JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The present petition assails order dated 1st November, 2018,1 passed by the Registrar of Societies2 relating to the amendments made to the Memorandum of Association3 of the Petitioner No. 2, Jawaharlal Nehru National Youth Centre,4 – a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 5

2. A brief background leading to the filing of the present petition is as

1 “the impugned order”

2 “the Registrar”

3 “MoA”

4 “JNNYC”

5 “the Act”/ “the Societies Registration Act”

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12450/2023 Page 1 of 10 follows:

2.1. JNNYC was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 17th January, 1968. The Petitioner contends that in 2009, certain amendments were unlawfully made to the MoA of JNNYC by Ms. Indira Mayaram (now deceased), who held the position of General Secretary and Vice President of the society at the time. It is alleged that these amendments were implemented without adhering to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 12 of the Act, particularly the failure to seek prior approval from the Department of Land and Development, Ministry of Urban Affairs, which was a prerequisite for making any amendments to the MoA. In this regard, Mr. Purushottam Goyel, the founder signatory of JNNYC, filed a complaint dated 28th July, 2014 to the Registrar of Societies, highlighting the illegal amendments carried out in the MoA. The Registrar, through order dated 15th February, 2016, observed the amendments to the MoA are violative of Section 12 of the Act and hence, declared the same to be void ab initio and non est. This ruling by the Registrar set in motion a series of legal disputes, culminating in the filing of the present petition before this Court.

2.2. The afore-noted order was challenged by late Ms. Indira Mayaram before this Court in W.P.(C) 7821/2016 which was finally adjudicated through order dated 6th February, 2018 to the following effect:

“1. There are three petitioners in the captioned petition. Petitioner No. 1 is the society, whereas petitioner No. 2 and 3 are two individuals. Petitioner No. 2 claims to be the General Secretary of Petitioner No. 1 Society, while petitioner No. 3 claims to be the Vice President of Petitioner No. 1 Society. The petitioners together have assailed the order dated

15.2.2016, passed by the first respondent i.e., Registrar of Societies.

2. By virtue of the impugned order dated 15.2.2016, the first respondent i.e., Registrar of Societies had declared that the amendments Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12450/2023 Page 2 of 10 made in the memorandum of association of petitioner no. 1 society which were approved and certified on 30.9.2009 were void ab initio and non-est. The petitioners being aggrieved have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition. In the writ petition the petitioners have inter alia articulated that since no show cause notice was issued, the impugned order deserved to be set aside.

2.1 It was in this context that notice was issued to the respondents which included the first respondent. The first respondent on return of notice has filed a counter affidavit in the matter. Along with the counter affidavit annexure A-1 has been appended which is a show cause notice dated 15.9.2016. The show cause notice adverts to the fact that vide a impugned order dated 15.2.2016 the first respondent (i.e., Registrar of Societies) had rejected/ struck down the amendments made by the society in 2009 and declared the same to be void and/ or non-est.

2.2 The show cause notice also adverts to the proceedings of this Court dated 5.9.2016, wherein, the petitioners stand that no show cause notice had been issued before passing the impugned order was recorded.

3. Accordingly, it appears that the show cause notice dated 15.9.2016 has been issued. The first respondent (i.e., Registrar of Societies) via this show cause notice has also asked for certain information which is adverted to a