DAVE, C. J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petitions, noted above, have been filed by the same petitioner against the same respondent under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, and since they are inter-connected, they are disposed of together.
(2.) IT is common ground between the parties that the petitioner Bhopalwala Arya Higher Secondary School Prabandhak Samiti, which will hereinafter be referred as the 'samiti', is a registered society. IT was registered for the first time on 20th October, 1956, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act No. 21 of 1860) as adapted to the pre-reorganised State of Rajasthan by the Rajasthan Ordinance of 1950. The said Act (Societies Registration Act, 1860) was repealed by the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act No. 28 of 1958 which will hereinafter be referred as the 'new Act'. Sec. 21 (2) of the new Act, however, provided that all societies registered under the repealed Act shall be deemed to have been registered under the new Act, if they may be registered thereunder. By virtue of this sub-section, the Samiti was deemed to have been registered under the new Act. IT was established for the promotion of education and literature in the district of Sri Ganganagar. IT managed a school located at Sri Ganganagar. This School was, at that time, called "bhopalwala Arya High School". IT was later upgraded as a Higher Secondary School and was known as "bhopalwala Arya Higher Secondary School Sri Ganganagar" before the present writ applications were filed. Though the school is managed by the Samiti, it is a Government aided school ; it receives grant in-aid from the Government of Rajasthan. At the time when the Samiti was registered, it had filed a copy of the Pules and Regulations of the Society with the Registrar, which was named as 'vidhan' (Constitution ). In 1957, the Government of Rajasthan framed Rajasthan Education Code, 1957. Now the Samiti's case is that, according to the Code, the Managing committees of all the Government-aided schools in Rajasthan were required to be constituted according to Chapter XIII, clause 3-V (1 to 5 ). In order to bring its rules in accord with the said code, the Samiti amended its constitution. A copy of the altered Rules and Regulations together with the names, addresses and occupations of the members entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society was sent to the respondent under sec. 4 of the new Act, to be filed. The Samiti then obtained a certified copy of the amended Rules from the respondent under sec. 19 of the new Act. It was sent by the respondent with his letter No. 48348, dated 22nd June, 1963 (Ex. 14 ). Subsequently, the Government of Rajasthan framed Revised Grant-in-aid Rules called "the Rajasthan Grant-in-aid to Educational & Cultural Institutions Rules, 1963, vide Notification No. F. 2 (24) Edu. VI/62 dated 19th January, 1963. According to these Rules, it again became necessary for the Samiti to re-constitute itself. So in order to fulfil the requirements of the Revised Grant-in-aid Rules, the Samiti by its special resolution dated 28th July, 1963 made necessary amendments in its Rules and a copy of the altered Rules was filed with the respondent on 7th August, 1963 according to sec. 4-A (2) of the new Act (Ex. 6) since the status of the school was raised to a Higher Secondary School, Rule No. 1 of the Committee was also amended and the name of the school was changed into "bhopalwala Arya Higher Secondary School Prabandhak Samiti. " This copy was received by the respondent on 9th August, 1963. The Samiti's grievance is, that although the copy of the altered Rules was filed with the respondent on 7th August, 1963 and it was received by him on 9th August, 1963, the respondent, after two months and six days, informed it by his letter No. 78053, dated 15th October, 1963 (Ex. 7) that the amended Rules could not be registered because of an objection received from the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar. In Writ petition No. 722 of 1964, it was urged by the Samiti that under sec. 4-A (2) of the new Act, it was required to file with the respondent a copy of the altered Rules and Regulations within 15 days and it had complied with that provision of law. The respondent was simply required to keep on his record a copy of the amended Rules and Regulations and he was not competent to entertain objections from a third party. He could not assume the role of a Court and decide the question whether the amendment was correctly made in accordance with the original constitution of the Samiti. The Samiti, therefore, by its letter dated 2nd November, 1963 (Ex. 8) wrote to the respondent that the amendment was made according to Dhara 12 of the Constitution, that no change was made in violation of the principle of the Arya Samaj or matters pertaining to the property of the Institution, that the objection raised by the respondent was not correct and he was requested to grant a copy of the amended Rules and Regulations which were filed with him, under sec. 19 of the new Act. The requisite fee under the said section was also sent to him by money order. The money order was returned undelivered and, therefore, another money order was sent on 29th November, 1963. The Samiti again wrote to the respondent on 14th November, 1963 (Ex. 9) and on 24th December, 1963 (Ex. 11) to file and grant a copy of the amended Rules and Regulations, but he refused to file the said document and give its copy by his letters dated 6th January, 1964 (Ex. 12) and 3rd February, 1964 (Ex. 13 ). It was contended by the Samiti that the respondent's action in refusing to give to the Samiti a copy of the amended Rules and Regulations, which were filed with him, was illegal, improper and without jurisdiction, that under sec. 19 of the new Act, he was bound to give a copy to the Samiti and, therefore, it was prayed that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order be issued against the respondent asking him to issue a certified copy of the altered Rules and Regulations under sec. 19 of the new Act. In writ petition No. 1362 of 1964, it was further stated that under sec. 4 and 4-A (l) of the new Act, the Samiti on 29th January, 1964 filed with the respondent a list of the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the Committee who were entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Society, showing the changes which had taken place during the year in the personnel of the committee (Ex. 15 ). A copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Samiti amended upto date was also filed, but the respondent by his letter dated 24th February, 1964 (Ex. 16) refused to file the same and returned the documents to the Samiti. The Samiti then with its letter dated 5th March, 1964 (Ex. 17) again sent to the respondent the annual list, names and addresses of the members of the Committee along with the Rules and Regulations of the Society, amended upto-date and his attention was drawn to the copy of the amended Rules and Regulations of the Society, which were already filed with him and whose copy was also granted by him on 22nd June, 1963. But, he again returned the document and asked the Samiti that the consent of the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar should be obtained and sent to him about the amended Rules and Regulations and then only, they will be placed on record. It is contended by the Samiti in this writ application that the terms dictated by the respondent were not acceptable to it and even to the Education Department, because they were against the Education Code and Grant-in-aid Rules. It was further stated that the respondent could not assume the role of a civil court and interfere with the constitution of the committee and dictate terms to it. According to the samiti, he had acted illegally in refusing to place on record the annual list which was filed with him under sec. 4 of the new Act and the copy of the amended Rules and Regulations, which was filed under sec. 4-A of the new Act. It is prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order should be issued to the respondent directing him to accept the annual list of the members of the committee and the copy of the amended Rules and Regulations submitted to him by the Samiti and that he should be further directed to supply copies of the same to it under sec. 19 of the new Act. Both the writ applications have been opposed by the respondent. In his written reply, the respondent went to the length of saying that it was not necessary for the Samiti to comply with the provisions of the Education Code, 1957, or the Revised Grant-in-aid Rules framed by the Government of Rajasthan. This objection was, however, not pressed at the time of arguments. The main contention, which was putforward at the time of arguments was that, according to the original Constitution of the Samiti, a printed copy of which was submitted in October, 1956 when the Samiti was originally registered the term of the Samiti was to expire after five years. After the expiry of the period of five years, it was necessary for the Samiti to have fresh elections and that it could not extend the term of its life as it had done. It was also pointed out that, according to the original Constitution of the Samiti, referred above, five members were to be nominated by the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar. The Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, had brought to the notice of the respondent that in the amended Constitution, the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, was not given the required presentation and, therefore, the respondent had acted well within his jurisdiction in refusing to place on record the annual list and the amended Rules and Regulations sent by the Samiti. Since the annual list and the amended Rules and Regulations were not filed by the Samiti, their copies could not possibly be given to the Samiti under sec. 19 of the Act. It was, therefore, prayed that both the writ applications should be dismissed. Shri Hastimal Pareekh presented an application on behalf of the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, saying that the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar was highly interested in the subject matter of the writ applications and, therefore the Samiti should be ordered to implead it as a respondent and that it should be heard before the writ applications were decided. To this application, a reply was filed by the Samiti, saying that the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, was not a registered body, and consequently, it had no legal entity. It could not, therefore, sue or be sued in a court of law in its own name. It was also stated that Shri Ramnarain Arya, who posed himself as the Pradhan of the said Arya Samaj, was not rightly elected to the office, that before the present Samiti was constituted on 5th January, 1964, a registered letter of request was sent to the Pradhan, Arya Samaj for sending its elected representative, that a similar letter was addressed to the Director of Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan and that while the latter nominated the District Inspector of Schools as its representative, the Pradhan disregarded the Samiti's request. It was urged that the application put-forward by Shri Pareekh was not bonafide, that it sought to raise before this court disputes which were outside the scope of this writ application and which were only meant to place obstruction in the Samiti's way in obtaining grant-in-aid from the Government and running the Institution, and, therefore, it should be dismissed. We have heard Shri Hastimal Pareekh. It was admitted by him that the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, is not a registered body. The Samiti, was, therefore, correct in saying that it could neither sue nor be sued in a court of law in its own name. The Samiti had also raised an objection about the validity of the election of Shri Ramnarain Arya who styled himself to be the Pradhan of the Arya Samaj. We did not, therefore, consider it proper to direct the Samiti to implead the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar as a respondent. This application is dismissed. The questions, which arise for determination of the Court, are - (1) Whether the Samiti was entitled as of right to obtain from the respondent a copy of the Rules and Regulations (Ex. 5) which were filed by it on 7th August, 1963 with its letter (Ex. 6) and which were received by the respondent on 9th August, 1963 and whether the respondent had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in refusing to supply it; and (2) Whether the respondent had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in refusing to place on his record the annual list and the amended Rules and Regulations filed with him by the Samiti with its letters dated 29th January, 1964 (Ex. 15) and 5th March, 1964 (Ex. 17) and in returning them with his letters dated 24th February, 1964 (Ex. 16) and 25th April, 1964 (Ex. 23), and whether the Samiti is entitled to file these documents and obtain their copies under sec. 19 of the new Act ? Before proceeding to determine these questions, it may be observed that the new Act (Rajasthan Societies Registration Act No. 28 of 1958) is almost a copy of the Societies Registration Act No. 21 of 1960, except for a few changes like the addition of secs. 4-A, 4-B, 12-A, 12-B, 12-C, 14-A and 21 etc. As is evident from its preamble, the new Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the existing laws for improving the legal conditions of the societies established for the promotion of literature, science, or the fine arts or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, political education, or for charitable purposes. Like the Central Act, under sec. l-B of the new Act also, any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific or charitable purposes or for any such purpose as is described in sec. 20, may form themselves into a society by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association and filing the same with the Registrar. The memorandum of association must, according to sec. 2, contain (a) the name of the society; (b) the objects of the society; (c) the names, addressees and occupations of the Governors, directors, trustees or members etc. and (d) a copy of the rules and regulations of the society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the governors, directors, trustees or members of the governing body, must be filed with the memorandum of association. When such memorandum and certified copy are filed and the registration fee is paid, the Registrar is required to certify under his hand that the society is registered under the Act. If the name of the registered society is latter on changed in accordance with sec. 12-A, a notice in writing of such change has to be given to the Registrar under sec. 12-B of the Act. Sec. 17 deals with the registration of societies formed before the Act came into force, but which was not registered. Sec. 20 lays down what kinds of societies may be registered under the Act. Sec. 18 empowers the Registrar to refuse to register a society under sec. 3, or a society under sec. 17, or to register the change of the names made under sec. 12-A for reasons given therein (Sec. 18 ). Sec. 6 provides that every society registered under the Act may sue or be sued in its own name. It thus gives to a society the same status as to an individual even though it is a group or association of a number of persons. Sec. 5 provides in whom the property of the society would vest or would be deemed to be vested. It can hold or acquire property, movable or immovable, and if any of its number is in arrear of a subscription, or incurs any liability or commits any offence, he is liable to be sued and also liable to be punished for offences as a stranger under secs. 10 and 11 of he new Act respectively. The Act thus also provides for the safety of the property belonging to the society not only from absolute strangers, but also from its own members who are to be treated as strangers for the said purposes. Since the Act gives all this recognition in law to a registered society, it is provided in sec. 4 thereof that once in every year; on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which the annual general meeting of the society is held according to the rules and regulations of the society, or if the rules and regulations do not provide for an annual general meeting, then in the month of January, a list must be filed with the Registrar of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, directors, trustees or members of the council, committee or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society. Sec. 4-A which, as pointed out above, is an addition in the new Act, runs as follows: - "sec. 4-A - Changes in governing body and Rules to be filed - (1) Together with the list mentioned in sec. 4 there shall be sent to the Registrar a statement showing all changes during the year to which the list relates in the personnel of the governors, directors, trustees or members of the council, committee or other governing body to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted and also a copy of the rules and regulations of the society 1corrected up to date and certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the governors, directors, trustees or members of the governing body. (2) A copy of every alteration made in the rules and regulations of the society certified to be a correct copy in the manner aforesaid, shall be sent to the Registrar within fifteen days of the making of such alteration. It is clear from the language of this section that along with the annual list mentioned in sec. 4, there must be sent to the Registrar a statement showing all the changes during the year to which the list relates, regarding the personnel of the governors, directors, trustees or members of the council, committee or the governing body to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted. It is further necessary to file a copy of the rules and regulations of the society corrected upto date and certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the governors, directors, trustees or members of the governing body. Sub-sec. (2) further requires that the copy of the amended rules and regulations referred above, must be sent within fifteen days of the making of such alterations. It would be pertinent to refer here to sec. 4-B also which provides penalty for non-compliance of sec. 4 or 4-A or for making a false entry. According to this section, if the chairman, secretary, or any other person who is authorised in this behalf by rules and regulations of the society or by a resolution of the governing body of the society, fails to comply with the provisions of sec. 4 or 4-A, he is liable to be punished thereunder. This section makes it clear as to which of the office bearers is responsible for filing the annual list of the changes in the governing body and the rules according to sec. 4 or 4-A.
(3.) NOW, in the present case, it is common ground between the parties, as pointed out above, that the Bhopalwala Arya Ucha Vidhalaya Prabandhak Samiti, Sri Ganganagar, which was registered as a society on 20th October, 1956, continued to remain on the register maintained by the respondent till the beginning of the year 1963. It is not denied by the respondent that the Samiti had sent to the respondent a list of the names of its office-bearers and members and a copy of the amended constitution with its letter dated 24th April, 1963 (Ex. 18) under the signature of its President Shri Trilochan Dutt. To this the respondent replied by his letter dated 2nd May, 1963 (Ex. 19) that the amended constitution should be signed by three members. The Samiti then sent the signed copy of the constitution with its letter dated 7th May, 1963 (Ex. 20) and on 16th May, 1963 the respondent was requested by another letter (Ex. 21) to furnish a copy thereof. The perusal of letter No. 48348 dated 22nd June, 1963 sent by the respondent to the Samiti (Ex. 14) shows that the copy of the amended constitution was supplied to the Samiti. It is clear that upto 22nd June, 1963 there was no dispute between the parties. The trouble arose when the Samiti wrote a letter on 7th August, 1963 (Ex. 6) to the respondent informing him that the society had further amended its constitution in order to bring it in accord with the Revised Grant-in-aid Rules framed by the Government of Rajas-than and a copy of the amended constitution was filed therewith. It is significant to note that in the amended constitution, Rule No. 1 was amended whereby the name of the society was changed to "bhopalwala Arya Higher Secondary School Prabandhak Samiti, Sri Ganganagar". The respondent did not refuse to register the change of name under sec. 18 of the new Act. On the contrary, this change was accepted and a correction was made in the register accordingly. In other words, the changed name of the samiti was registered and a certified copy of the change was also furnished to the Samiti (Ex. 22 ). It was rather strange that the respondent thus accepted the amended Rules and regulations in part and refused to place on record the rest. This is an obvious inconsistency on his part because he could not hold the Samiti validly constituted for making one change and not the other. It was curious that by his letter No. 78053 dated 15th October, 1963 (Ex. 7), he wrote to the Samiti saying that the amended copy of the constitution filed by it could not be registered because the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, had raised an objection to the effect that the change could be done only with its consent. Learned Government Advocate has placed on record a copy of the order passed by the respondent on 30th September, 1963 on the order-sheet and pointed out that the said reply was sent because of this order. The perusal of this order shows that the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, had sent to the respondent an application and a document and from their perusal the respondent thought that the Samiti could not amend its constitution, because the property of the school could not be disposed of without the consent of the Arya Samaj and that no amendment could be made in the Rules and Regulations in violation of the principles of the Arya Samaj. The Samiti has urged that in the amended constitution it had made no provision for the disposal of the property of the school without the consent of the Arya Samaj nor had it made any amendment in violation of the principles of the Arya Samaj and that this order was, therefore, incorrect and was passed by the respondent without going through the amended rules and regulations. Learned Government Advocate has not been able to point out to us if in the amended Rules and Regulations there was any such change as is referred to in the said order. It appears from the respondent's letter dated 15th October, 1963 (Ex. 7) and the subsequent correspondence which passed between the parties, that the respondent refused to supply the copy of the amended Rules and Regulations which form the subject-matter of writ petition No. 722 of 1964, on the ground that an objection was raised by the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar. Similarly, the perusal of the correspondence, which passed between the parties in 1964 and particularly the Samiti's letters dated 29th January, 1964 (Ex. 15) and 5th March, 1964 (Ex. 17) and the respondent's letters dated 24th February, 1964 (Ex. 16) and 25th April, 1964 (Ex. 23), shows that the respondent refused to accept the annual list and the copy of the amended constitution upto date because an objection was filed by the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar. The respondent's next objection was that in the original constitution which was filed in 1956, it was necessary to give representation of five members to the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar. We have not been referred to any provision under the Rajasthan Societies Act empowering the respondent to entertain the objection raised on behalf of the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, and decide the dispute which arose on the basis of the original constitution filed in October, 1956. As pointed out above, the respondent had already placed on record an amended constitution of the Samiti with its letter dated 24th April, 1963 (Ex. 18) and even its certified copy was furnished by the respondent to the Samiti vide Ex. 14. In our opinion, he acted without jurisdiction in ignoring this amended constitution and going behind it and referring to the original constitution. He had accepted the amended constitution and the names of the members of the new Committee, according to which Shri Trilochan Dutt was the President of the Samiti. Thereafter, he was left with no authority to refuse to recognise Shri Dutt as the President of the Samiti or to refuse to place on record the amendments which were made by the Samiti and sent to the respondents by the said President. The result of the respondent's refusal to recognise Shri Trilochan Datt as the President of the Samiti or to recognise the new Samiti would have been that he could not take any action against them or anybody else under sec. 4-B of the new Act for non-compliance of sec. 4 or 4-A. We have not been referred to any provision in the Act whereby the respondent could refuse to give recognition to the documents which were duly filed with him under secs. 4 or 4-A and which were placed by him on record as coming from the proper source and whose copies were also given by him to the office bearers of the society. It was this Samiti which filed with the respondent signed copy of the alterations made in the Rules and Regulations with its letter dated 7th August, 1963 (Ex. 6) and which remained with the respondent till 15th October, 1963 when he refused to give its copy. We have not. been referred to any provision of law whereby the Registrar could refuse to place on record the annual list filed with him under sec. 4 or other documents filed under sec. 4-A if they are signed by three of the governors, directors, trustees or members of the governing body. In the present case, the relevant papers were filed with the respondent, after they were signed by the members of the governing body. The Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, which had filed objection before the respondent did not claim to be a number of the governing body. The respondent should have, therefore, directed it to take recourse to law if it had any objection about the valid constitution of the Samiti. The respondent should not have assumed the role of a Court and proceeded to examine the validity of the constitution of the Samiti on the basis of Ex. 1 which from his own record stood amended as per Ex. 14. Sec. 19 of the new Act provides that any person may inspect all documents filed with the Registrar under the Act on payment of a fee mentioned therein and that any person may require a copy or extract of any document or part of any document to be certified by the Registrar on payment of the amount given therein. The provision of this section makes it quite clear that the documents filed with the Registrar are public documents and any person who needs copies of those documents may inspect them and obtain certified copies iff only he pays the required amount. The person or society which files the annual list) or other documents mentioned in secs. 4 or 4-A, is certainly entitled as of right to obtain from the Registrar copies of the annual list and other documents filed under secs. 4 or 4-A. The respondent had, therefore, no jurisdiction to refuse to give to the Samiti the copies of the documents which it had filed under sec. 4-A of the new Act. The writ application No. 722 of 1964 is, therefore, fit to be allowed so as to direct the respondent to give to the Samiti a certified copy of the amended Rules and Regulations as required therein. Similarly, writ application No. 1362 of 1964 is also fit to be allowed. This second writ application had to be filed by the Samiti, because after the commencement of the new year 1964, it filed annual list under sec. 4 and if it had failed to do so, it would have exposed itself to the risk of an action under sec. 4-B of the new Act. Likewise, a statement showing all changes during the year and a copy of the amended Rules and Regulations upto date had to be filed under sec. 4-A and this was complied with. It was wrong on the part of the respondent not to place on record the documents filed by the Samiti and to refuse to give it the copies which it was entitled to obtain as of right under sec. 19 of the new Act. It is not indicated by the respondent whom he would have held responsible for non-compliance of sec. 4 or 4-A of the new Act if the Samiti had not complied with them. Both the writ applications are, therefore, allowed and we direct the respondent to give the Samiti certified copy of the amended Rules and Regulations as required in writ petition No. 722 of 1964 and to place on record the annual list and copy of the amended Rules and Regulations sent by the Samiti to him in 1964 and to give certified copies to the Samiti as asked for in writ petition No. 1362 of 1964. It may be made clear that this order would not affect the rights of a third party, or for that matter, that of the Arya Samaj, Sri Ganganagar, to whom it is open to take recourse to law for enforcement of its rights, if any. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. . ;