M. Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order of the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 7-9-1992 (annexure-7 to the writ petition). I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that a society under the name of Shri Maharana Pratap Shiksha Parishad was got registered under the Societies Registration Act on 29-9-1963. A true copy of the certificate of registration is annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that by inadvertance the President of the Society did not apply for getting the registration renewed. Hence the Registrar issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner dated 3-11-1989, a true copy of which is annexure-2 to the writ I petition. On receipt of this notice the petitioner made an application for renewal and the renewal was granted by order dated 12-4-1991 w.e.f. 10-10-90 for a period of five years. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition that the petitioner society had purchased certain land in 1971 and 1972 and respondent No. 2 in order to grab this land took advantage of the non-renewal of the registration of the society and applied for registration of a new society under the name "Sri Maharana Pratap Shiksha Parishad Evam Rajput Dharamshala, Firozabad." THE said application for registration was made on 28-6-1991 behind the back of the petitioner and this new society was got registered in 1989 vide registration certificate No. 7008 dated 30-4-1989 (annexure-4 to the petition). It is alleged that the registration of Respondent No 2 was done for the purpose to deceive the petitioners society since the name of respondent No. 2 closely resembles the name of the petitioners society. When the petitioner came to know about the registration of respondent No. 2 he made a complaint to the Registrar on 18-7-1991 to cancel the registration of respondent No. 2. A true copy of the complaint is annexure-5 to the petition. THEreupon the registrar issued a notice to respondent No. 2 and after hearing the parties ordered cancellation of the registration of the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 18-1-1992. A true copy of the said order is annex ure-6 to this petition. Against this order the respondent No. 2 filed an appeal under section 12-D (2) of the Societies Registration Act which was allotted by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra by the impugned order dated 7-9-1992. Aggrieved this petition has been field in this Court. Respondent No. 2 has filed a counter affidavit and opposed this petition. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit that after the petitioner was registered in 1969 it did not carry out its functions and remained registered only on papers. Since the petitioner failed to get renewal of its registration as such it was open to the respondent No. 2 to get its registration under the new name. It is also alleged in para 8 of the counter affidavit that the renewal of the petitioner society was arbitrary and illegal. When the respondent society was registered on 30-6-1989, there was no registered society in existence bearing the same name. The details of these allegations are given in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit. The facts of this case reveal that while it is true that the petitioners society was not registered in 1989 when the respondent No. 2 got registration, yet thereafter the petitioner got renewal. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of section 3 (2) of the Societies Registration Act (As amended in U. P.) no society can be registered if its name is identical with that of any other society previously registered under this Act. He has submitted that since the petitioners society was previously registered under this Act, hence the respondent No. 2 society should not have been granted registration. I find it difficult to accept the interpretation of section 3 (2) of the Societies Registration Act which is sought to be put up by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, section 3 (2) has to be read along with section 3-A (5) of the said Act which shows that a society which fails to get a certificate of registration renewed within one year from the expiry of the period for which the certificate was operative shall become an unregistered society. If the interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted it will mean that if a society is registered under a certain name, then even if no renewal is ever sought thereafter no society can be registered under the same name. This could obviously not he the intention of the Act. The petitioner was obviously not vigilent and careful and did not get its renewal granted in time. At the time when the respondent No. 2 was registered the petitioner was unregistered An unregistered society is not a legal entity at all. Hence, in my opinion, Section 3 (2) of the Act must be interpreted to mean that the society which seeks registration should not have a name identical with that of another society which was previously registered and whose registration is subsisting. Moreover, in section 3 (2) (a) of the Act the word used is 'identical' and not 'similar'. In the present case though the names of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 closely resemble each other yet they are not identical.
(3.) IN the circumstances, I am of the opinion that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have been validly registered as societies and both can function under their separate names. If there is any confusion the parties can advertise in some newspaper to inform the public that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are different societies and should not be confused with each other. IN the circumstances, the impugned order dated 7-9-1992 of the Commissioner, Agra Division is set aside but it is made clear that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 have been validly registered and can function in their respective names. With these observations the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;