Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Gokhale H.R. , J.
Appellants: Servants of India Society
Vs.
Respondent: Charity Commissioner of Bombay
A.F.O.D. No. 815 of 1955 Decided On: 08.11.1960
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.P. Amin and K.J. Abhyankhar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Govt. Pleader
BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT - Applicability to Society Registered under Societies Registration Act - Objects not confined to one State - Whether State Legislature competent to pass legislation - Held, yes.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Servants of India Society, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and has objects not confined to the State of Maharashtra. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, defines 'public trust' as including a society formed for a religious or charitable purpose or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act. The appellant challenged the validity of the Act on the ground that it was a corporation or quasi-corporation with objects not confined to one State and, therefore, only Parliament could pass legislation about it by virtue of entry 44 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellant-Society was neither a corporation nor a quasi-corporation but an unincorporated society contemplated under the second part of entry 32 of the State List. The Court further held that the impugned Act was intended to regulate the administration of public religious and charitable trusts and this subject would fall within the ambit of entries 10 and 28 of the Concurrent List. Therefore, even assuming that societies registered under the Societies Registration Act are not unincorporated societies but fall within the scope of entry 44, the validity of the Act could not be challenged on the ground that incidentally it entrenches on the field contemplated by entry 44.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant-Society is a corporation or quasi-corporation? 2. Whether the State Legislature is competent to pass legislation regulating a society of this type, objects of which are not confined to one state?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act are neither corporations nor quasi-corporations but are unincorporated societies contemplated under the second part entry 32 of the State List. 2. The impugned Act is intended to regulate the administration of public religious and charitable trusts and this subject would fall within the ambit of entries 10 and 28 of the Concurrent List. Therefore, even assuming that societies registered under the Societies Registration Act are not unincorporated societies but fall within the scope of entry 44, the validity of the Act cannot be challenged on the ground that incidentally it entrenches on the field contemplated by entry 44.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, applies to societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, even if their objects are not confined to a single state. The Act is intended to regulate the administration of public religious and charitable trusts and societies formed for religious or charitable purposes (!) (!) .
Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act are considered unincorporated societies, not corporations or quasi-corporations. They have a legal personality separate from their members, with perpetual succession and capacity to sue and be sued in their own name, but they do not possess the attributes of a corporation created by statute (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The definition of 'public trust' in the Act explicitly includes societies formed for religious or charitable purposes and registered under the Societies Registration Act, reinforcing the applicability of the Act to such societies (!) .
The legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, is affirmed. The Act falls within the scope of entries related to trusts and charities in the Concurrent List, and it does not infringe upon the Union List entry concerning corporations with objects not confined to one state, as the societies are unincorporated and fall under the State List (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The argument that societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, being quasi-corporations or corporations, are exclusively within the domain of Parliament under the Union List is not supported, as the societies are unincorporated entities and the Act’s provisions are within the powers of the State Legislature (!) (!) .
The interpretation of legislative entries should be broad and liberal, allowing for a harmonious understanding of the powers conferred on both the Union and State Legislatures, avoiding conflict and ensuring effective regulation of societies and trusts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The legislation's validity is not challenged on the basis of its extraterritorial effects or its impact on properties outside the state, and such questions are outside the scope of this case (!) .
The society in question has applied for exemption from the provisions of the Act, but this application is pending and will be considered separately; the current judgment does not prejudge that process (!) .
Ultimately, the court held that the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, is applicable to the society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, even if its objects extend beyond a single state, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly (!) .
(1) This appeal raises the question whether the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, applies to a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and having its objects not confined to the State of Bombay, now, so far as this case is concerned, the State of Maharashtra. The appeal has been referred to me as there has been a difference of opinion between Mr. Justice Mudholkar, as he then was, and Mr. Justice Patel.
(2) The appellant is the Servants of India Society founded by the late Mr. G. K. Gokhale on 12th June 1905. It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (XXI of 1860), and shall hereafter be referred to as the Society. When the Bombay Public Trusts Act (XXIX of 1950), which shall hereafter be referred to as the Act, came into force, the society applied under section 18 (1) of that Act registration and, in an enquiry in connection with that application held by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under section 19, contended that the provisions of the Act could not apply to the Society on the ground that it was registered under the Societies Registration Act and was a Corporation and the State Legislature had no power to pass legislation purporting to govern such a society, though it was not disputed that the objects of the Society were charitable. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to go into the other contentions raised on behalf of the Society in the enquiry. The aforesaid contention of the Society was, however, negatived by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, who ordered the certificate of registration to issue under the Act on 8th December 1953. This decision was upheld in appeal by the Charity Commissioner on 21st May 1954. The Society, therefore, filed an application under section 72 of the Act challenging the decision of the authorities under the Act on the ground that the society being registered under the Societies Registration Act, was a Corporation and the Sate Legislature would have not power to legislate about it by reason of entry 44, Seventh Schedule, List I Union List, of the Constitution. That application being Miscellaneous Application No. 204 of 1954 was heard by the learned District Judge of Poona, who negatived the contention of the Society that it was a corporation and held that it was an unincorporated body and the State Legislature was competent to pass the Act under entry 32 of List II - State List of the Constitution. He also held that the Society was a public trust within the definition of section 2 (13) of the Act and, therefore, liable to be registered under the provision of the Act. Consequently the application of the Society came to be dismissed by him. It is against this dismissal that the present appeal had been filed; and in this appeal, when it was heard by Mudholkar and Patel JJ., the same two contentions were raised, viz., whether the Society is a public charitable trust and whether the State Legislature was competent to make a law regulating a society of this type, objects of which were not confined to one state. On the first question, both the learned Judges held that the Society was a public charitable trust, but they differed, as already stated, on the other point and that consequently is the only point which I am required to consider in this appeal.
(3) Mr. Amin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Society, contends that all Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act would be corporations or, at any rate, quasi-corporations; and since the Societys objects are not confined to this State, only Parliament can pass legislation about it by virtue of entry 44, List I -Union List, of the Seventh Schedule, of the Constitution. It, therefore, becomes necessary to refer to some of the entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, to which reference has been made in the course of arguments before me by Mr. Amin as well as the learned Government Pleader, who appeared on behalf of the Char
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
