Kerala High Court
Dr.N.Radhakrishnan vs The District Registrar (General) on 13 December, 2018
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,
1940
WP(C).No. 40657 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
1 DR.N.RADHAKRISHNAN,
AGED 74 YEARS
CHAIRMAN, KERALA GANDHI SMARAK NIDHI, GANDHI BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
2 KERALA GANDHI SMARAK NIDHI
GANDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
2 K.G.JAGADEESAN
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, SANGEETH, CC WARD,
AVALOOKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA - 688 006.
3 P.RAJENDRAN
GENERAL SECRETARY (K.K.E.O.), KERALA KHADI EMPLOYEE
ORGANISATION, GANDHI BHAVAN, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.40657/2018 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.40657 of 2018
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2018
JUDGMENT
The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits P5, P6 and quash the same; ii. Declare that the action of the 1 st respondent in issuing Exhibits P5 and P6 directing to convene the general body meeting and to conduct the election is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction; iii. Declare that the action of the 2 nd respondent in issuing Ext P8 calling for the General Body Meeting on 15.12.2018 is without authority and cannot be sustained in view of Ext.P4 order of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram."
2. Heard Sri. Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to contesting respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with.
3. The 1st petitioner is the Chairman of the Kerala W.P.(C)No.40657/2018 3 Gandhi Smarak Nidhi and the 2nd petitioner is the Kerala Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, which is the Society registered under the Travancore- Cochin Lterrary,Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, which was formed on 20.9.1962. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P6 order dated 19.11.2018 issued by the 1st respondent notified Registrar whereby the said Society has been directed to disband the existing executive committee/managing committee and to ensure expeditious conduct of election before 31.12.2018 etc.
4. It is submitted by Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners on instructions that the impugned Ext.P6 order issued by the 1 st respondent District Registrar (General) (who is the notified Registrar of the Society in question), is totally without jurisdiction in as much as the said Registrar has no power under any of the provisions of the Travancore- Cochin Lterrary,Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 or the Rules framed thereunder to issue any directions in the nature of Ext.P6 ordering the disbandment of the executive committee of the Society and ordering to W.P.(C)No.40657/2018 4 complete the election process within a time frame as directed by the said authority. It is submitted by the petitioners that they are now disabled from taking steps to conduct the election to the above said Society in view of Ext.P4 order dated 21.7.2018 rendered by the District Court,Thiruvananthapuram on I.A.No.2501/2018 in O.P.No.338/2018. It is stated that O.P.No.338/2018 is a scheme suit numbered as an original petition as conceived in Section 25 of the above said Act. Be that as it may, the main crux of the petitioners' contention is that this Court has held in categorical terms in the judgment in Pullichira Parish Protection Council v. District Registrar (General) reported in 2013 (2) KLT 6, in paragraph 6 that the respondent Registrar has no jurisdiction under the above said Act to issue directions to any Society registered in the matters to amend its byelaws etc. On that basis, it is contended by the petitioners that since no explicit of implicit authorisation is granted to the Registrar in terms of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules to interfere in the matters of continuance of executive committee or in the matter of conduct of election, the W.P.(C)No.40657/2018 5 1st respondent is denuded of any jurisdiction whatsoever to issue any order in the nature of Ext.P6. It is further submitted that a consequential notice has been issued by the 2 nd respondent as per Ext.P8 to call for the general body meeting of the Society so as to comply with the directions in the impugned Ext.P6 order.
5. On a perusal of the impugned Ext.P6 order, it is seen that the above said crucial aspects of the matter has not been considered and adverted to by the 1st respondent while rendering the above said decision at Ext.P6. Accordingly, the matter requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the 1 st respondent and for effecting such a remittance, it is ordered that Ext.P6 order will stand set aside. The matter will stand remitted to the 1st respondent for consideration afresh. The 1 st respondent, who should give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, respondents 2, 3 and other affected persons and appropriate orders may be passed on the petition filed by the 3 rd respondent as referred to in Ext.P6 without any further delay. The specific contention of the petitioners that the 1 st respondent has no jurisdiction whatsoever under the above said Act and the W.P.(C)No.40657/2018 6 Rules to interfere in matters relating to the continuance of the existing committee or about the conduct of the election, more particularly in the light of the above said reported judgment of this Court as well as Ext.P4 order of the District Court should be duly adverted to and considered by the 1st respondent while rendering decision. Since Ext.P6 order has already been set aside, all consequential action that have been taken in pursuance of the said impugned Ext.P6 order will stand rescinded.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (civil) will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.40657/2018 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE BYELAW OF THE KERALA GANDHI SMARAK NIDHI AMENDED BY THE STATE BOARD ON 09.02.2001.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE BYELAW OF THE KERALA GANDHI SMARAK NIDHI AS AMENDED AND APPROVED IN THE GENERAL BODY MEETING HELD ON 09.10.2007.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.338 OF 2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2018 IN IA NO.2501/2018 IN OP NO.338/2018 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.M1-6716/18 DATED 30.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.M1-6716/18 DATED 19.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.11.2018 AGAINST EXHIBIT P6, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE.W.P.(C)No.40657/2018 8