Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25348
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
WILLINGDON ENCLAVE OWNERS ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) – Respondent
WP(C)/11596/2020
SMT.K.LATHA, SMT.M.UMA DEVI, SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.G.P., SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
Administrative authorities must provide a fair hearing before making decisions that impact the rights of parties involved.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Writ Petition - Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act - Section 22 - The court directed the first respondent to provide a hearing to the petitioner regarding the legality of the amendment and left open issues of jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief against an order by the first respondent denying the legality of an amendment to the association's bye-laws, contending the order was issued without a hearing and questioned the respondent's jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the first respondent to hear the grievances of the petitioner after an opportunity for both parties to present their cases, while leaving jurisdictional questions unaddressed for the moment.
Issues: Whether the first respondent had jurisdiction to consider objections to amendments in association bye-laws and whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for a fair hearing and the importance of jurisdiction in administrative matters regarding society regulations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed with directions for a hearing on the grievances raised by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P-7 order and quash the same.
(ii) issue a writ of Mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to consider any objection with respect to the legality or illegality of the resolution if any, adopted by the petitioner society, which is submitted under Section 22 of the Act;
And (iii)Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems, fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner is an Apartment Owners Association registered under Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act , 1965. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P1 bye-law all the present owners of the apartments are the members of the association and members are entitled to vote in the meeting of the association either personally or through duly nominated proxies. According to the petitioner, non- resident owners give proxies to one or two persons to participate in a meeting on their behalf and they constitute more than the members who are physically present in the meeting. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that a proposal was submitted by a few members in accordance with the provisions of the bye-law to amend the bye-law limiting the number of the proxies, who can represent a person in a particular meeting. It is the specific case of the petitioner that joint executive committee, which considered the proposal unanimously decided to place the proposal in the Extraordinary General Meeting vide Ext.P3. It is also stated in the writ petition that Extraordinary General Meeting of the General Association was held on 13.02.2020 and the meeting passed the proposed amendment with majority of votes vide Ext.P5 minutes of the meeting. Later, the petitioner association produced the amendment before the 1st respondent under Section 22 of the , 1965. Ext.P7 is a letter sent by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent. That letter was issued based on a complaint from the 2nd respondent and others. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for
2nd respondent.
4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition and the also submitted that Ext.P7 proceedings is issued by the 1st respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The counsel also raised the question of jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to pass such an order. The Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P7 is a letter issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent. The Government Pleader also submitted that the amended bye-law is not produced by the petitioner. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner cannot challenge the same before this Court by filing writ petition. The counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that they are not aggrieved by Ext.P7 and therefore, this Court may not interfere.
5. After hearing both sides, according to me this writ petition can be disposed with a direction to the 1st respondent to hear the grievance of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to the 2nd respondent. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. The grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition can be heard by the 1st respondent. The question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner to issue Ext.P7 proceedings is also left open. The petitioner is free to agitate the same before the 1st respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed with following directions:
(a) The petitioner will submit a representation narrating their grievance to the 1st respondent within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment.
(b) Once such a representation is received, the 1st respondent will c
