the 2^ndpetitioner is not in any way connected with the 1^stpetitioner in any of its activities at any point of time. The 2^ndpetitioner has been cheating the public through his fraudulent claims. The 1^stpetitioner is a body

10

registered under the Act 12 of 1977 and it is incumbent upon the 1^stpetitioner to submit every year, the name of the office bearers of the 1^stpetitioner. The Executive Committee of the 1^stpetitioner is approved by the District Registrar every year. The list of Executive Members submitted by the 1^stpetitioner before the Registrar of Societies, Thiruvananthapuram for the year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 clearly indicate that the 2^ndpetitioner is not an Office Bearer of the 1^stpetitioner organization. True copy of Minutes of meeting dated 5.8.2017 having list of office bearers for year 2017-18 submitted to Registrar of Societies in respect of 1^stpetitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(b). The true copy of English translation of Exhibit-R1(b) is produced here with and marked as Exhibit-R1(bb). True copy of Minutes of meeting dated 14.3.2019 having list of Office Bearers for year 2018-19 submitted to Registrar of Societies in respect of 1^st petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(c). The true copy of English translation of Exhibit-R1(c) is produced here with and marked as Exhibit-R1(cc). True copy of Minutes of meeting dated. 27.1.2020 having list of Office Bearers for year 2019-20 submitted to Registrar of Societies in respect of 1^st petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(d). The true copy of English translation of Exhibit-R1(d) is produced here with and marked as Exhibit-R1(dd). A. certificate has been issued by 1^stpetitioner's Secretary to the effect that 1^stpetitioner as per its constitution does not have a General Secretary and that the 2^ndpetitioner is involving in fraudulent activities under said guise. True copy of certificate issued by the Secretary 1^st petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(e). An

11

Executive Meeting of 1^stpetitioner was held on 27.3.2021. Minutes of the Meeting dated 27.3.2021 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(f). The true copy of English translation of Exhibit-R1(f) is produced here with and marked as

Exhibit-R1 (ff).

10. It is submitted that the 1^strespondent Bharat Sevak Samaj was originally a national development agency established by the Planning Commission, Government of India to ensure public co operation for implementing Government plans. The Bharat Sevak Samaj and the National Advisory Committee for Public Co-operation was constituted in August 1952 as a preliminary step for securing public co-operation on nationwide basis. The constitution of the Bharat Sevak Samaj appeared in the official website of the Planning Commission, Government of India in website

http://planningcommission.nic. in/ plan s/planrel/fiveyr/ 1st/1planch8.html. True copy of the publication with regard to the Bharat Sevak Samaj taken from the official website of the erstwhile planning commission

http://planningcommission.nic. in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/1st/1planch 8.html is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(g). The 1^strespondent Bharat Sevak Samaj has a central body known as the Bharat Sevak Samaj and has also pradesh units in almost all States more particularly in Kerala known as Bharat Sevak Samaj Kerala Pradesh. The Bharat Sevak Samaj is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 21 of 1860. True copy of the constitution of the Bharat Sevak Samaj is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(h). Clause 10 of Exhibit R1 (h)

12

contemplates creation of Pradesh Units.

11. As stated supra the Bharat Sevak Samaj has a Kerala Branch known as Bharat Sevak Samaj Kerala Pradesh. The same has been registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 12 of 1955 on 2.9.1967. True copy of the Constitution of the Bharat Sevak Samaj, Kerala State is produced herewith and marked as

Exhibit-R1(i). As per Ext-R1 (i) clause 14(B) at page 20 it has been made clear that the General Secretary shall be appointed by the Pradesh Administrative Committee with the approval of the Chairman of the Central Bharat Sevak Samaj. The General Secretary shall be the Executive Head of the Bharat Sevak Samaj Kerala Pradesh. The present General Secretary was appointed as the General Secretary of the Kerala Pradesh Bharat Sevak Samaj with effect from 19.3.1988 by Swamy Harinarayanan Anand, The Chairman Central Bharat Sevak Samaj. True copy of the Communication issued by the Kerala Pradesh Bharat Sevak Samaj Chairman vide letter dated 19.3.1988 appointing the present General Secretary B. S. Balachandran as General Secretary of the Bharat Sevak Samaj Kerala Pradesh is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(j). Subsequently the Central Bharat Sevak Samaj vide Communication dated 29.3.2007 addressed to the General Secretary informing him that he has been appointed as the Joint Secretary of the Central Bharat Sevak Samaj. True copy of the Communication dated 29.3.2007 issued by the Central Bharat Sevak Samaj addressed to the present Secretary is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(k). This apart the present General Secretary was appointed as the

13

Member of the Central Bharat Sevak Samaj Trust Board by the Central Bharat Sevak Samaj. True copy of the Communication dated 31.3.2012 issued by the Central Bharat Sevak Samaj to the 1^strespondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit- R1(l).

12. The main purpose behind the formulation of the Bharat Sevak Samaj as already stated supra is to establish a nationwide non-official non-political organization with the object of enabling individual citizen to contribute in the form of organized co-operative effort to the implementation of the National Development Plan. The constitution and functioning of the Bharat Sevak Samaj was unanimously approved by the Indian Parliament. Further the Government of India under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules has granted permission to enable the Government servants if they so wish to join the organization and participate in its activities as per Government of India order bearing No.G1MHA (OM) No.25/49/52-ESTS dated 11.10.1952. True copy of relevant portion of Rule 5 of the CCS Conduct Rules made applicable to the Bharat Sevak Samaj is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(m).

13. As stated supra 1^strespondent Bharat Sevak Samaj was formed in the year 1952. The Bharat Sevak Samaj on the basis of the National Education Policy 1986 emphasizing the priority of Vocational Education Programme which would provide for diversification of educational opportunities so as to enhance individuality, reduce the mismatch between demand and supply of skilled manpower, decided to initiate a Mission and

14

Movement of Vocational Education Programme throughout the country.

14. The Bharat Sevak Samaj was established by the erstwhile Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru and the Prime Minister of India was the Ex-Officio President of the Samaj until the formation of the NITI Ayog in the year 2015. The Bharat Sevak Samaj on the basis of the National Education Policy, 1986, has emphasized the priority of vocational education programme as an alternate education system established fairly in India with, a mission to take education to the door steps of the learners, thereby enhancing social equality and creating flexibility for lifelong learning. The 1^strespondent is a National Development Agency which undertakes numerous vocational educational programmes. The 1^strespondent was also engaged as a partner in disseminating knowledge along with the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) to establish study centres in India and abroad. 1^Strespondent has extended vocational educational programmes which vary from one month to two years duration through its vocational and IT educational centres which are well established having adequate modern infrastructure facilities and in house training facilities. The 1^st respondent is having vocational courses in 1000 subjects' viz. Branches in Science, Management, Agriculture, Health Care etc. In respect of the courses which are conducted by 1^strespondent, the 1^strespondent is issuing the certificates of course.

15. The 1^strespondent is not running any commercial institutions and is part of social service without any profit

15

motive. The courses conducted by the 1^strespondent provide employment to numerous jobless educated youth whose means to pursue higher studies is prevented either due to penury, poverty or for other reasons.

16. The Skill Council has taken its roots only recently on the basis of National Skill Qualification Framework which came into existence by Notification dated 27.12.2013. True copy of the Notification dated 27.12.2013 issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Finance is produced herewith and marked as

Exhibit-R1(n). It is pertinent to note that as per National Skill Qualification Framework all agencies irrespective of their nature have to take affiliation from respective Sector Skill Councils. There are 39 Sector Skill Councils formed by the Government. This respondent had applied for the affiliation and recognition of the courses in the health sector, electronic sector, automotive sector, gem sector and IT sector. 31 courses conducted by the 2^nd respondent have now been approved by the Electronic Sector Council. True copy of the letter issued by the Electronic Sector Skills Council of India dated 14.1.2016 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(o).

17. It is pertinent to note that as per Exhibit.R1 (n) a person can get training through:

(a) Formal way - formal educational industries

(b) Non-formal institutions like BSS

(c) Informal way - learning through practice

16

18. It is again pertinent to note that as per Ext-R1(n) notification, the object was to develop process for Recognition of Prior Learning/traditional learning for any given job role against the relevant level descriptors and notify the same for Skill Training Providers/Vocational Training Providers/Certificate awarding bodies for use in assessment and certification.

19. The above makes it clear even persons who have not had formal or informal education but are trained can be assessed and certificates can be issued. The same also indicates grant of permission to all for learning outside formal system.

20. It is pertinent to note that the Government of India had also issued a Notification called Document for Credit Framework, Skills and Education under NSQF dated 11.11.2014 issued by the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, True copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit- R1(p). As per Ext-R1(p) clause 16 reads as follows:

"16. Learning towards an academic award may be gained in a number of contexts.

●Higher education institution provision (short course, under graduate course and post graduate). ●Higher level vocational qualifications. ● Awards of professional bodies.

●Employer in-house education and training provision ●Learning from experience.

●Learning may be achieved through a range of learning modes including full time or part time learning, distant learning or independent learning."

21. It is further submitted that the advisor to the Bureau of Parliamentary Studies & Training, Lok Sabha Secretariat has

17

submitted a Review & Recommendation Report of the Bharath Sevak Samaj before the Minister for Planning, Government of India in respect of the various activities to be carried out by the 2^ndrespondent. True copy of the report of the review and recommendation on Bharat Sewak Samaj submitted by the Honorary Advisor to the Bureau of Parliamentary Studies & Training, Lok Sabha Secretariat is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(q).

22. During the course of existence of the 2^ndrespondent which is a National Development Agency the Planning Commission in its five year plans for the years 1951-1956, 1956- 1961, 1961-1966 viz. Five Year Plans 1, 2 and 3 has relied upon the 2^ndrespondent as a non political and non-official platform for carrying out various activities in the field of Education, Communication Education, Health, Supplementary Employment, Housing, Training, Social Welfare etc. True copy of the relevant portion of the Five Year Plan relating to the 2^ndrespondent for the first five year plan from 1951 to 1956 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1 (r). True copy of the relevant portion of the Five Year Plan relating to the 2^ndrespondent for the Second Five Year Plan from 1956 to 1961 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(s). True copy of the relevant portion of the Five Year Plan relating to the 2^ndrespondent for the Third Five Year Plan from 1961 to 1966 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(t).

23. In this connection, it is submitted that, Ext-P1 document relied by the petitioner has been printed in the course

18

Calendar of the year 2013-2014 at the point of time when NITI Ayog was not formed and the 2^ndrespondent was treated as a body under the Planning Commission, Government of India. In this connection it is submitted that the 2^ndrespondent as a responsible body has changed the prospectus as well as the certificate that is being issued to the candidates undergoing courses. It is pertinent to note from the year 2018-19 the prospectus for courses has been completely changed wherein the words "promoted by Government of India" has been completely deleted and only the origin of Bharat Sevak Samaj has been highlighted making it clear that it is an independent organization altogether. It is pertinent to note B.S.S. Diploma in Computer Application conducted by the 2^ndrespondent has already been recognized by Kerala Government who has approved the Diploma Course in Computer Application conducted by the 2^nd respondent and the certificate issued therein for the purpose of appointment to suitable post in public service. It is submitted that the 2^ndrespondent has absolutely no intention to do any activities under any other guise claiming that it is a Government body. In the meanwhile the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of School, Education and Literacy) (Adult Education Bureau) vide their letter dated 22.11.2018 addressed to the 2^ndrespondent has informed the 2^ndrespondent that no recognition is provided by the Adult Education Bureau for non- formal education or lifelong learning and it has also made clear that it has no objection to the fourth respondent conducting their program for lifelong learning and non-formal education. True copy of the letter dated 22.11.2018 issued by the Government of

19

India, Ministry of Human Resource Development to the 2^nd respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(u).

24. The 2^ndrespondent submits that the course conducted by this respondent is only to provide employment opportunity to candidates who are only matriculates. The idea is only to make them eligible for employment in certain areas where specific skill is required.

25. It is further submitted that the course conducted by the 2^ndrespondent have been approved by the Shinghania University, Pacheribari District, Jhunjunu, Rajasthan affiliated on 29.03.2008 by the University Grants Commission. Shinghania University vide their communication dated 26.06.2019 have afforded recognition to the courses conducted by the 2^nd respondent for the purpose of Higher education in Bachelor of Vocational Training Degree course conducted by the said University. The true copy of the said letter dated 26.06.2019 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(v). True copy of the list of Universities under the UGC and approved by the UGC in which the name of Shinghania University appears published by the UGC is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(w).

26. The NITI Aayog has called forth non-governmental organization to have NGO partnership under their NGO Partnership System. In pursuance thereof the 2^ndrespondent was registered as a NGO with unique I.D.No.KL/2016/0099166 under their NGO partnership system.

20

27. Furthermore certain courses conducted by the 2^nd respondent has been recognized by the Kerala, Public Service Commission. One such course that has been recognized by the Kerala Public Service Commission is Diploma in Computer Application. True copy of the Government Order bearing No. 9/2013/P&ARD dated 5.1.2013 issued by the Government of Kerala to the 2^ndrespondent is produced herewith and marked as

Exhibit-R1(x).

28. In this connection it is submitted that the 2^nd respondent as a responsible body has changed the prospectus as well as the certificate that is being issued to the candidates undergoing Physiotherapy course. It is pertinent to note from the year 2018-19 the prospectus for paramedical courses has been completely changed wherein the words "Promoted by Government of India" is being completely deleted and only the origin of Bharat Sevak Samaj has been highlighted making it clear that it is an independent organization altogether. The 4^th respondent is permitting those candidates who are interested in taking the B.S.S. Diploma Course in Computer Application to study other independent skill development courses along with the same. It is pertinent to note B.S.S. Diploma in Computer Application conducted by the 2^ndrespondent has already been recognized by Kerala Government who has approved the Diploma Course in Computer Application conducted by the 2^nd respondent. True copy of the specimen certificate issued by the 1^strespondent to the holders of Diploma in Computer Application Course is produced here with and marked as Exhibit-R1 (y). It is submitted that the 2^ndrespondent has absolutely no intention to

21

do any activities under any other guise claiming that it is a Government body.

29. In the meanwhile the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of School, Education and Literacy) (Adult Education Bureau) vide their letter dated 22.11.2018 addressed to the petitioner has informed the petitioner that no recognition is provided by the Adult Education Bureau for non- formal education or lifelong learning and it has also made clear that it has no objection to the fourth respondent conducting their programme for Lifelong Learning And Non-Formal Education evidence by Exhibit-R1(u).

30. It is submitted that the course conducted by the answering respondent is only to provide employment opportunity to candidates who are only matriculates. The idea is only to make them eligible for employment in certain areas where specific skill is required. The present petition is instituted on the premise that the 2^ndrespondent is conducting course which leads to a Degree or Diploma in a subject. The truth is far from it. The certificate which the petitioner gives the candidate will only enable them to work as Assistant/Aid to persons duly trained in any subject. It is also made clear that the course has no recognition from any university or UGC. It is only a skill development programme conducted purely by a private organization and the objective is only to train the candidate to work under qualified hands as their assistants.

31. The averments in para 1 of the writ petition is incorrect and denied for the reasons already stated supra. The

22

Ashoka Sthambham or the Ashoka Pillar are not used in the certificates issued by the 2^ndrespondent subsequent to the year 2011. The certificates produced by the petitioner may be Ext-P2 relate to the year 2010. Ext-P3 relates to the year 2015.

32. The averment in para 2 to 5 are incorrect and are denied for the reasons already stated supra. The averments in para 6 are without basis and all corrections have been made in the manner of the representation of the 2^ndrespondent subsequent to the formation of the NITI Ayog and de-linking of the 2^nd respondent as governmental organization from the year 2015 onwards.

33. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are without any basis. Some of the courses conducted by the 2^ndrespondent as already stated supra has been recognized by the Government of Kerala. Hence prayer of relief has become redundant. There is absolutely no necessity for any investigation by the 5^th respondent as the 2^ndrespondent has not in any way violated any law of the land.

34. In the first place petitioner is not offering any Diploma course in any subject, secondly the certificate course conducted by answering respondent will only enable the holders of such certificate to work as assistants to qualified Physiotherapist. The course conducted by the answering respondent is only for candidates with matriculation. With the merger of the skill development course in various subjects and along with Diploma in Computer Application the apprehensions of the petitioners are kept addressed. The answering respondent

23

has modified their brouchers, application forms and course certificates suitably in conformity with the change in the nature of the 2^ndrespondent organization.

35. In view of the above as there is absolutely no law or statute governing grant of certificates issued by the 2^nd respondent and also since there is no bar for conducting such courses the necessity for interference by this Hon'ble Court in the conduct of the courses by the 2^ndrespondent does not arise.

36. The averments in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition are incorrect and are denied. The said advertisement Ext-P5 has not been made by this respondent. The 2^ndrespondent is not in the habit of making advertisement for any course. The said advertisement produced as Exts-P4 named P5 has not been published by this respondent and this respondent is not aware of the same. If at all such an advertisement has been appeared it has been done by persons misusing the name and reputation of the 2^nd respondent. Exts-P4 and P5 clearly indicate that the same was done by private agency. It is not clear as to when this notification has been published and in which publication or newspaper. The date of publication of the said advertisement or the source from which the advertisement has been taken is also not clear. Exts-P4 and P5 therefore cannot be acted upon. The 2^ndrespondent is not involved in publication of Exts-P4 and P5 and the 2^ndrespondent is not in the habit of promoting its affairs by advertising any of its courses.

37. The averments in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition are incorrect and are denied. This respondent is not party to W.P.

24

(C).No.28744/2007 and judgment rendered is not binding on this respondent. Any aspersions made behind the back of the 2^nd respondent and without affording an opportunity to the 1^stto appear and submit their response is against the principles of natural justice equity and good conscience and has therefore absolutely no binding force as against this respondent.

38. The averments in paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition are incorrect and are denied. Ext-P7 is vague and has been issued without considering the evolution of the BSS and that with the abolition of the planning commission and with the emergent of NITI Ayog the BSS has become a non-governmental organization having separate independent exclusive existence.

39. The averments in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition are false and are denied. Some of the courses conducted by the respondent has been recognized by the Government of Kerala after complying with the procedures required therefor and was not granted on any political influence as alleged by the petitioner.

40. The averments in para 6 of the writ petition are totally false and are denied. It is pertinent to note that Exts-P8 to P10 have been issued by the 2^ndrespondent were absolutely no locus standi.

41. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition."

4. In support of the same, bye-laws of the Kerala Association for Non Formal Education and Development (KANFED), and other

25

documents have been filed.

5. Considering the rival contentions, on 06.09.2021, we passed the following order:-

"Petitioner has sought for a direction to the first respondent to stop/ban the working/functioning of the Bharat Sevak Samaj in the State of Kerala by issuing a writ of mandamus, so long as it is not approved by the State of Kerala, Government of India or its recognised instrumentalities.

2. Respondent No.1 has not filed counter affidavit so far. However, submission is made on behalf of respondent No.1 that the petitioner has no authority to file such a public interest litigation as there is no such post of General Secretary in Kerala Association for Non Formal Education and Development (KANFED), Thiruvananthapuram and hence the writ petition is not maintainable."

6. On 25.09.2021, Mr. Sachin S. A., the 3^rdpetitioner, has filed a reply affidavit.

7. Taking note of the averments and the material on record, on 01.11.2021, we passed the following orders:-

"In the instant writ petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

26

"(a) Direct the 1^strespondent to stop / ban the working functioning of the Bharat Sevak Samaj in the State of Kerala by issuing a writ of mandamus, so long as it is not approved by the State of Kerala, Government of India or its recognized instrumentalities.

(b) Declare that the Bharat Sevak Samaj is a Non- Governmental Organisation.

(c) Direct the 1^strespondent, not to use the name of Union Government, Planning Commission and parliament in any manner to promote their educational courses.

(d) By issuing a writ of mandamus, direct the 5^threspondent to conduct a thorough enquiry on the basis of Exhibit P- 8, P-9 and P-10."

2. Bharat Sevak Samaj, Chennai and its General Secretary, respondent Nos.1 and 2, have filed a counter affidavit dated 13.09.2017, contending inter alia that the writ petition filed by Kerala Association for Non Formal Education and Development, represented by its General Secretary, has to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner society never had the post of General Secretary and supporting the same, byelaws of the society, Ext.R1(a) has been filed.

3. Contention has also been made that Mr. S. V. Abhilash had never acted as General Secretary to the abovesaid Association. That apart, the writ petition has been defended on its merits, for dismissal.

4. However, based on the reply affidavit filed by Mr.Sachin S.A., contention has been made that the writ petition is maintainable.

5. Inviting the attention of this court to paragraph No.4 of the reply affidavit dated 25.09.2011, Mr. K. B. Pradeep,

27

learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as regards the office of the General Secretary to the abovesaid Association and continuance thereof, a dispute is pending before the Registrar of Societies, Thiruvananthapuram.

6. Paragraph No.4 of the reply affidavit of respondent No.3 dated 25.09.2011, is reproduced:

"4. The entire averments in paragraph No.5 are incorrect, hence denied. The 1^stRespondent is a society registered under The Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 12 of 1955) and the State has pervasive statutory control over the same. The 2^ndpetitioner was the General Secretary elected so on 06- 04-2010, of the regional office of the 1^stRespondent. The term of office is for 3 years. This proceeding of election is recorded in the minutes book of the Executive Committee Meeting at pages 25 & 26. True copy of pages no. 25 and 26 of the minutes book of the 1^st Respondent dated 06-04-2010 is produced herewith marked Exhibit P-11. For so many years, the 1^st Petitioner's registration remained without periodical renewals. Pursuant to a request made by the 2^ndpetitioner and upon the directions issued by the Hon. Minister, the entire dues were paid, and registration was renewed, pursuant to which the election of the 2^ndPetitioner to the Office of the General Secretary transpired. True copy of the letter recommending such renewal dated 29-03-2011 is produced herewith marked Exhibit P-12. True copy of the Receipt dated 31-03-2011 evidencing payment of money for renewal of registration is produced herewith marked Exhibit P-13. The 2^ndPetitioner desirous of vacating the post of the General Secretary on personal reasons, submitted his resignation, and informed the same to the Registrar of Societies under Act 12 of 1955 for his ratification. While so, on 14-07-2011, Sri. Anil Kumar was elected as the General Secretary and approval was sought for such election from the Registrar. At the time of the said election, the 2^ndPetitioner

28

continued in Office under Law, since his resignation was not approved by the Registrar. The election of Sn Anil Kumar was objected by Sri Udayamangalam Sukumaran, a member of the Executive Committee, and he has approached the Registrar with his objections regarding the election of Sri. Anil Kumar. The office of the Registrar was of the opinion that the disputes regarding election of Sri. Anil Kumar is to be resolved by the Civil Court. However, till date nothing is forthcoming from the Office of the Registrar regarding the fate of resignation of the 2^ndPetitioner or regarding the fate of election of Sri. Anil Kumar. Therefore, for all legal purposes, the 2^nd Petitioner continues to be the General Secretary of the 1^st Petitioner."

7. Going through the counter affidavit and the Exhibits enclosed, we are of the view that no specific document has been filed indicating that any dispute has been raised before the Registrar of Societies under the Travancore-Cochin, Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 or under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as regards the election or resignation of Mr. Anil Kumar.

8. As the writ petition has been filed on the premise that Kerala Association for Non Formal Education and Development is represented by its General Secretary and that a dispute regarding the office of the General Secretary is also pending before the Registrar of Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, taking note of the counter affidavit, petitioner is directed to furnish all the documents pertaining to the dispute, if any, raised and pending.

9. We make it clear that if the writ petition has been filed on erroneous or false premise without any supporting documents,

29

this court would be constrained to pass appropriate orders.

10. Mr. K. B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce all the necessary documents, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs."

8. Perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Bharath Sevak Samaj, the 1^strespondent, makes it clear that even though there were some issues relating to the functioning of the Bharath Sevak Samaj, subsequently, the same have been rectified, in fact Bharat Sevak Samaj has been functioning only as a non-governmental organization, and in the said circumstances, there is no need to issue any declaration as prayed for.

9. All other issues raised in the writ petition have been answered accordingly in the counter affidavit filed by the Bharath Sevak Samaj, the 1^strespondent. Locus of writ petitioners 1 and 2 to maintain the writ petition has not been substantiated.

10. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr. K. B. Pradeep, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submitted that despite letters and WhatsApp messages sent, there is no further instruction from the respondents, as regard the dispute regarding the office of the

30

General Secretary, stated to be pending before the Registrar of Societies, Thiruvananthapuram. As regard the above contention, no documents have been furnished by the writ petitioners.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

12. Giving due consideration to the averments and the material on record, there is no need to issue any direction to declare Bharath Sevak Samaj as a non-governmental institution, as it is stated to be functioning as a non-governmental institution.

Other reliefs sought for are declined.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY

JUDGE

Eb ///TRUE COPY///

P. A. TO JUDGE

31