Back
2011 Supreme(Cal) 1295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
Pallibasi Brinda Guru Prosad Chowdhury Lane
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
W.P. No. 15673 (W) of 2011
Decided On: September 19, 2011
Mr. Buddhadev Ghosal and Mr. Malay K. Singh, advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anami Sikdar, advocate, for the State.
Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay and Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh, advocates, for the third and fourth respondents.
The Registrar has no power to issue an order directing a society to change its name or to prosecute the officers in default for non-compliance with such an order.
Headnote:
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 11, 19, 22, 23, 32 - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, filed a petition seeking to quash the subsequent registration of another society under a similar name. The Registrar, upon receiving a complaint from the petitioner, issued an order directing the respondent society to change its name. The petitioner alleged that the Registrar failed to take any further steps for prosecution despite the respondent society's non-compliance with the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Registrar had no power to issue an order directing the respondent society to change its name. Only the State Government had the authority to issue such an order under Section 11 of the Act. The court further held that the Registrar had no power to prosecute the officers in default for non-compliance with the order, as Section 32 of the Act required the State Government's sanction for any prosecution under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Registrar had the power to issue an order directing the respondent society to change its name. 2. Whether the Registrar had the power to prosecute the officers in default for non-compliance with the order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 11 of the Act empowers only the State Government to direct a change of name. 2. Section 22 of the Act only empowers the Registrar to call for information and explanation, but does not empower the Registrar to take any action on the basis of the information or explanation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Registrar's order dated June 20, 2011 was invalid and that nothing prevented the petitioner from lodging a complaint with the State Government under Section 11.
The Court: - The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated September 13, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief:
“a) A Rule in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents 1 to 4 their servants, agents, subordinates and each one of them for quashing the subsequent registration of society Guru Prasad Chowdhury Lane Palli Bassi Brindo of 52, Guru Prasad Chowdhury Lane, Kolkata 700 006 as referred to in annexure “P”-5 above bearing Registration No.S/1L/ 77480 of 2010-11 dated 28th January, 2011;”
2. Mr Ghosal appearing for the petitioner has submitted as follows. The petitioner was registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961 on December 17, 2009 under the name using which it has filed this petition. Having learnt that certain people including the private respondents wrongfully got their society registered under a similar name on January 28, 2011, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Registrar.
3. Considering the complaint, the Registrar issued an order dated June 20, 2011.
4. Relevant parts of the order of the Registrar dated June 20, 2011 are quoted below:
“This is to inform you that the name of your society which was registered on 28/01/2011 bearing Registration No.S/1L/77480 is similar to the name of a society registered earlier under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. Hence, the name of your society is required to be changed under section 10 of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961.
You are therefore requested to take necessary action to change the name of your society within 30 days from issue of this letter.”
5. Now this petition has been brought alleging that though the third respondent and his society have failed and neglected to comply with the order of the Registrar dated June 20, 2011, the Registrar has not taken any step to prosecute the officers in default in terms of the provisions of s.22(3) and s.32.
11. According to Mr Ghosal, the Registrar issuing the order dated June 20, 2011 was under a statutory obligation to seek the State Government’s sanction to prosecute the officers in default and to institute prosecution on the basis of sanction, if granted.
12. Mr Sikdar appearing for the State has submitted that in view of the provisions of ss.3, 11 and 22, on the basis of the opinion formed by the Registrar that the third respondent and his society must change the name of the society in question, it is permissible for the State Government to consider the question of sanction for prosecution. He has said that the owner of the premises used for setting up of the society in question has already lodged a complaint with the police that the persons getting registration of the society produced fabricated documents and indulged in act of forgery.
13. Mr Bandyopadhyay appearing for the third and fourth respondents has questioned the maintainability of the petition filed in the name of the society. He has relied on s.19. His further submission is that in view of the provisions of s.11 the order of the Registrar dated June 20, 2011 is a nullity.
14. Section 11 of the Act provides as follows:
“11. State Government may direct change of name.—(1) If a society is registered under a name or alters its name to another name which, in the opinion of the State Government, is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name of any other society or body corporate which having been previously registered or incorporated under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, or being deemed to have been registered under this Act, continues to exist, the State Government may by order made in this behalf direct such society to change its name and alter its memorandum within three months from the date of the order or such longer period as the State Government may think fit to allow.
(2) No change of name shall affect the rights and liabilities of a society or any legal proceedings by or against the society.
(3) In case of non-compliance with an order und
