SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 1138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Satya Krupa Educational Society and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9390 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Bandi Srihari

Registration of societies with identical names is prohibited under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, requiring registrars to ensure compliance prior to approving new registrations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 - Sections 3 and 6(2)(a) - Writ Petition seeking to declare the registration of a second society with the same name as illegal for violating provisions of the Act - The petitioner registered under Society Registration No. 18 of 2017 raised objections regarding the illegal registration of Society Registration No. 34 of 2022 by the 3rd respondent - The Act prohibits registration of identical society names within the same jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 8)

(B) Society Registration - The Registrar's duty to verify existing society names before approving new registrations. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims illegal action by the respondents in registering a society with an identical name and style to their own. The 3rd respondent has failed to act upon objections raised by the petitioner against this duplication.

Findings of Court:
The court directs the 3rd respondent to act in accordance with the law regarding the duplicate registration issue, mandating action within two months.

Issues: Whether the registration of a second society with an identical name violates the provisions of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes that registration of societies with identical names is not permitted under the Act, instructing the Registrar to verify existing societies before approving new registrations.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions to respondents.

Table of Content
1. writ petition for mandamus against wrongful registration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner argues violation of registration laws. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's analysis on registration regulations. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. directive to registrar on compliance with laws. (Para 9)
5. writ petition disposed without costs. (Para 10)

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in registering the society under Reg. No. 34 of 2022 in the district as identical to the petitioner’s society and their failure to take action on the petitioner’s representation dated 25.11.2024 regarding the illegal registration of a second society under the petitioner’s society’s name, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14,19 (1) (g), 21 and 300A of the constitution of India and violation o section-3 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies registration act, 2001 and consequently direct the respondents to take action on the petitioners representation dated 25.11.2024 and pass such other order or orders...”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner society was registered under the name and style of Sri Sathya Krupa Educational Society (REGD) vide Society Registration No. 18 of 2017, dated 12.01.2017. Since then, the petitioner society has been carrying out its activities in accordance with the bylaws of the society. While so, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued another registration certificate within the same jurisdiction under the same name and style, vide Society Registration No. 34 of 2022, dated 07.02.2022.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, stipulates that the Registrar of Societies shall not register two societies with the same name and style within the same jurisdiction. In accordance with this provision, the petitioner submitted objections to the 3rd respondent. Considering the same, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 25.01.2025. However, till date, the 3rd respondent has not passed any order or finalized the proceedings in compliance with Section 6 (2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, submits that pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 25.11.2024, the 3rd respondent also issued a notice, and the subject matter is under active consideration and enquiry. Upon completion of the enquiry, the 3rd respondent will pass an order in accordance with law.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the petitioner society was registered with the District Registrar, Hindupuram, at Puttaparthi. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent entertained another registration under a similar name and style, vide Society Registration No. 34 of 2022 dated 07.02.2022, within the same jurisdiction, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 6 (2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. In this regard, on perusal of Section 6 (2)(a) of the said Act, the relevant provision is extracted below:

“No society shall be registered in a district by a name which is identical with that of another registered society in existence in the same district or so nearly resembling it so as to mislead, except where the registered society in existence is in the course of being dissolved and signifies in writing it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top