A statutory authority is duty-bound to process an application for renewal of registration and cannot indefinitely withhold such action merely due to the pendency of complaints, provided it adheres to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

Dated this the 15th day of June, 2026

JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The said society claims to be administering a Temple by name ‘Yakshi Amma Althara’, situated in Thiruvananthapuram. The affairs of the said Temple are claimed to be administered by the Society. The present Committee of the Society took charge in the year 2023 and its period is expiring this year, i.e., 2026. According to the petitioner, due to Covid-19 pandemic and for other reasons, the earlier Committee could not submit their audited accounts for the period from 2019-2023. However, after the present Committee took charge, they submitted the audited accounts of the previous years, complying with all the legal requirements, including submitting the list of managing committee members, minute books, account books, membership register, etc. It is alleged that, the second respondent has declined to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner and has not renewed the registration due to the alleged reason of existence of complaints filed by the third respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as is evident from Exhibit-P21, the second respondent has refused to accept the returns submitted by the petitioner and to renew the registration of the Society on account of the pendency of several complaints preferred by the third respondent. It was further submitted that, despite issuing notices, the third respondent has not appeared before the second respondent. According to the learned counsel, the continued inaction on the part of the second respondent is adversely affecting the functioning of the Society, notwithstanding the fact that the complainant refused to even turn up.

3. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the second respondent has not accepted the returns or renewed the registration of the petitioner because of the various complaints filed by the third respondent, including allegations of corruption against the earlier Committee.

4. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the returns filed by the petitioner can be considered only after hearing the third respondent also.

5. Merely because certain complaints have been filed, the authority who is bound to consider the details and pass orders regarding renewal of registration cannot delay considering it. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that a direction can be issued to the second respondent to consider the returns and details submitted by the petitioner as well as the request for renewal of registration, without undue delay.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the audited accounts and other records submitted by the petitioner along with the covering letter dated 26.10.2023 regarding renewal of registration of the petitioner’s Society as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the third respondent.