Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. vs Chandra Shekhar Azad Shiksha Prasad ... on 2 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR2008MP128, 2008(1)MPHT123, AIR 2008 MADHYA PRADESH 128, 2008 (1) AIR KAR R 170, 2008 (3) AKAR (NOC) 462 (MPG), 2008 A I H C (NOC) 382 (MP), (2008) 1 MPHT 123, (2008) 1 JAB LJ 192, (2008) 1 MPLJ 127
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
ORDER A.K. Patnaik, C.J.
1. This is a reference made to the Full Bench by an order dated 27-10-2006 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 138/2006.
2. The facts leading to the reference are that the respondent is a Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Act'). By an order dated 30-10-2003, the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 33 of the Act superseded the governing body of the respondent Society and appointed an administrator of the Society for a period of one year or till the conduct of the election whichever was earlier. The respondent Society challenged the order dated 30-10-2003 of the State Government in W.P. No. 478/2004 before this Court contending that the respondent Society has not been paid any grant-in-aid since 2001 and the respondent Society cannot be superseded under Section 33 of the Act, which provided that only a State aided Society can be superseded. The appellants in their return filed in the writ petition, on the other hand, stated that a block grant was paid to the respondent Society by the State Government and a grant of Rs. 3,38,977/- for the year 2001-2002 was deposited in a joint account of the respondent Society but has not been disbursed for payment because of non-fulfillment of eligible criteria by the respondent Society. The appellants contended that the respondent Society was therefore a State Aided Society as defined in Section 3(f) of the Act and the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 33 of the Act can supersede the respondent Society. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition did not accept the contention of the appellant and held that the order passed by the State Government superseding the respondent Society was illegal inasmuch as the respondent Society was not a State Aided Society and by order dated 19-10-2005 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of supersession. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal under Section 2(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 before the Division Bench.
3. When the appeal was heard on 27-10-2006 by the Division Bench, an unreported decision of the Division Bench dated 16-4-1979 in Adarsha Shiksha Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh, as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Adarsha Vidya Mandir v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 1982 MPLJ 762, were cited by Mr. P.S. Bhadoriya, learned Counsel for the appellant in which a view had been taken that a Society which was receiving aid in the past but was not receiving aid in the present did not come within the definition of "State Aided Society" for taking action under Section 33(1) of the Act. Before the Division Bench, Mrs. Ami Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, very strongly contended that the definition of "State Aided Society" was wide enough to include not only a Society which receives aid, grant or loan but also a Society which has received aid, grant or loan or has received land or building or both on concessional rates and other facilities from the Central Government or State Government or any Statutory Body and therefore the two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Adarsha Shiksha Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Adarsha Vidya Mandir v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (supra), require reconsideration by a Full Bench. The Division Bench found force in the aforesaid submission of Mrs. Prabal and accordingly referred the following question of law to the Full Bench:
Whether the 'State Aided Society' would mean a Society which receives or received aid, grant or loan in the current year or would also mean a Society which has received aid, grant or loan in any previous year for the purpose of action under Section 33(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973?
4. Before we consider the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question of law, we would like to notice the changes made in the provisions of the Act after the two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Adarsha Shiksha Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Adarsha Vidya Mandir v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (supra). When these decisions were rendered by the Division Bench in the respective two cases, the definition of "State Aided Society" in Section 3(f) of the Act was as follows:
3. (f) "State Aided Society" means a society which receives or has received aid or grant or loan from Central Government or State Government or any other Statutory Body.
But after these decisions of the Division Bench, the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1998 was enacted by which a new definition of State Aided Society was substituted in Clause (f) of Section 3 of the Act, which reads as follows:
(f) "State Aided Society" means a Society which receives or has received aid, grant or loan or has received land or building or both on concessional rate and other facilities from the Central Government or State Government or any Statutory Body.
5. Mr. S.B. Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General and Mrs. Amit Prabal, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the definition of "State Aided Society" as it existed prior to the amendment in the Act was wide enough to include not only a Society which receives aid, grant or loan but has received aid, grant or loan from the Central Government or State Government or any Statutory Body. They submitted that the view taken in the two decisions of the Division Bench in Adarsha Shiksha Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Adarsha Vidya Mandir v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (supra), that a Society which has received air or grant in the past but is not receiving such aid or grant in the present was not covered within the definition of "State Aided Society" as it existed prior to the amendment in the year 1998 was therefore not correct. They further submitted that after the amendment in the year 1998 to the definition of "State Aided Society", the legislature has made it clear that it includes not only a Society which receives aid in the present but also has received aid, grant or loan in the past. They referred to the statement of objects and reasons appended to the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran (Sanshodhan) Bill which was introduced in the legislature to show that the object of the amendment was to ensure that grants given by the Central Government, State Government or any Statutory Body were not misused by the Society.
6. Mr. Mishra cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Nanded-Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh and Union of India and Ors. v. Braj Nandan Singh , for the proposition that the intention of the legislature is required to be gathered from the language used by the legislature in the Act and therefore a construction which requires for its support addition or substitution of words used in the Statute or which results in rejection of words used in the Statute has to be avoided. He submitted that the language of Section 3(f) of the Act, without any addition of words or omission of words, is clear that not only a Society which receives aid in the present but also has received aid or grant in the past comes within the definition of Stale Aided Society.
7. Mr. Bhadoriya, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohan Kumar Singhania and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , and submitted that the Court has to ascertain the intention of legislature in the backdrop of the dominant purpose and the underlying intendment of the Statute. He submitted that since the dominant purpose of the Act as well as the amendment of 1998 is to ensure that the aid granted by the State is not misused, "State Aided Society" for the purpose of action under Section 33 of the Act will not cover a Society to which some aid was given in the past but to which aid is not presently given.
8. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and we find that Section 3 of the Act starts with the expression: "In this Act unless the context otherwise requires" and then goes on to define the various expressions used in the Act in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). Thus, the definition of "State Aided Society" is subject to the context in which the expression "State Aided Society" has been used. On a reading of all the provisions of the Act we find that the expression "State Aided Society" has been used only in Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act.
9. Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act is quoted herein below:
Section 33. Supersession of governing body.- (1) If in the opinion of the State Government, governing body of any State Aided Society-
(a) persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act, Regulations or Bye-laws of the Society or by any lawful order passed by the State Government or Registrar, or is un-willing to perform such duties; or [(a) Persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act, Regulation or Bye-laws of the Society or by or under any other enactment for the time being in force or by any lawful order passed by the State Government or Registrar or is unwilling to perform such duties; or]
(b) commits acts which are prejudicial to the interest or society or its members; or
(c) is otherwise not functioning properly;
the State Government may, by order in writing, remove the governing body and appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the Society for a specified period not exceeding two years in the first instance:
Provided that where it is proposed to remove the governing body of the Society exclusively on the ground that election to the governing body were not held in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the Regulations or Bye-laws made thereunder, no action shall be taken under this Sub-section unless the Registrar or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has convened a meeting of the general body for conducting the election thereto in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or the Regulations or Bye-laws made thereunder but has failed to get the new governing body elected:
Provided further that the Registrar or the Officer authorised by him shall, for the purpose of conducting election have all the necessary powers under the Act or the Regulations or Bye-laws made thereunder.
10. By Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act quoted above power has been vested in the State Government to remove a governing body and appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for specified periods mentioned therein only in the case of a State Aided Society. There is no other provision in the Act for removal of the governing body of a Society by the State Government and for appointing a person or persons to manage the affairs of the Society. We find that in Section 32 of the Act elaborate provisions have been made for enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of any Society and in Section 32 in Sub-section (4) it is provided that when an enquiry is made under Section 32 the Registrar shall communicate the result of the enquiry to the Society and the decision of the Registrar shall be binding on all parties concerned. Thus, in respect of the Societies other than State Aided Societies, the Registrar may cause an enquiry and also render a decision which will be binding on all the parties concerned, but the governing body of such Societies other than State Aided Societies cannot be superseded. The intention of the legislature is therefore clear that it is only in a case of State Aided Society in which the Central Government, State Government or Statutory Body has financial interest that the State Government may remove the governing body and appoint a person or persons to manage the Society under Section 33 of the Act.
11. The object of amending the Act in 1998 by the Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1998 as indicated in the statement of objects and reasons appended to the Bill are inter alia that grants given by the Central Government, Stale Government or Statutory Bodies are not misused. By this amending Act, the definition of "State Aided Society" was changed and the amended definition of "State Aided Society" was widened to include Society which receives or has received not only aid or grant but also loan, land or building or both on concessional rates and other facilities from the Central Government or State Government or any Statutory Body.
12. The Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1998 also inserted Sub-section (2) in Section 36 of the Act which is quoted hereinbelow:
(2) In the event of cancellation of the Registration of Society under Sub-section (3) of Section 34 the movable and immovable assets of the Society or its institution or centres shall vest in the State Government to the extent of assistance, grant, aid or donation that the Society may have received from Central or State Government or any of the Statutory Bodies. It shall the duty of the Collector of the District where the property is situated to take charge of the same on intimation of cancellation by the Registrar.
Thus, a new provision was inserted in the Act that in the event of cancellation of a Registration of Society, the movable and immovable assets shall vest in the State Government to the extent of assistance, grant, aid or donation that the Society may receive from the Central Government or State Government or any of the Statutory Bodies.
13. The meaning of "State Aided Society" has to be understood in this context of Section 33 of the Act, as amended by the amendments made in the Act and would mean a Society which not only receives aid, grant or loan for the present but also has received aid, grant or loan in the past and the financial interest of the Central Government, State Government or the Statutory Body in the Society subsists. For illustration, if an aid or grant or loan is given to create a durable asset, the State Aided Society will continue to be a State Aided Society even after the year in which such aid or grant or loan was given by the State Government but if aid or grant or loan had been given by the Central Government, State Government or any Statutory Body or a Society for a particular event or for salary of staff etc., for a particular year, after the event is over or after the year was over or after the loan was recovered the Society will not continue to be a State Aided Society. In the former case, the financial interest of the Central Government, State Government or any Statutory Body which has given the aid or grant or loan to the Society for creation of the durable asset continues even after the aid or grant or loan is spent for creation of the asset, but in later case as soon as the aid or grant is spent on a particular event or on payment of salary of a particular year or the loan is recovered, the financial interest of the Central Government or State Government or any Statutory Body ceases.
14. Hence even if the definition of State Aided Society is wide, the context in which the expression "State Aided Society" is used in the Act gives a limited meaning to State Aided Society. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, X Edition at Page 181, it is stated:
Wide words used in an interpretation Clause may thus be given a limited meaning having regard to the context as a whole for a word in a statute whether it be in the body of the statute or in the interpretation Clause is not to be construed without reference to the context in which it appears.
15. In State of Bombay and Ors. v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. , the Supreme Court while interpreting the word "industry" as defined in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that though Section 2(j) uses words of very wide denotation a line would have to be drawn in a fair and just manner so as to exclude some callings, services or undertakings. Para 12 of the judgment of the Supreme Court at Page 614 as reported in the AIR is quoted hereinbelow:
12. It is clear, however, that though Section 2(j) uses words of every wide denotation, a line would have to be drawn in a fair and just manner so as to exclude some callings, services or undertakings. If all the words used are given their widest meaning, all services and all callings would come within the purview of the definition; even service rendered by a servant purely in a personal or domestic matter or even in a casual way would fall within the definition. It is not and cannot be suggested that in its wide sweep the word "service" is intended to include service howsoever rendered in whatsoever capacity and for whatsoever reason. We must, therefore, consider where the line should be drawn and what limitations can and should be reasonably implied in interpreting the whole words used in Section 2(j); and that no doubt is a somewhat difficult problem to decide.
16. In Adarsha Shiksha Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), an aid was given in 1977 which was relevant for the academic year 1977 and it had no relevance for the academic year 1978-79 when the action was taken against the Society under Section 33 of the Act and it was held that the power under Section 33 of the Act could not be exercised by the Slate Government as the Society ceased to be a State Aided Society in the year 1978-79. In Adarsha Vidya Mandir v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (supra), Rs. 500/- was paid to a Society for Mahila Rally on 2nd December, 1975, Rs. 1,000/- was paid for purchase of sewing machine on 7th January, 1976 and Rs. 500/- was paid for Mahila Rally in February, 1976 by the State Government and action under Section 33 of the Act was sought to be taken against the Society in May, 1979 and it was held that the Society was not a State Aided Society and the action taken against the Society was unauthorised. Hence, if a Society has received aid or grant or loan in respect of which the financial interest of the Central Government, State Government or the Statutory Body giving aid or grant or loan persisted, powers under Section 33 of the Act by the State Government could be exercised to protect such interest of the Central Government, State Government or the Statutory Body, but if the Society has received an aid or grant or loan in the past and such aid or grant has already been utilized or the loan has been recovered and the Central Government, State Government or the Statutory Body does not have any further financial interest in the Society, the State Government cannot exercise power under Section 33 of the Act to supersede the governing body of the Society.
17. Viewed from any angle, the State Aided Society for the purpose of Section 33 of the Act would be a Society which receives or has received aid, grant or loan in which the Central Government, State Government or the Statutory Body granting the aid, grant or loan continues to have financial interest and would not cover a Society which has received aid, grant or loan in the past but in which the Central Government or State Government or any Statutory Body which had granted the aid, grant or loan does not continue to have any financial interest. We accordingly answer the reference.
18. The appeal will now be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing on merits.