The Registrar of Societies can exercise powers under Section 3A of the Societies Act concurrently with Section 16 to ensure compliance with directives.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court in dismissing the appellants' judicial review application to quash the 1st and 2nd respondents' decisions, directives and/or orders as contained in the letters dated 5 December 2014, 31 December 2014 and 6 February 2015.

[2] At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr Ragunath Kesavan, confined his argument to only one issue. It is this - whether the Registrar of Societies (the 1st respondent) had acted beyond his powers under s 16(1) of the Societies Act 1966 ("the Act") in giving directions to the appellants under s 3A of the Act.

[3] The factual matrix of this case has been comprehensively set out in the judgment of the learned judge. The salient facts insofar as this appeal is concerned relates to the correspondences between the appellants and the 1st respondent.

Salient Facts

[4] By a letter dated 5 December 2014 ("the first letter") addressed to the 1st appellant in his capacity as the Secretary-General of the Malaysian Indian Congress ("MIC"), the 1st respondent informed that investigations were carried out following complaints from MIC members of irregularities in an election held on 30 November 2013. The 1st respondent found that there were irregularities and requested MIC's cooperation to carry out re-elections of the affected branches, divisions, Central Working Committee ("CWC") and Vice- Presidents posts within stipulated time frames.

[5] By a letter dated 24 December 2013, the 1st appellant provided certain clarification to the first letter and requested for a response and the withdrawal of the call for re-elections from the 1st respondent.

[6] In its reply dated 31 December 2014 ("the second letter"), the 1st respondent gave notice under s 16(1) of the Act to the effect that the MIC was required to resolve the dispute within the stipulated time frames. The 1st respondent requested MIC's cooperation to carry out re-elections of the affected branches, divisions, CWC and Vice-Presidents posts within stipulated time frames. The 1st respondent added that the registration of the MIC would be cancelled in the event of the non-compliance of the aforesaid.

[7] On 2 January 2015, the 1st appellant wrote to the 1st respondent asking for an extension of time to settle the disputes.

[8] By a letter dated 6 January 2015 ("the third letter"), the 1st respondent stated that the second letter is a notice issued under s 16(1) of the Act; at the same time, the 1st respondent accepted that the first letter is not a s 16(1) notice. At any rate, the 1st respondent agreed to extend the stipulated time frames for settling the disputes.

[9] On 5 February 2015, the 2nd appellant (President of the MIC) wrote to the 1st respondent with proposals for an amicable settlement of the disputes. The President of the MIC proposed to hold fresh elections for all posts in the MIC and suggested that the CWC elected and appointed in the 30 November 2013 elections ("the 2013 CWC") would conduct the elections. Accordingly, the 1st respondent was requested to extend the time frames for the holding of the fresh elections and to withdraw the s 16(1) notice vide the second letter and first letter.

[10] In its reply dated 6 February 2015 ("the fourth letter"), the 1st respondent stated that he had received further complaints which were found to be substantiated. Consequently, the 1st respondent took the position that the entire elections and General Assembly held in 2013 to be null and void. The 1st respondent then, in exercise of the powers given to him under s 3A of the Act, asked the MIC to take new measures in order to regularise the affairs of th