The registration of a society with an identical name is impermissible under Section 7 of the Societies Registration Act, necessitating the Registrar's verification of name similarity.

ORAL ORDER

Ms.Medini Rao., counsel for the petitioner, AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.Tejesh K.Reddy., counsel on behalf of Sri.Shanmukappa., for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

2. The short facts are these:

It is stated that the Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce - petitioner was registered with the first respondent in the name Karnataka Dubbing Film Chamber of Commerce in the year 2015. The first respondent accepted the amendment of the bye-law of the petitioner in regard to the name and it was registered in the new name as Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce.

As the matter stood thus, the second respondent Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce submitted an application before the first respondent to cancel the order dated 06.01.2017 i.e., the amendment pursuant to which the petitioner was registered in the new name 'Kannada Film Chamber of Commerce' on the ground that it is identical to its name and created confusion in the mind of general public in particular film industry acting under Section 7 of the Act.

The first respondent initiated proceedings on the aforesaid application and issued notice to the petitioner Society to appear on 10.02.2017. It is contended that the said notice was not served on the petitioner, but the office bearer of the petitioner visited the office of the first respondent and accepted the notice by hand after the hearing date on 10.02.2017. The second respondent filed statement before the first respondent. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent through its advocate and filed statement of objection against the application as well as statement filed by the second respondent.

It is contended that on account of lawyer's strike, the petitioner did not appear and Joint Secretary appeared in person and submitted a memo along with photocopy of the reported judgment in ILR 2003 (3) KAR 2906 and requested for time, but the same was refused and the matter was posted for orders on 07.04.2017. The petitioner filed the written argument and the same was accepted by the first respondent. The first respondent vide order dated 07.04.2017 passed an order canceling/ withdrawing the amendment of bye-law with regard to name. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel Ms.Medini Rao., in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the first respondent has failed to appreciate that Section 7 of the Act does not confer a power on the District Registrar to review the order. She argued by saying that Section 7 of the Act provides that the Society is not to be registered with undesirable names. She vehemently contends that at the time of registration of society, if the Registrar is of the opinion that the name of the Society is undesirable as it resembles or identical with the name of the society which is in existence and has been previously registered, can refuse the registration of the society. Counsel placed reliance on the decision inSHIMOGA ZILLA MADIVALA SANGHA AND ANOTHER VS. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, FOR SOCIETIES & ASSOCIATIONS, SHIMOGA DISTRICT AND ANOTHER - ILR 2003 KAR 2906 AGA for respondent No.1 and counsel for respondent No.2 justified the action of the first respondent in canceling/ withdrawing the amendment of bye-law with regard to the name of the petitioner. They argued by saying that Section 7 bars registration of another society with an identical name. They placed reliance on the decision inBENGALURU URBAN ZILLA AMATEUR KABBADI ASSOCIATION (R) AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - WP NO.17533/2021 C/W. 22023/2021 disposed of on 17.10.2022. They submit that an appropriate order may be passed.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

5. The issue revolves around a narrow compass and relates to the registration of the Society with an identical name. Suffice it to note that the second respondent was registered as Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce. Earlier the petitioner was registe