Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Hyderabad Cricket Association ... vs Cambridge Cricket Club And Anr. on 3 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(5)ALD818, 2002(6)ALT268
Author: J. Chelameswar
Bench: J. Chelameswar
ORDER J. Chelameswar, J.
1. All these civil revision petitions arise out of 3 OP Nos.352, 438 and 503 of 2002 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Separate Interlocutory Application Nos. 842, 925, 926, 927 and 1026 of 2002 are filed in the above mentioned OPs., respectively. All the Interlocutory Applications were disposed of by separate orders in IA No. 844 of 2002. Common order in IA Nos.925, 926 and 927 of 2002 and another order in IA No. 1026 of 2002 on the 1st day of May, 2002.
2. Aggrieved by the above mentioned orders, various parties to the l.As., preferred these civil revision petitions; the details of which would be adverted to at an appropriate stage in this order.
3. The litigation revolves round the affairs of a registered society known as the 'Hyderabad Cricket Association' (hereinafter referred to as 'HCA') - a body registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act 1350 Fasli (since repealed by Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act 2001).
4. The HCA was formed mainly with the objects to promote, organise, manage and conduct the game of cricket and the area of the operation of this Society extends to 10 districts of Andhra Pradesh including the twin cities Hyderabad and Secunderabad popularly known as 'the Telangana Area'. Various other objects are enumerated in the Memorandum and Rules and Regulations of the said society, the further details of the objects may not be required for the purpose of this order. The said Society is affiliated to the Board of Control of Cricket in India.
5. Chapter II, Rule 2 deals with the definitions of various terms employed in the Rules and Regulations of the Society. The relevant definitions for the purpose of this order are; Committee, Members, General Body and which read as follows:
"COMMITTEE shall mean the Executive Committee of the Association.
MEMBERS shall mean and include Patron-in-Chief, Patorns, Life Members, Clubs and District Associations functioning under the jurisdiction of the Association.
GENERAL BODY shall mean and include representatives of the Clubs and District Associations who are members of the Association and Office Bearers of the Association only."
6. Chapter III deals with the Membership. It provides for five categories of membership. They are; Patron-in-Chief, Patron, Member Club/District Association, Life Member and Individual Member.
Relevant for the purpose of this order is that the category of membership known as Member Club/District Association, which reads as follows:
"MEMBER CLUB/DISTRICT ASSOCIATION:
Any Club or District Association subject to the approval of the Committee, may be enrolled as a member of the Association on payment of an entrance fee and an Annual Subscription as determined by the Committee from time to time."
7. Chapter IV deals with the Management of HCA. It prescribed that the association shall be managed, governed and controlled by the Committee elected by the General Body. It is provided under the rules that the members of the Committee shall hold the office for a period of two years except the Honourary Secretary.
8. At the outset, it must be mentioned among the various categories of membership provided under the rules and regulations the persons eligible to become members are either natural persons or artificial persons under the category of Member Club/District Association. These members are artificial persons and there is nothing in these rules and regulations or nothing is brought to my notice in law which mandates that such clubs or the District Association are required to be 'legal persons'; in the sense, that they should be bodies which are registered under some law where composition of those bodies can be ascertained easily with reference to some public record.
9. The election to the Executive Committee of the HCA as per the rules is required to be held once in two years. Various office bearers are required to be elected in the annual general body meeting which is required to be held every year before the 31st May. The last of such elections were held in the year 2000 and the election became due for the year 2002 which had to be held before 31 st May, 2002.
10. At that stage, three OPs., 352, 438 and 503 of 2002 came to be filed for various reliefs, the details of which may not be necessary for the purpose of the present order. These three O.Ps., are filed by Cambridge Cricket Club and another, Roshan Ara Recreation Club and another and Continental Cricket Club and 5 other Clubs - all represented by one Mr. P.R. Mansingh claiming to be the Chief Patron of the said 6 clubs respectively.
11. In OP No. 352 of 2002, IA No. 842 of 2002 is filed with the following prayer:
"The petitioner is praying for an order under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their agents etc., from interfering in the personal internal management of the petitioner clubs and allowing any unauthorised persons to correspond or to conduct tournaments or associate with the respondents in any manner either in the meetings or in the voting etc"
12. In OP No. 438 of 2002, three IA Nos.925, 926 and 927 of 2002 are filed with the following prayers:
"IA No. 925 of 2002:
This is a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to grant interim injunction restraining, the 1st and 2nd respondents from appointing anybody as Returning Officer to conduct the elections of office-bearers of 1st respondent.
I.A. No. 926 of 2002:
This is a petition filed under Section 151 CPC to furnish the list of eligible voters who are entitled to vote at the time of elections to elect executive of the 1 st respondent.
I.A. No. 927 of 2002:
This is a petition filed under Order 26, Rule 10(b) r/w 151 CPC with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner to conduct the elections of the 1st respondent for the ensuing year 2002-2004."
13. In OP No. 503 of 2002, IA No. 1026 of 2002 is filed with the following prayer:
"The prayer of the petitioners in me main petition is to declare that the respondents 2 to 6 must act accordingly to the rules and regulations of SCA more particularly as per Chapter IV of Memorandum (hereinafter referred as bye laws)"
14. The above mentioned IAs., were disposed of on 1st day of May, 2002. IA Nos.925 to 927 of 2002 by a common order and the other two by separate orders. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, issued various directions in each of the IAs., which read as follows:
"Result in JA.No. 842 of 2002 in OP No. 352 of 2002:
(1)The petitioner clubs are directed to convene their general body meeting immediately to discuss their internal affairs.
(2) The petitioner clubs are directed to elect their office bearers immediately and it should be done strictly through secret ballot and not by showing of hands.
(3) Sri P.R. Mansingh who has been authorised by late Dayanand is directed to convene the meeting of the petitioner clubs immediately by sending intimations to all me members of the clubs and by giving wide publicity about the general body meeting and elections of the club officebearer.
(4) Sri P.R. Mansingh should act in all fairness while dealing with these matters as he is directed to call for meeting purely on the basis of letter of Sri R. Dayanand on 11-5-1993 and being its Chief Patron.
(5) The elections of the club should be completed as expeditiously as possible.
(6) The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of Sports Authority of A.P. (SAAP) is requested to nominate a high ranking officer of his department to be the observer at the time of the election of each club as the goal and object of SAAP is to encourage sports and games and Cricket is a very prestigious game.
(7) The petitioner has to communicate to SAAP immediately and fix a date for general body and elections of the office bearers and also nominating a person to be the representative of the member club in the general body meeting of HCA.
(8) Soon after elections Sri P.R. Mansingh is directed to communicate the names of officebearers and the name of representative of the clubs to the 1st respondent and also to this Court within 24 hours.
(9) On receipt of me same the 1st respondent is directed to mention the same in the Register of Members and the name of representative.
(10) The first respondent is directed to accept the nomination of the representative of the club as communicated by the President and Secretary (so elected) of each club along with the resolution for such nomination and recognise the same person as the representative of the club and not any other person for me year or till it is changed.
(12) Since Sri P.R. Mansingh is the Chief Patron of the Club which is an ornamental post and it is not an organisational post and as desired by Sri R. Dayanand, Mr. P.R. Mansingh is directed to take care of the Welfare and interest of the clubs and not his personal interest in all respects and see that the dedicated cricketers and cricket loving persons are entrusted with the onerous responsibility of the clubs leaving all petty politics aside and he should be a respectable observer and caretaker as he has sufficiently earned many including respect and reputation and reaching an advanced age in the life he must do dedicated service to HCA which is instrumental for his growth and recognition."
Result in IAs. in O.P. No. 438 of 2002:
I.A. No. 925/2002:
In the result, the prayer of the petitioners for injunction under Section 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is rejected. However, interim orders under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, are issued and respondents are directed not to appoint any Returning Officer as the election process has yet to be commenced. The 1st and 2nd respondents are to strictly follow the directions given in the order.
I.A. No. 925/2002:
In the result, the petition is allowed and 1st and 2nd respondents are to strictly following the directions in the order.
LA. No. 927/20Q2:
In the result, the prayer of the petitioners to appoint Advocate Commissioner is dismissed. However, an High level ad hoc committee with Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Sports Authority of A.P. (SAAP), Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad is constituted as temporary measure for the time being and several observations are made in the order to maintain the transparency in the management, affairs and elections of the Hyderabad Cricket Association.
Result in IA. No. 1026 of 2002 in OP No. 503 of 2002:
1. The 3rd respondent is directed not to name his successor without reviewing the Rule (v)(2) of Chapter IV of Memorandum Rules and Regulation by the General Body.
2. The 3rd respondent cannot designate or install 6th respondent as his successor as it is against to the rule hence he is directed to follow the rule if the rule is not amended.
3. The term of Office of 3rd respondent was completed by 31-3-2002 hence is directed not to exercise any of his rights as President, and an ad hoc committee appointed. In this Court in OP 428, with the official observer of Inspector-General - Registration will convene the general body and take suitable decisions for better administration of HCA in the interest of game of cricket.
4. In the result, the prayer of the Petitioners under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC is rejected. But interim order under Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act, are issued with various directions for strict compliance."
15. Aggrieved by these orders, these 10 CRPs, came to be filed.
16. It is to be mentioned here that the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad also thought it fit to appoint a High Level Ad hoc Committee (what he calls) with the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of Sports Authority of A.P. (SAAP), Commissioner of Police and Commissioner of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The latter of the two are wholly unconnected either with the litigation or with cricket in their official capacity. The learned Judge further issued elaborate directions as to the functions of the said Ad hoc Committee.
17. When the matters are taken up, I am informed by all the learned Counsel appearing on either side in these various CRPs that the crux of the matter is regarding the right of the six petitioner-clubs in O.P. No. 352 of 2002 to participate in the elections and as to who should represent these six clubs. Admittedly, these 6 clubs are unregistered bodies. The actual membership of these clubs at any given point of time cannot be ascertained with reference to any public record. Similarly, the first of the petitioners in O.P.Nos.438 and 503 of 2002 are also unregistered bodies. It is admitted fact on all hands that one Mr. R. Dayanand (since deceased) created all the 6 clubs which are the petitioners in O.P.No. 352 of 2002 and nominated the above mentioned Mr. Mansingh to be the Chief Patron of those 6 clubs. Subsequent to the death of the said Mr. Dayanand, the children of Mr. Dayanand claim to have registered the above mentioned 6 clubs.
18. An assertion like this is rather difficult to understand, for the reason that such a registration is required to be done by the members of the voluntary association, but the fact whether the children of Mr. Dayanand were the members of the unregistered clubs which are the petitioners in O.P.No. 352 of 2002 is not very clearly available from the record. Obviously, both Mr. Dayanand, his children and Mr. Mansingh seem to be treating these 6 clubs as proprietary concerns and personal property of late Mr. Dayanand which could be inherited.
19. I, do not propose to go into the various questions raised by the learned Counsel appearing on either side in these revisions, as in my view, all these CRPs., can be disposed of on a single ground that the petitioners in each of the above mentioned CRPs is an association or individuals without any existence in the eye of law and therefore in my view incapable of suing or being sued. Only in recognition of this principle, the Code of Civil Procedure contains specific provisions - Orders 29 and 30 providing for the procedure for which the suits by or against the corporations and partnership firms are required to be laid.
20. The right of any other body which has no existence in the eye of law to sue or be sued is clearly negatived by the Allahabad High Court in a decision reported in the N.W.P. Club Through G.B. Goyder, Honorary Secretary (Defendant) v. Sadullah (Plaintiff), (1898) ILR Vol.XX Allahabad Series 497. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court while dealing with the maintainability of a suit against such a club, held as follows: (at pages 498 and 499) ".. .. ..The question remains as to whether the action can rightly be said to have been brought against the N.W.P. Club, that is, what the case mentioned above calls an abstract entity unknown to the law. To hold that an action lay against it and to give judgment in such action would be to hold that an action lay against a great number of individuals who had not been cited in the action, who had no opportunity of appearing, but who should have been so cited, and who should have had such opportunity given to them to appear and contest the action. On that ground the action should have been dismissed against the club."
21. Similarly, in another judgment reported in Yusuf Beg (Defendant) v. the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church of New York in America through the Revd. W.F. Johnson, Principal Officer (Plaintiff), (1894) ILR Vol.XVI Allahabad Series 420. Once again a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court while dealing with a question of the maintainability of a suit filed by an unincorporated body, held as follows: (at page 423) ".. .. ..This case may appear to be a hard one, but there are also numerous difficulties, obvious to every one, connected with the fact of persons not registered and not incorporated and possessing only a floating existence, which cannot be overlooked. Bodies of this nature wishing to claim the privileges and protection which the law assigns to corporations should take care to have themselves incorporated and registered in such a way that those who deal with them or are brought in contact with them can know whom they are suing and by whom they are being sued. The appeal prevails. The suit as brought by the respondent fails and is dismissed with costs in all Courts."
22. In fact, a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in a case reported in Satyavart Sidhantalankar v. Arya Samaj, Bom., AIR 1946 Bom. 516, also held as follows;
".. .. .. The society is an association of individuals which comes into existence with certain aims and objects. If it is not registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, it would have the character of a club or other association which cannot sue or be sued except in the name of all members of the association or in the name of the secretary or other members of the governing body on their own behalf and on behalf of other members of the association under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code. It would not be competent to a secretary or other members of the governing body of the club or association to sue or be sued alone in respect of matters in which the association is interested even though authority in that behalf has been conferred on them by all members of the association."
23. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in K. Sivaji Rao v. Sri Sanithana Bhagavatha Bhaktha Samajam, 1981 (II) An.WR 103, wherein it was held as follows:
"What becomes manifest from the provisions is that non-registration of any association or society is of no significance and it would not therefore, prevent any Society from enforcing their rights by filing a suit in a Court of law nor is there any provision under the Societies Registration Act which forbids or inhibits a non-registered society or association from enforcing any claim by filing a suit, in a Court of law against any society or association so registered."
24. With utmost respect to the learned single Judge, I regret my inability to agree with him in the background of the earlier quoted authorities. In my view, the learned single Judge proceeded on wholly wrong premises in saying that there is nothing in the "Societies Registration Act which forbids or inhibits a non-registered society or association from enforcing any claim by filing a suit". The more accurate statement of law in this regard is the statement of Justice Bhagwati in Satyavart Sidhantalankar's case, AIR 1946 Bom. 516:
"The society is an association of individuals which is neither a corporation nor a partnership nor an individual which apart from statute are the only entities known to law as capable of suing or being sued."
25. It is vehemently asserted by the learned Counsel appearing for each of the unincorporated clubs that under the rules and regulations of the HCA, such clubs are not required to be registered bodies. But that does not automatically enable such unincorporated clubs to seek the protection of law as has been observed by the Allahabad High Court.
26. In view of the principle that an unincorporated body which has no existence in the eye of law can neither sue or be sued, I am of the opinion that all the impugned orders are required to be set aside.
27. The CRPs are allowed accordingly.