( 1 ) AN internal dispute among the members of a Society, registered under the A. P. Societies Registration Act (for short 'the Act'), has given rise to this writ petition.

( 2 ) KHAN Abdul Gaffar Khan Memorial Educational Society (for short 'the Society) was registered on 28-12-1990, vide registration No. 284/1990. It had established some educational institutions. The Society mostly comprised of members, belonging to Muslim community. Over a period of time, non-muslims, including one, Ch. Anji Reddy, the 2nd respondent, were admitted as members. The 2nd respondent had assumed the role of Correspondent of the Society and became part of management. At a subsequent stage, the Society, represented by the founder president, Mr. Syed Akram Mohiuddin Ahmed, had convened a General Body Meeting, on 05-04-2006, and resolved inter alia, to remove some of the members, including the 2nd respondent. Having done so, they have forwarded the copy of the resolution to the Registrar of Societies, Nellore, the 3rd respondent. The structural changes in the Society were taken on record and approved by the registrar with effect from 21-04-2006.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent raised an objection to the steps taken by the 3rd respondent. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent issued notice to the petitioner and issued proceedings dated 28-06-2006, cancelling the earlier proceedings. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 13497 of 2006, aggrieved by the proceedings dated 28-06-2006. This Court took the view, that the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act was not followed and accordingly remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. On such remand, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 29-03-2006, holding that the resolution dated 05-04-2006, removing the 2nd respondent and others, as members of the Society, is contrary to law, and that the 2nd respondent is entitled to function as Secretary-cum-Correspondent of the society and its institutions.

( 4 ) THE same is challenged in this writ petition. It is contended that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the internal disputes, and the order passed by her is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Certain alleged factual inadequacies were also pointed out. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the entire proceedings came to be initiated only at the instance of the petitioner, and it cannot take exception for the outcome thereof. The circumstances under which he and other members came to be inducted, are stated. It is alleged that the steps taken by the petitioner in removing certain members are wholly illegal. It is further stated that the order passed by this Court in w. P. No. 13497 of 2006 will operate as res judicata.

( 5 ) SRI Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application presented by his client before the 3rd respondent was informal in nature, and the same cannot give rise to adjudication of disputes. He contends that the order in W. P. No. 13497 of 2006 cannot operate as res judicata, since it did not deal with the question of jurisdiction, and even assuming that any observations touching that question were made, there are of no consequence, in view of the judgment of the Supreme court in Muthura Prasad v. Dossibai, AIR 1971 SC 2355.

( 6 ) SRI D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner was comprehensive in nature, including the one, relating to certain amendments, and in that view of the matter, it was competent for the 3rd respondent to pass the impugned order. He contends that, it is at the instance of the petitioner, that the matter was remanded to the 3rd respondent and simply because the result had gone against them, the petitioner cannot object to the impugned order.

( 7 ) THE Act is a self-contained Code. Apart from prescribing the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document