The offices of President and Secretary of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, are not public offices for the purpose of issuance of a writ of quo-warranto.

Headnote:
WRIT OF QUO-WARRANTO - PUBLIC OFFICE - PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF SOCIETY - BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1950 - BYE-LAWS - STATUTORY FORCE - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, claiming to be members of the Managing Committee of Shree Shivaji Education Society, Amravati, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of quo-warranto or any other appropriate writ, order, and/or direction in the nature of quo-warranto to remove the respondents 2 and 3 from the offices held by them in the Society. The Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioners alleged that the respondent No. 2 was elected as the President of the Society on 31-5-1992, and the petitioners 1, 2, and 3 were elected as Vice-Presidents. The petitioner No. 4 was elected as Treasurer, and the petitioners 5 to 9 as Members of the Executive Council. The petitioners 10 to 12 were co-opted as members of the Executive Council in its meeting held on 5-8-1992. The petitioner No. 13 was co-opted as the Secretary of the Society and was presently working in the same capacity. The petitioners alleged that the respondent No. 2 remained absent in the meetings of the Executive Council held on 2-9-1992, 13-9-1992, 28-9-1992, and 16-10-1992, despite receiving due intimation about the said meetings. Therefore, as provided in the bye-law No. 10(b) of the Society, since the respondent No. 2 was absent for three consecutive meetings of the Executive Council, his explanation was directed to be called by 2-11-1992. The respondent No. 2 did not offer any explanation by 2-11-1992, and by resolution No. 2 passed by the Executive Council in the meeting held on 22-11-1992, it was held that the respondent No. 2 had ceased to be a member of the Executive Council and as the President of the Society also. The petitioners claimed that the respondent No. 2 was still continuing and asserting himself as the President of the Society and thus interfered in all the matters pertaining to the society and the educational institutions run by it. The petitioners also claimed similar relief against the respondent No. 3, who was not appointed as Secretary of the Society by the Executive Council but claimed to have been appointed as Secretary by the President by his order dated 23-10-1992.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the offices held by the respondents 2 and 3 were not public offices for the purpose of issuance of a writ of quo-warranto. The Court observed that the Society was not a statutory body merely because it was required to be registered under section 18 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Court further observed that the educational purpose was a charitable purpose, and since it had to do something with the public or section of people, i.e., the students, the guardians, and the teachers, it would not mean that the body which carries on such purpose is a "public body" or "public authority" in the sense that a writ of quo warranto can lie to it. The Court also held that the bye-laws framed by the Society in pursuance of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, cannot be held to be a law or to have the force of law. Therefore, even assuming that the offices held by the respondents 2 and 3 are public offices, since the bye-laws of the Society cannot be said to be a law or to have the force of law, a writ of quo-warranto cannot be issued, since the said offices cannot be said to be held by the respondents 2 and 3 without legal authority or contrary to the provisions of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the offices held by the respondents 2 and 3 are public offices for the purpose of issuance of a writ of quo-warranto? 2. Whether the bye-laws framed by the Society in pursuance of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, have the force of law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ of quo-warranto can only be issued against the usurpation of a public office. 2. The offices held by the respondents 2 and 3 are not public offices since the Society is not a statutory body and the educational purpose is a charitable purpose. 3. The bye-laws framed by the Society in pursuance of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, do not have the force of law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT- H.W. DHABE, J. :--Parties by Counsel, Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. The instant writ petition can be disposed of on the basis of the preliminary objection regarding its maintainability raised on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. Principally the preliminary objection is that none of the respondents 2 and 3 is holding a "Public Office" and therefore, a writ of quo-warranto or any other appropriate writ, order, and/or direction in the nature of quo-warranto should be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to remove them from the offices held by them in Shree Shivaji Education Society, Amravati.

3. The basic facts relevant to the consideration of the above preliminary objection are that Shree Shivaji Education Society, Amravati is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said Society was established long back on 2nd December 1932 by Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh for making the educational facilities available to the people in the Vidarbha region. With this object, the said Society has established several educational Institutions in the Vidarbha Region including schools and colleges. The colleges are in the various faculties such as Arts, Commerce, Science, Law, Engineering, Medicine and Agriculture. The said Society is also registered as a Public Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, which is the requirement for getting recognition for secondary schools as well as the colleges run by it under the appropriate provisions of rules made by the State Government in this regard. According to the petitioners, who claim to be the members of the Managing Committee of the said Society, about 93,553 students are taking education in various educational institutions of this Society and about 4330 employees are employed by it. The annual budget of the Society according to them runs into crores of rupees which consists of the grant-in-aid received by its schools and colleges from the State Government, apart from the gifts and donations.

4. The respondent No. 2 was elected as the President of the Society on 31-5-1992. The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 were elected as Vice-Presidents. The petitioner No. 4 was elected as Treasurer and the petitioners 5 to 9 as Members of the Executive Council. According to the petitioners, the petitioners 10 to 12 were according to the constitution of the society co-opted as members of the Executive Council in its meeting held on 5-8-1992. Further, the petitioner No. 13 has been co-opted as the Secretary of the Society and according to them he is presently working in the same capacity in the said society.

5. It is then alleged in the petition that the first meeting of the Society was held on 5-8-1992 and the Second Meeting on 8-8-1992 both of which were presided over by the respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that in the last Executive Council Meeting, one Shri Salve was co-opted as paid Secretary of the Society. However, in April, 1991 he submitted his resignation and therefore, one of the employees of the Society by name Shri Kalbande was asked by the Executive Council to officiate as Secretary till a new Secretary was co-opted on regular basis. It is further alleged that the Notice of the meetings of the Executive Council dated 5-8-1992 and 8-8-1992 was issued by Shri Kalbande officiating as Secretary. On 18-8-1992, he issued a Notice convening the meeting of the Executive Council at the Dhanwate National College, Nagpur which is an Institution run by the Society. The said meeting was to take place on 2-9-1992. According to the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, the only Agenda for the said meeting was consideration of applications for admissions to Medical Colleges of the Society.

6. It is, however, the case of the petitioner that at the said meeting held on 2-9-1992 neither Shri Kalbande, officiating Secretary, who issued the notice of the meeting, nor the respondent No. 2, who was the President of the Society, were pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1993 Supreme(Bom) 113

The offices of President and Secretary of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, are not public offices for the purpose of issuance of a writ of quo-warranto.

Cases Referred (3)