P RAMULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
M.N.Rao, J. -
(1.)What is essentially a private dispute between two sets of persons each claiming to be genuine members of a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli, hereinafter called as "the Registration Act" is sought to be converted into question of public law for issue of a writ of mandamus. The 1st petitioner claims to be the Correspondentof Arya High Scsool, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. The 2nd petitioner is Arya Educational Society, represented by its President one Mr. A. Govind Reddy. The 3rd petitioner is Mr. A. Govind Reddy in his personal capacity. The 2nd petitioner-Society was registered under the Registration Act in the year 1963 and it is claimed that the bye-laws of the Society were also registered with the Registrar of Societies. It is the case of the petitioners that in the general body meeting held on 4-2-1990, certain persons including petitioner No.l were elected as office bearers. The names of the members of the general body and the members of the executive committee elected on 4-2-1990 were communicated to the Registrar of Societies and the list has been duly recorded by that officer. As per the bye-laws, the term is for three years. It is alleged, respondents 5 to 15 who have no concern with the 2nd petitioner-society and who were never members of that Body, by forming themselves into an unlawful Society held a meeting on 2-2-1992 and passed certain resolutions, thereby the bye-laws of the Society were amended with certain far-reaching consequences; they declared themselves members of the Executive Body and proposed certain amendments to the bye-laws which virtually divested the properties of the 2nd petitioner-Society and vested the same in Arya Samaj, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. Respondents 5 to 15 it is further alleged, communicated the alleged illegal resolutions to the Registrar of Societies, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent and that authority accepted the amendments "without verifying whether the said persons are primarily the members of the said Society and whether they have concern with the said Society". They are seeking a Wrjt of Mandamus for a declaration that the proceedings and actions of the 2nd respondent in accepting the amendments to the bye-laws of the Society submitted by respondents 5 to 15 was illegal, unauthorised and without jurisdiction and for a further direction that he should not act upon the resolutions and amendments and a consequential direction that the 1st petitioner should be permitted to continue as Correspondent of the educational institution called Arya High School which is run by the 2nd petitioner-Society.
(2.)When the matter came up for admission, a learned single Judge of this Court by a speaking order dismissed the writ petition holding that under Section 9 of the Registration Act no duty is cast on the Inspector-General of Registration and stamps, the 3rd respondent, to conduct any enquiry with regard to the validity or otherwise of the resolutions received by him. The right of a person to obtain certified copies of the documents on payment of the prescribed fee incorporated in Section 15 of the Registration Act is no way supports the case of the petitioners, was the view expressed by the learned single Judge.
(3.)Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioners preferred Writ Appeal No.424 of 1992 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 24-4-1992 observing that "prima facie the writ petition raised arguable questions and one which consequently did not deserve to be summarily dismissed, without even counter on the record. The same deserves to be admitted with final hearing thereof being on its own merits and in accordance with law". The learned Judges also granted an ad interim order in WPMP Nos.6285 and 6286 of 1992 "in terms thereof" as a consequence of which the amendments to the bye-laws submitted by respondents 5 to 15 to the 2nd respondent have not been recognised and respondents 5 to 15 have been restrained from interfering with the affairs of the 2nd petitioner-Society.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.