ORDER :

1. W.P.No.24656 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the 4th respondent in refusing to receive the annual lists containing the names and addresses of the members of the Managing Committee and Officers entrusted with the affairs of the Society.

2. In WP.No.19591 of 2021 also the action of the 3rd respondent in not receiving the annual lists (sent through meseva) of the names and addresses of the members of the Managing Committee and the Officers and also the action of rejecting them is questioned.

3. In WP.No.19661 of 2021 the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing a notice proposing to enquire into the mismanagement of funds etc., by the petitioner Society is questioned.

4. Counter filed in WP.No.24656 of 2020 is treated as a common counter in all the three matters. With the consent of both the learned counsels, all the three writ petitions are taken up for final hearing.

5. This Court has heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three matters and the Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration.

6. The common thread that runs through all these three matters is about the power vested in the District Registrar of Assurances in the matters of Societies Registration Act.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Raja Reddy Koneti argues that the District Registrar under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act does not have the power or the authority to enter into the disputed areas of fact and can at best receive the lists that are filed. Learned counsel submits that the Registrar does not have the power either to accept or to reject the list or to conduct any enquiry as contemplated into the alleged acts of mismanagement, forgery etc. This is the crux of the issue in these matters.

8. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti learned counsel took great pains to take this Court through the provisions of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 (Act, 35 of 2001) (for short ‘the Act’). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this is an Act which has been enacted by repealing the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act 21 of 1860), insofar as it applies to the State of Andhra Pradesh and it is meant to consolidate the law relating to the Registration of Societies situated in Andhra Pradesh promoting of art, fine arts, charity, crafts, religion, sports, literature, culture, science, philosophy, political education or any public purpose for matters related thereto. It is his contention that this is a special Act, which provides for the consolidation/amendment of the law relating to the Registration of Societies only as can be seen from its statement of objects and reasons. He also argues that very limited powers are given to the Registrar and in certain limited circumstances to take decisions. He submits that the whole idea behind the Act is to allow societies freedom of choice and that the Act merely mandates filing of certain documents with the Registrar which can in turn be inspected by third parties. Great autonomy and freedom is given to the societies including freedom from governmental control. It is his contention that this Act does not contain any provision for framing of Rules also other than section 29 of the Act. The Governments? power to issue any Rules or circulars is also therefore questioned. Learned counsel submits that judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AP Aboobaker Musaliar v. District Registrar (G), Kozhikode and others, (2004) 11 SCC 247 case is a judgment in its own facts and it does not consider the provisions of Act 35 of 2021.

9. Primarily, he draws the attention of this Court to various definitions in the Act. He thereafter argues and relies upon Chapter-II of the Act and sections 3 to 9 of the Act. He points out that under section 3 of the Act, seven or more persons can form into a society. Under section 4 of the Act, he submits that the Registrar can entertain an application for registration of the society by receiving a me