Skip to content


Yadushaila High School, Managing Committee, Melkote Vs. the Registrar of Societies, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 2312 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Kant123; AIR1967Mys123; (1966)1MysLJ712
ActsMysore Societies Registration Act, 1960 - Sections 3, 3(1), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5), 4, 6 and 7; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Mysore Societies Registration Rules, 1961 - Rule 3(2)
AppellantYadushaila High School, Managing Committee, Melkote
RespondentThe Registrar of Societies, Bangalore and ors.
Appellant AdvocateH. Nanjunda Sastry and ;C.S. Krishnamurthy, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateMurlidara Rao, High Court Govt. Pleader and ;M.S. Gopal, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....to indemnify the employer/owner of the vehicle. therefore, the order under challenge does not require any interference. - 5. as regards the first ground, it appears to us that the registrar was clearly in error. section 7 clearly lays down as already quoted that no society which has a name resembling the name of a society previously registered and which may be deemed to be undesirable for registration shall be registered. if he was satisfied about this, there was no justification for his making enquiries with the deputy commissioner and the director of public instruction as to who was in actual management of the high school......section 7 clearly lays down as already quoted that no society which has a name resembling the name of a society previously registered and which may be deemed to be undesirable for registration shall be registered. obviously as the two applications were being considered simultaneously, this ground could not have been available to the registrar as he could not have said with any certainty in rejecting the petitioner's application that there existed a society previously registered bearing a name which resembled the petitioner's name. 6. the second reason assigned by him takes us to the scope of rule 3 of the mysore societies registration rules, 1961. that rule prescribes the procedure for registration. sub-rule (1) of that rule requires the application for registration to be in the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ quashing the order passed by respondent No. 1 on January 23, 1964 refusing to register the petitioner Society under the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1960 and further quashing the order of the 2nd respondent confirming the order of the 1st Respondent on September 27, 1965. He also prayed for other direction or order consequential on the issue of such Writ. Respondent No. 3 to this petition is an educational society which has been ordered by the Registrar to be registered under the aforesaid Act.

2. The facts material for the determination of the questions arising in this Writ Petition are few. The petitioner filed an application on August 7, 1963 praying that the Society be registered under the provisions of the Mysore Societies Registration Act 1960. It appears that this application was returned for rectification and was presented after due rectifications on August 12, 1963 before the Registrar. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 3 had also presented an application for registration. It appears from the proceedings of the Registrar that he held an enquiry regarding the statements of the petitioners in both the cases and further called for the reports of the Deputy Commissioner of the District as also of the Director of Public Instruction. He ordered the registration of respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1960 and at the same time refused to register the petitioner-society. It is the latter portion of the order that is the subject matter of this Writ Petition. This order will in no way affect the registration of respondent No. 3 already made which has become final, as the petitioner has not challenged its legality either before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal or before this court in this Writ Petition.

3. The learned Advocate, Mr. Nanjundasastry, has contended that the Registrar had exceeded his jurisdiction in embarking upon an enquiry into the question as to who was actually managing the Yadushaila High School, Melkote and had further rejected the registration of the petitioner on the ground it did not exist on that day.

4. In examining these contentions, it is necessary to refer to the grounds which seem to have been inclined the Registrar to refuse registration of the petitioner-society. It is clear from his order that the object of the petitioner-society was to encourage and develop the education in Sanskrit, English, Kannada, Hindu Literature, Science, Arts and Culture and Sports among the students of the Yadushaila High School. Thereafter the Registrar referred to the objects of Respondent No. 3 --Society with which we are not concerned. Then the Registrar referred to Section 7 of the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'Act') which lays down that no society shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the Registrar, is undesirable and that a name which is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name by which a society in existence has been previously registered, may be deemed to be undesirable by the Registrar under this Section. One of the grounds given by the Registrar for refusing to register the petitioner-society is that its name resembles the name of respondent No. 3. The second ground mentioned by him in his order is that Yadushaila High School was. in fact, being managed by Respondent No. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that in calling for a report on that fact and extending his enquiry to that subject, the Registrar had exceeded his jurisdiction.

5. As regards the first ground, it appears to us that the Registrar was clearly in error. Section 7 clearly lays down as already quoted that no society which has a name resembling the name of a society previously registered and which may be deemed to be undesirable for registration shall be registered. Obviously as the two applications were being considered simultaneously, this ground could not have been available to the Registrar as he could not have said with any certainty in rejecting the petitioner's application that there existed a society previously registered bearing a name which resembled the petitioner's name.

6. The second reason assigned by him takes us to the scope of Rule 3 of the Mysore Societies Registration Rules, 1961. That rule prescribes the procedure for registration. Sub-rule (1) of that rule requires the application for registration to be in the prescribed form as in Schedule A. It also mentions what shall be the contents of the Memorandum and what particulars should be given therein regarding the name and address of one of the subscribers to the memorandum authorised by the Society to whom any communication may be sent by the Registrar. Sub-rule (2) which is material, reads as follows :--

'The Registrar, for the purpose of satisfying himself of the matters .specified in Sections 4 and 6, call for such further particulars or make such enquiry as he deems necessary. He may permit the subscribers, if so desired by them in writing, to move such alterations or additions to the proposed memorandum, rules and regulations submitted in order to make them conform to the. provisions of the Act and Rules thereunder.'

It is unnecessary to refer to Sub-rules (3), (4) and (5) of this Rule as they do not relate to the enquiry lo be held by the Registrar.

7. The wording of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 defines the scope of the enquiry to be made by the Registrar. The Registrar is empowered to hold the enquiry for the purpose of satisfying himself about the matters specified in Sections 4 and 6. No other section or matter is mentioned as falling within the ambit of the enquiry to be held by the Registrar.

8. Section 4 of the Act provides that no society other than a society of which the State Government is a member, which does not consist of at least 7 persons above the age of eighteen years shall be registered under this Act. So the enquiry, if the society which has applied for registration satisfies the requirements of Section 4, will necessarily be limited to the two factors mentioned therein. First of all, the Regis-trar has to see whether it is a society of which the State Government is a member. If it is not a society of that kind, then he has to see whether that society has at least 7 members above the age of eighteen years. The enquiry will have to limit itself to the number of persons who propose to constitute the society and to their having completed the age of eighteen years at the date when they subscribed to become the members of the society.

9. Then we go to Section 6 for the purpose of which also an enquiry may be made by the Registrar under Rule 3(2). Section 6 lays down as follows :--

'Requirements with respect to memorandum. -

(1) The memorandum ot association of every society shall state-

a) the name of the society;

b) the objects of the society;

c) the names, addresses and occupations of the members of the governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted;

(d) the place at which the registered office of the society is to situate;

(2) Then; shall be registered with the Memorandum of association, the rules and regulations of the society, which shall contain provisions relating to admission of members, general meetings, proceedings at such meetings including voting by members, the governing body and proceedings of meetings of the governing body;

Provided that save as otherwise provided in this Act, no rule or regulation of a society shall exclude any member from being entitled to vote.

3. The Memorandum and rules and regulations of the society shall be printed or typewritten, he divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively and be signed by each subscriber to the memorandum of association (who shall add his address, description, age and occupation, if any) in the presence of al least one witness who shall attest the signature and shall likewise add his address, description and occupation.'

If Rule 3(2) is read along with the provisions of Section 6, it would follow that the enquiry is intended to enable the Registrar to satisfy himself about the correctness, completeness and the genuineness of the various matters mentioned in Section 6. Obviously, there may be cases in which the Registrar may require to ascertain the facts as regards the objects of the society. If the memorandum or the details are incomplete, he may be required to make an enquiry about the occupation of the members of the governing body and their addresses, etc. He will have to scrutinise the memorandum of association, the rules and the regulations and find out if they are in conformity with the provisions of the Act and are intended to further the objects for which the society is founded and sought to be registered.

10. What the Registrar has done in the present case is to find who is in actual management of the Yadushaila High School. Section 6 does not contemplate that the society which is seeking for registration should be incharge of or must be managing any institution. In fact the copy which the petitioner presented before the Registrar, does not lay any claim to the management of the High School which seems to be the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. It would have been enough if the Registrar had confined himself, in his enquiry, to get material to show that the objects of the petitioner-society were those mentioned in the memorandum, namely, to encourage and develop various branches of learning -- Science, Literature and Fine Arts. If he was satisfied about this, there was no justification for his making enquiries with the Deputy Commissioner and the Director of Public Instruction as to who was in actual management of the High School.

11. In passing, we might mention that while dealing with this aspect, the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, has considered matters which do not fall within the scope of the enquiry enjoined by Rule 3. The learned members of the Tribunal have considered what are the powers of the Registrar over the society which is registered. Those points will not be within the jurisdiction of the Registrar while he is considering the question of registering the society. At that stage, then is no question of the accounts, sur-charge. misconduct and so on. It appears to us that the Revenue Appellate Tribunal has wholly misconceived the scope of the inquiry enjoined by Rule 3 of the Rules.

12. Considered from any point of view, we are of the opinion, that the grounds mentioned by the Registrar in rejecting the petitioner's application cannot be upheld. We, accordingly, allow this Writ petition, quash the orders passed by the first 2 respondents refusing to register the petitioner-society and remit the petitioner's application for being considered On its own merits according to law. Parties to bear their own costs.

13. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //