Vidyavardak Sangh vs The District Registrar of Societies

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

The petitioner No. 1 is said to be a Society imparting education since the year 1962 and it was registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the B.P.T. Act'', for brevity) with the coming into force of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1997, the said B.P.T. Act was repealed and since the New Act had no jurisdiction over educational institutions such as the institutions. managed by petitioner No. 1, a need was felt to re-register itself. Accordingly, at a general body meeting held on 02.02.2007 elections were conducted and it was resolved by the newly elected committee to have the institution registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Act'', for brevity) with the same name, namely, Vidya Vardak Sangh, Tilavalli. The petitioners, therefore, had submitted an application on 19.02.2007 seeking registration under Section 8 of the Act. The institution was duly registered as such on 01.03.2007. It thereafter transpires that respondent No. 2 had filed an application before respondent No. 1 claiming that there was already a body registered under the B.P.T. Act by the same name, namely, Vidya Vardak Sangh, Tilavalli, and hence claimed that the name of the petitioners was undesirable. Pursuant to which, a notice was issued by respondent No. 1 to the petitioners dated 12.04.2007 to which the petitioners had replied that the respondent No. 1 had been mislead by respondent No. 2 to believe that there were two separate Societies, when in fact there was only one Society and the confusion was that the very same Society was seeking re-registration under the Act and the respondent No. 2 claiming that there was already a Society registered under the B.P.T. Act, was with reference to the very Society. The petitioners also pointed out that respondent No. 2 was the erstwhile President of the Society, in question, during 1987 and 1990 and there were serious charges pending against him, which were subject matter of enquiry. It is on this that respondent No. 1 by an order dated 25.05.2007 held that earlier registration ceased to be in operation by virtue of the repeal of the B.P.T. Act and that the present registration of petitioner No. 1-Society under the Act was valid.

In the meanwhile, two writ petitions were said to have been filed before this Court in W.P. No. 1526/2003 and W.P. No. 7271/2003 seeking a direction to hold elections to the petitioner-Society. Respondent No. 2 was a party to the same and during the pendency of the writ petitions the B.P.T. Act came to be repealed and the petitions were accordingly disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to hold such elections, which were in fact conducted on 20.02.2007, of which respondent No. 2 was aware. However, he had submitted yet another complaint on 01.06.2007 claiming that despite direction of this ''Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have obtained a certificate of registration, and therefore, contended that the name of the petitioner Society was undesirable. Respondent No. 1 had issued yet another notice on 18.06.2007 to which the petitioner No. 1 had replied to point out that there was no other Body in the name of Vidya Vardak Sangh, Tilavalli, and there was nothing irregular or undesirable in the petitioner No. 1 seeking re-registration under the Act. However, respondent No. 1 by his order dated 24.07.2007 directed petitioner No. 1 to change its name on the mistaken impression that there was another Body in existence by the same name while ignoring the explanation put forward by petitioner No. 1, though the explanation was accepted earlier by the very same authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed writ petition in W.P. No. 12297/2007, which was disposed of on merits on 15.04.2009 remanding the matter to respondent No. 1 for a re-consideration. However, for reasons, which could only be attributed to political pressure, respondent No. 1 by his order dated 19.01.2010 rejected the case of the petitioners. Again reiterating the erroneous view that there was already a body registered by the same, the petitioners are therefore before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that in the above background the respondent No. 2, who had all along claimed that there was another registered body, and therefore, the name of the petitioner society was undesirable since it was seeking to call itself by same name, has filed an application seeking registration of the very Society and the said application having been allowed as stated in the additional affidavit that is now filed, thereby belying the very objection taken by the respondent No. 2 as regards there being a Society in existence. The conduct of the respondent No. 2 in this regard would demonstrate the evil designs in seeking to destabilise the petitioner No. 1-Society with an intention to register a Society by the same name, parallelly, while opposing the re-registration of the petitioner No. 1-Society on the footing that there was already a body in existence, which in fact was not the true and correct circumstances. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the malafides on the part of respondent No. 2 stands compounded by the present conduct, which is clearly demonstrated by the subsequent conduct. Respondent No. 1, notwithstanding the above circumstances, and the vehement controversy that was raised earlier and it had even been decided in favour of petitioner No. 1, having played into the hands of respondent No. 2 and having encouraged the registration of the Society in the face of ambiguous stand of respondent No. 2 and seeks that the impugned order be set aside as also the registration of Society at the instance of respondent No. 2 be also set aside as it would result in multiplicity of proceedings, if the same is also not addressed.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 seeks time on the ground that he needs to obtain further instructions and that he would also seek to file objections to interlocutory application for additional relief.

However, from the above sequence of events, the conduct of respondent No. 2 is evidently found wanting in bona fides and the registration of the very same Society in the name of Vidya Vardak Sangh, Tilavalli, at the instance of respondent No. 2 runs counter to the opinion formed by respondent No. 1 though it was highlighted by petitioner No. 1 that Vidya Vardak Sangh, Tilavalli, was originally registered under the B.P.T. Act and with the repeal of the said Act, it has been reregistered under the Act, at the instance of petitioner No. 1 and that there is no other Society by the same name which could render the name adopted by petitioner No. 1 as being undesirable and that having been negated, respondent No. 1 was certainly not expected to register the Society by the very same name, at the instance of respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

Annexures-J and L are quashed. Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to address the case of both the petitioners, as well as respondent No. 2 dispassionately and to decide as to which of the two would be entitled to have the Society registered in the name of Vidya Vardhaka Sangha, Tilavalli. The same shall be done with expedition and in any event within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and on issuing notice to the concerned and affording them an opportunity of hearing.