The Registrar of Societies must accept lists of governing body members but cannot resolve disputes regarding their validity, which should be addressed through arbitration or court adjudication.

The Court made the following common Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Raghunandan Rao)

As all these cases arise out of the functioning of the executive committee of Convention of Baptist Churches of Northern Circars, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. In all these cases, the issue that has been raised is the role of function of the Registrar of Societies, under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act 2001.

2. The convention of Baptist Churches of Nothern Circars was earlier registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act 1860 (herein after referred to ‘the Act’). This Act now stands superseded by the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, insofar as the society is concerned.

Section 9 of the A.P.Societies Registration Act 2001 reads as follows:

9. Filling of annual list – Every year the society shall within fifteen days from the date on which the General Body Meeting was held furnish a list to the Registrar of Societies which shall contain the names and addresses of the members of the Managing Committee and Officers entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Society.

3. Every Executive Committee or office bearers of a society, registered under this Act, are required under Section 9 of the Act, to file a list of the members of the Managing Committee and Officers entrusted with the management of the Society. It appears that such a list was filed in the year 1990, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Thereafter, no list has been filed. The petitioners in W.P.No.8254 of 2021 contend that they had filed such list for each of the five year periods commencing from 1990-1995. We do not propose to go into this issue.

4. It appears that various persons, claiming to have been elected to the Governing Body and to the offices of management of the Society had been filing lists, as required under Section 9 of the Act. However, the Registrar has not been taking these lists on record. Aggrieved by the action of the Registrar, the persons enumerated under such lists have approached this Court by way of writ petitions. Some of these writ petitions are now before us. It also appears that one set of persons had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.15028 of 2020 which came to be allowed, by an order dated 19.01.2021, directing the Registrar to receive the list and process the same. A third party to the writ petition, filed the W.A.No.631 of 2021, contending that no direction can be issued to the registrar to record the names despite the pendency of disputes.

5. There is no representation for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4080 of 2016 and 10522 of 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21005 of 2020 sought time. We have rejected the said request as the cases were posted for dismissal.

6. In the absence of these learned counsels, the matters have been disposed of on the merits of the cases.

7. At the cost of repetition, the principal issue before this Court is whether the Registrar of Public Societies, can receive lists even when disputes between the members of the Society, as to the identity of the elected Governing Body are pending. Though, no specific disputes are placed before us, it is clear that there are disputes inasmuch as different sets of people are claiming to be elected members for different periods of time. For example, the petitioners in W.P.No.8254 of 2021 claim that they are the elected members of the governing body for the periods 1990-1995, 1995-2000, 2000-2005, 2005- 2010, 2010-2015, 2015-2020 and 2020-2025. The petitioners in W.P.No.15028 of 2020 claim that they are the elected members of the governing body for the period from 2018 to 2023. The term of the Governing Body of the Society, is admitted on all sides to be 5 years. In such circumstances, an overlap of 3 years between the two elected bodies clearly shows that there is a dispute.

8. On the question of how the Registrar is to consider such applications, a Division Bench of erstwhile High