Back
2017 Supreme(AP) 387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J.
Panguluri Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.28503 and 29037 of 2017
Decided on : 04-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri I. Koti Reddy
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 - Sections 9, 8 and 23 - W.P.No.28503 of 2017 was filed by the Executive Member of Vagdevi Educational Society, whereas filed by the President and Secretary of said Society against the same respondents - Facts are that one Vagdevi Educational Society was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act and there are members including the petitioners and respondents - It appears that a general body meeting was convened wherein a decision was taken to conduct elections to the Executive Committee in the month - The said decision was a unanimous decision - Notice was issued to all the members directing them to be present in the general body meeting to be held for election of the Executive Committee - Petitioners state that in the said general body meeting all the members attended and passed a unanimous resolution reelecting the Executive Committee - Copy of the resolution and other documents were sent to the second respondent - Respondent appears to have not taken any action thereon, but raised some objections - Agenda for the meeting was to file a copy of the resolution and other documents to the second respondent - Since there was no quorum, the meeting was postponed on which date also only nine members out of eighteen members were present nine members who were present passed the resolution unanimously - Pursuant to the said resolution, the required documents were given to the second respondent and, when the second respondent did not take any actionwas filed by the Society represented by the President – Held, Clear that it is only an intimation that has to be given by the Society and the Registrar has no role except to keep the said intimation in his record - No adjudication is involved the action of the second respondent in receiving the communication from the respondents can only be stated to be purely ministerial in nature - Probably in view of such a situation, learned counsel now tried to place the present situation under Section of the Act contrary to earlier stand and it is totally inapplicable to the preset case - Court quite often misconstruing the role of the Registrar under Section 9 of the Act. If the petitioners have any grievance against the respondents is for the petitioners to invoke Section of the Act and settle their disputes - Dispute would be purely private in nature and no public law element is involved - They cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invite a decision of this Court of the opinion that these are not fit cases for admission and are liable to be dismissed at the admission - Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
1. These two Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of the same cause of action.
2. W.P.No.28503 of 2017 was filed by the Executive Member of Vagdevi Educational Society, whereas W.P.No.29037 of 2017 was filed by the President and Secretary of said Society against the same respondents.
3. The undisputed facts are that one Vagdevi Educational Society was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short the Act) and there are 18 members including the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5. It appears that a general body meeting was convened on 17.01.2016, wherein a decision was taken to conduct elections to the Executive Committee in the month of February 2016. The said decision was a unanimous decision. A notice was issued on 02.02.2016 to all the members directing them to be present in the general body meeting to be held on 17.02.2016 for election of the Executive Committee. The petitioners state that in the said general body meeting all the 18 members attended and passed a unanimous resolution reelecting the Executive Committee. A copy of the resolution and other documents were sent to the second respondent. The second respondent appears to have not taken any action thereon, but raised some objections. In view of the objections, it appears that another requisition was sent to all the members on 21.11.2016 informing that a general body meeting would be convened on 05.12.2016. The said notices were sent by registered post. The respondents 3 to 5 and six (6) other members did not attend the meeting held on 05.12.2016. The agenda for the meeting was to file a copy of the resolution dated 17.02.2016 and other documents to the second respondent. Since there was no quorum, the meeting was postponed to 06.12.2016, on which date also only nine (9) members out of eighteen (18) members were present. The nine (9) members who were present passed the resolution unanimously. Pursuant to the said resolution, the required documents were given to the second respondent and, when the second respondent did not take any action, W.P.No.3573 of 2017 was filed by the Society represented by the President. This Court disposed of the same on 07.02.2017 directing the second respondent to receive the list furnished by the petitioner Society and acknowledge the same as per Section 9 of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the dissenting (non-attended) members by taking leave of the Court in W.A.No.1052 of 2017 and a Division Bench of this Court set aside the order and allowed the Writ Appeal. It appears that the President and Secretary of the Society filed a review application in WAMP No.2189 of 2017 and the same is pending.
4. In the meanwhile, it appears that the respondents 3 to 5 submitted another resolution to the second respondent alleged to have been passed on 06.12.2016 indicating that a new Executive Committee was elected. Alleging forgery of the signature of the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28503 of 2017. It appears that the second respondent acknowledged the communication received by him from the respondents 3 to 5 pursuant to an alleged resolution passed on 06.12.2016. The petitioners in W.P.29037 of 2017 state that the respondents 3 to 5 and others have no right to convene a general body meeting because no requisition was given by the Secretary of the Society and they have no right to move the no confidence motion against the petitioners and other office bearers. Even otherwise also the alleged meeting said to have been convened on 06.12.2016 only with nine (9) members out of eighteen (18) members is devoid of quorum, as 2/3rd members are required for holding a general body meeting. However, since the second respondent acknowledged the resolution dated 06.12.2016 submitted by the respondents 3 to 5 by his certificate dated 22.08.2017 the same is challenged in W.P.No.2903
