ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
Tetali Narayana Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13811 of 2022
Decided On : 19-05-2022
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 7 - POWER OF REGISTRAR - ELECTION OF GOVERNING BODY - JURISDICTION OF REGISTRAR - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY: The Registrar of Societies Registration does not have the power to extend the term of an existing committee. A writ petition seeking a direction to the Registrar to continue the existing committee until the establishment of new offices and framing of new bye-laws in all the 26 Districts is not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the Vice-President of the Andhra Pradesh Bar Association (APBA), filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Registrar of Societies Registration to continue the existing Executive Committee members until the establishment of new offices and framing of new bye-laws in the 26 Districts. The petitioner's term was set to expire on 13.05.2022. The petitioner alleged that the unofficial 4th respondent had misappropriated the funds of the APBA and that a criminal case was pending against him. The petitioner also claimed that the State of Andhra Pradesh was converted into 26 Districts and that unless the Executive Body for the 26 Districts was elected, the unofficial 4th respondent could not conduct elections to elect the governing body.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registrar of Societies Registration does not have the power to extend the term of an existing committee. The court also found that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that the proceedings in a related case had been stayed by the court. The court further found that the petitioner had not made the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (SaaP), the competent authority in relation to the management of the APBA, a party to the writ petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the Registrar of Societies Registration has the power to extend the term of an existing committee? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Registrar of Societies Registration does not have the power to extend the term of an existing committee. The court relied on Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which states that the duty of the Registrar is only to register the Society and that he is not vested with the power to give directions. 2. The court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The court relied on Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which states that a writ petition is not maintainable in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
JUDGMENT
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:
'.. to issue an order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of direct the 2nd respondent to continue the present Executive Committee members until the establishment of new offices and framing new-bye laws in the 26 district and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case'.
2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to continue the present Executive Committee members until the establishment of new offices and framing new-bye laws in the 26 Districts.
3. Heard.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that the General Body meeting was conducted on 14.05.2018 and the petitioner herein along with other executive body members were elected for 4 years term for the year i.e., 2018-2022 on 14.05.2018 and the term expires on 13.05.2022. The unofficial 4th respondent by using his position, power and influence has misappropriated the funds of the a.P.B.a. association for which he lodged a complaint. The police registered the Crime and filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections.406, 420, 477(a), 120-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and the same is pending on the file of the Court of the I additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada vide C.C.No.2825 of 2020.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the State of andhra Pradesh was converted into 26 Districts. Unless the Executive Body for the 26 Districts is elected, the unofficial 4th respondent cannot conduct elections to elect the governing body. He also further asserted in the Writ affidavit that O.S.No.75 of 2022 was filed on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and the Court below was pleased to grant ad-interim Injunction Order dated 13.04.2022 restraining the 2nd respondent, his men, agents and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Office and adjourned the matter to 25.04.2022.
6. It is further submitted that I.a.No.149 of 2022 was also filed and the Court below was pleased to grant Status Quo Order dated 13.04.2022 directing both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent not to conduct the said annual General Body meeting.
7. as per the prayer of the Writ affidavit, the Writ Petitioner sought the relief to direct the 2nd respondent-The Registrar of Societies Registration, District Registrar Office to continue the petitioner and the Executive Committee members until the establishment of new office and till framing of new bye-laws in all the 26 Districts.
8. Under Section 7 of the andhra Pradesh Societies Registration act, 2001 (for short, 'the act') the duty of the Registrar is only to register the Society and he is not vested with the power to give directions. When the 2nd respondent is not vested with the power to extend the existing Committee, this Court cannot direct the 2nd respondent to exercise such power which is not vested with the 2nd respondent.
9. On 12.05.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner moved a Lunch Motion before this Court. This Court while permitting Lunch Motion, granted an interim order dated 12.05.2022 directing the respondents not to finalize the elections, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and further directed the learned counsel for the petitioner herein to take notices on the 3rd respondent and the unofficial 4th respondent.
10. On receiving the notices, the unofficial 4th respondent has filed vacate stay petition and moved a House Motion before Hon'ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao on 16.05.2022 and the Writ Petition was allotted to me. This Court after hearing the matter for some time, adjourned the matter to 17.05.2022 as there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. On a perusal of the material record and the affidavit filed in support o
The Registrar of Societies Registration does not have the power to extend the term of an existing committee.
Writ petitions challenging internal election disputes in associations are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The judgment establishes that a dispute relating to the election of a society, even if it performs public functions, may not be maintainable in a writ court if the society is not a 'State' or an 'oth....
The court clarified that the Bye-Laws of the Society are not statutory in nature and the dispute with respect to the election of a society per se is not directly decided by the High Court under Artic....
In cooperative society elections, zones formed by membership serial numbers when contiguity undiscernible; Article 226 permits directing membership verification for fair polls despite delays and reme....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.