Trichy Thanjavur Pudukkottai Quaid-e-Milleth District Cinema Distributors Association vs The District Registrar of Societies, Thiru Vetrivel and Thiru Marudairajan

S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of 1st Respondent in his proceedings Ka. No. 6040/A3/98 and dated 20.07.1998 and quash the proceedings therein as illegal, incompetent, irregular, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.

Petitioner deponent claims himself as Secretary of the Association. The reason for filing the writ petition is this: On 11-05-1998, first Respondent issued notice to Petitioner-Society calling upon it to produce certain records, viz. Members Register, Sanda receipts or subscription in receipts, account books, postal register, election notices and minutes book. Petitioner produced the books as requested by the District Registrar on 26-05-1998. After scrutiny of the books, first Respondent had returned the books to the Petitioner. Thereafter, according to Petitioner, there was no information from 1st Respondent, and all of a sudden the impugned Order has been issued, whereby the 1st Respondent had declared that the General Body meeting held on 10-05-1998 is cancelled, and he had directed the constitution of an adhoc committee to conduct the elections. It is said that the Order impugned in this writ petition is illegal, since the first Respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal affairs of the Society. It is further said that the Petitioner had notified for conducting the general body by issuance of a clear 21 days notice, on 21-03-1998. It is said that in that notice, it is specifically stated in Resolution No. 6 that the Committee has determined to convene the general body on 19-04-1998. But, on 09-04-1998, it was adjourned and scheduled to take place on 27-04-1998. As per request of the majority of members, the meeting stood adjourned finally to 10-05-1998. Due intimation was also given to all members. It is said that as a reminder, publication was also made in Dailies, and the response was overwhelming. It is said that the first Respondent had knowledge of the General body meeting, but no objection was raised at any time prior to its convening. Having got knowledge of the entire proceedings even as on 24-04-1998 and having allowed the general body meeting to go on, Respondents are precluded from agitating the conclusion of the General Body before the first Respondent, clandestinely.

It is further said that on 10-05-1998, a meeting was conducted, and out of the total membership 299, nearly 216 members had attended. The Agenda for the meeting was taken up for consideration and had also been passed. The general body of the Association had selected 25 members as office bearers. The same was made at the instance of the general body of the Society, which is the Supreme Authority to decide the office bearers. On such selection, they assumed office. After assuming office, the first Respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned Order, especially on the basis of a complaint given by Respondents 2 and 3 on 11-05-1998. It is for the above reason, Petitioner has come to this Court for the aforesaid relief.

Respondents 2 and 3 have filed separate counter affidavits, and the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the files, and also advanced arguments on instructions.

Even though separate counter affidavits have been filed by Respondents 2 and 3, the contentions are similar. It is said that the Petitioner is not competent to file this writ petition, and the writ petition is lacking in good faith, and there is suppression of material facts. The allegation that there was an election on 10-05-1998 is also denied. It is said that on 11-05-1998, a notice was issued by first Respondent clearly mentioning about non-conducting of election for the last five years. An enquiry was fixed to 22-05-1998. The Joint Secretary of the Society appeared and sought for adjournment. Adjournment was given, and on 25-05-1998, the President and the Secretary appeared and deposed before first Respondent and signed the depositions. The contention that the first Respondent refused to produce the records is not correct. After completion of the enquiry, records were also returned back to the President. The deponents to the counter-affidavit appeared before the first Respondent and deposed that they did not conduct election for the last five years. They also admitted that he need not give notice regarding election. It was further found on enquiry that the entire Bye law was violated. The allegation that on 21-03-1998, a decision was taken to hold a general body meeting on 19-04-1998 is not true. It is only a resolution and not a general body meeting. No election committee was formed. Therefore, the resolution cannot be accounted as notice as per Section 26(3) of the Societies Registration Act. The day, hour, place, the object of the meeting were not finalised. Even though a meeting was supposed to be held on 19-04-1998, suddenly on 09-04-1998, by a resolution, the General Body Meeting was adjourned to 27-04-1998. The members gave petitions to the President and Secretary of the Association to conduct election on 24-04-1998. On the same day, due to unforeseen circumstances, the general body meeting which was to be held on 24-04-1998, was adjourned. Thereafter, no specific date is given and the cancellation of the meeting was also informed to all the members. On 04-05-1998, the Executive Committee meeting was held and five resolutions were passed. The President also signed the Minutes Book, and below the signature of the President, the conduct of the Annual General Body Meeting was typed separately, which is a fabricated one. The Executive Committee never passed any resolution regarding the Annual General Body Meeting. No Election Committee was appointed to conduct the elections. No intimation was given to the members regarding the Annual General Body meeting on 10-05-1998. According to Bye laws, there must be 21 days clear notice to conduct annual general body meeting. In fact, 158 members gave a requisition on 24-04-1998 to the President and Secretary. A complaint was also given to the District Collector on 06-05-1998, who directed the first Respondent to ensure proper election. On 10-05-1998, a written objection was given to the President by the Members of the Association before starting of the General Body meeting. The Agenda for the meeting was finalised on 09-05-1998 at 6:30 P.M. and it was not announced to the members. The Annual General Body meeting was conducted on 10-05-1998 at 10:00 A.M . However, out of the members attended, 110 members objected the meeting and presented a Memorandum to that effect to the President. Out of the 25 members selected, 22 were disqualified as per Amended by laws. It is, therefore, said that the Petitioner has come to this Court with a false case and is not entitled to any relief. Respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Third Respondent also supported the claim of the second Respondent.

Learned Additional Government Pleader produced before me the entire file regarding the enquiry that was conducted. From the file, it could be seen that the deponent also gave evidence before the first Respondent where he admitted that no election was conducted on 10-05-1998 and a list was given by 39 members in the meeting held on 09-05-1998 and the same was accepted in the meeting held on 10-05-1998. From the evidence, it is also clear that no election committee was formed, and the procedure contemplated under the byelaws was not fulfilled.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the entire procedure adopted by first Respondent is illegal and the same is one without jurisdiction. According to him, he has only informed the result of the Enquiry and not the reasons on the basis of which the results were declared. This, according to the Petitioner, violates the principles of natural justice, and that alone is sufficient to quash the impugned Order. Learned Counsel for Petitioner also relied on certain decisions of the Karnataka High Court in support of his argument. He further contended that Respondents 2 and 3 who also participated in the meeting, never objected to the procedure, and therefore, they are incompetent to make complaints against the Authorities about the election procedure. Learned Counsel also submitted that all the persons who have participated in the meeting on 10-05-1998 have filed affidavits before this Court. He placed before me a book containing affidavits alleged to have been signed by the members.

If I am to decide the matter only on the basis of legal submissions, namely, that the first Respondent has violated the principles of natural justice, the submissions of the Petitioner will have to be accepted. Learned Counsel for Petitioner relied on the decision reported in 1979 1 K.L.J. 393 (A. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka), with particular reference to paragraph 23 of the Reports, which reads thus:

Rule 8(5) of the Rules enjoins on the Registrar or the authorised person (the Enquiry Officer to communicate the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the Society concerned. This can be done by supplying a copy of the Enquiry Report. Section 25(2)(C)(iii) of the Act says that the Registrar" should communicate the result of the enquiry to the Society concerned. "The result of the enquiry" means, not merely the findings of the Enquiry Officer but also the further action taken by the Registrar on the result of that enquiry. This means if the Registrar takes a decision on the basis of that enquiry report to inform the Government to take further action, the Registrar is bound to communicate that fact also to the Society. The intention underlying the incorporation of these provisions is to provide the Society concerned with an opportunity to have its say in the matter before the Registrar, and, if they were to so choose, also before the Government, the ultimate authority that takes a final decision in the matter. Before the final decision was taken by the Government appointing the Administrator these mandatory provisions ought to have been complied with. The non-compliance of this requirement of law has substantially prejudiced the case of the Petitioners.

Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned Order, Ex.-E, deserves to be quashed.

Similar view was taken by the same Court in the decision reported in 1990 (1) K.L.J. 327 (Mahila Seva Samaj and Anr. v. Registrar of Societies and Ors.).

A further argument was also taken by learned Counsel in this case that action can be taken only if majority of the members complained before the Registrar, and in this case only Respondents 2 and 3 have filed complaint and, therefore, the Registrar has no jurisdiction to hold the enquiry or to enter a finding, directing the Petitioner herein to form an ad hoc committee.

As I have said earlier, if I am only to decide the matter on the basis of these two decisions, placed before me, I can decide it only in favour of the Petitioner. It is not disputed that a copy of the Report has not been given to the Petitioner, and result alone has been, informed. Even though the statute provides only for communicating the result of the enquiry, principles of natural justice have been made applicable in the decisions cited supra, and their Lordships have held that the report should be communicated to the affected person. But I do not think that I should grant a relief to the Petitioner-Society since I find that the affidavit is nothing but a statement of falsehood and there is also material suppression of facts. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, Petitioner has stated that the first Respondent, on 11-05-1998 issued notice to the Society calling upon it to produce the records, viz. Members Register, Sanda receipts or subscription receipts, account books, postal register, election notices and minutes book. It further says that he produced the books as requested by the District Registrar on 26-05-1998, and after scrutiny of the books, the first Respondent has returned the books. In paragraph 5, the further statement is that thereafter the Petitioner did not get any information and all of a sudden the impugned order has been issued, and thereby the first Respondent declared the general body meeting held on 19-05-1998 as cancelled and he wanted the constitution of an adhoc committee to conduct the election. This statement, according to me, is patently false. Pursuant to the notice issued by Respondents 2 and 3, the District Collector directed the first Respondent to see that elections are conducted properly. On the basis of that letter, the first Respondent took suo motu action and issued notice to the Petitioner and also the President to produce records and also to participate in the Enquiry. They were asked to appear on 22-05-1998. On that date, on behalf of the Society, the Joint Secretary presented himself before the first Respondent and requested for an adjournment. The enquiry was adjourned to 25-05-1998, and on that date, both the deponent and the President were examined on oath. In the statement, he has also stated thus:

The deponent also produced all the documents which were returned to him after perusal by the first Respondent. It was thereafter the impugned Order was passed. The statement in the affidavit that he never knew anything about the enquiry after the notice dated 11-05-1998 is a false statement to the knowledge of the deponent.

Likewise, the statements in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit are also false. In paragraph 6, it is said that the Petitioner notified for convening the general body meeting by issuance of clear 21 days notice on 21-03-1998. What was the resolution passed and what was the rule may also be considered in this connection. Bye-law No. 58 reads thus:

Let us see what is the resolution passed on 21.03.1998. Resolution No. 6 of the meeting reads thus:

This is not in tune with the bye laws. The place and time were not decided as per Resolution No. 6. At the most, it can be said that the meeting was decided to be held on 19-04-1998. Later, what happened is that on 09-04-1998, a decision was taken to hold a general body meeting on 24-07-1998. Resolution No. 9 of the meeting dated 09-04-1998 reads thus:

If this is taken as a decision, 21 days as contemplated under the byelaws is not satisfied. On 24-04-1998, nearly 160 members made a request to the President and Secretary that the election also has to be held in the general body meeting. On the same day, the very same Secretary informed the members that the proposed annual general meeting on 27-04-1998 was adjourned due to unavoidable reasons. On 04-05-1998, the Executive Committee held a meeting in which there was no discussion about the general body meeting. The minutes were written and signed by the members present. Thereafter beneath the signature, an entry is made as if there was a decision to hold the general body meeting on 10-05-1998 at 11:00 A.M. at Trichy Mercantile Residency. The very appearance of me entry beneath the signature prima facie shows that it is a false entry that was made. On 09-05-1998, i.e., on the previous day of the proposed general body meeting, a few members of the Executive Committee assembled there and took a decision that an election will also be held on 19-05-1998. That decision was taken at 6:00 P.M. on the previous day of the election. It is pursuant to the said decision, the Petitioner alleges that a general body meeting was also held and results were declared. The documents produced before Court show that the Petitioner and the President have joined together and with the support of a few members, they want to wreck the democratic set-up of the Society and to take the management of the Society in their hands somehow or other.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that once a decision was taken on 21-03-1998 to hold the annual general meeting, for the adjourned meeting, there need not be any quorum .Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied on certain observations of Law and Practice of Meetings by Shackleton. It is true that the learned Author has said that quorum for the adjourned meeting need not be as provided in the Byelaws. But I do not think that the said principle has any application to this case in view of my finding earlier that there was no decision on 21-03-1998 to hold the annual general meeting on 19-04-1998 in accordance with the bylaws, and for the resolution dated 19-04-1998, 21 days clear notice was also not given, If there was no decision on 21-03-1998, the entire case has to be rejected.

Petitioner himself has admitted that there was no election and they have only accepted the proposal of 39 members who were present on the previous day. As per the bylaw, an Election Committee has to be formed consisting of at least three members. They have to receive nominations. They have to prepare the voters list and time also must be given for withdrawal. None of these procedures was followed, is clear from the evidence of the deponent before the first Respondent. It could be further seen that these bylaws have been amended, and it is the case of the first Respondents 2 and 3 that most of the members who were alleged to have been elected unanimously are not eligible candidates, and the Bylaw prohibits 22 of them from being elected. I do not want to consider the validity of this argument, because, even according to Petitioner, no election was conducted. But at the same time, in the affidavit, he says that there was an election on 10-05-1998. It is also a false statement.

Since I hold that the Petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands, and has suppressed material facts, the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Advocates'' fee Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and five hundred only). Connected W.M.P. is also dismissed consequently.