The court advised that disputes regarding bylaw amendments should be addressed primarily in Civil Court, emphasizing the necessity of proper procedure in such associations.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for an issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent not to accept the new amendment which is proposed by the first respondent proposal dated 18.12.2021, in pursuant to the notice dated 17.01.2022 of the first respondent against the petitioners and also not to take any further action based on the notice.

For Petitioner : Dr.G.Babu For Respondent-1 : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondent-2 : Mr.P.Harish Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking for an issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus to the second respondent not to accept the new amendment proposed by the first respondent vide proposal dated 18.12.2021 and also not to take any further action against the petitioners in pursuant to the notice dated 17.01.2022 issued by the first respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are the members of the respondent-Association, named as ‘Hosur Small and Tiny Industries Association’; that without issuing any prior intimation regarding the conduct of Annual General Body Meeting (AGM), the AGM was conducted on 26.09.2019 and further, without giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioners go-through the proposed amendment of the bylaws made by few members, certain bylaws were amended and a resolution was passed on the said date; that as per the proposed amendment, if any member has gone for Court against the Association/Office Bearers, they would be suspended from their membership by the Board of Executive till further course of action to be taken at the Annual General Body Meeting; that since the proposed amendment to the bylaws are against the interest of the petitioners, the petitioners have filed a suit to declare the resolution passed during the AGM held on 26.09.2019 as null and void, however, in the interregnum, the first respondent has issued a notice dated 17.01.2022 stating that there is a resolution passed on 18.12.2021 for removal of the petitioners from the respondent-Association, which necessitated the petitioners to approach this Court by way of present Writ Petition to direct the second respondent not to accept the new amendment which is proposed by the first respondent vide proposal dated 18.12.2021and also not to take further action against the petitioners based on the notice dated 17.01.2022.

3. The learned counsel for the first respondent-Association would submit that after issuing due notice to the petitioners regarding the conduction of AGM, the said Meeting was held and in the said Meeting, resolution was taken by the majority of the members of the respondent- Association for amending certain bylaws, and the same cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the learned counsel for the first respondent prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate for the second respondent would fairly submit that since the petitioner has made objection on 17.12.2021, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after hearing the parties concerned, the second respondent would decide as to whether they can proceed with the registration of the proposed amendment to the bylaws or not, however, in any event, since proposal for amendment to the Bylaws are made by majority members of the first respondent-Association, it would be appropriate for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and get declared the proposed amendments to the bylaws as null and void, instead, the petitioners cannot prevent the second respondent, viz., the District Registrar (Cooperative Society), who is after all, a Registering Authority from proceeding with the registration of