HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1854 of 1996 Petitioner :- C/M, Saraswati Vidyalaya Sarai Memraj Allahabad Respondent :- The Asstt. Registrar And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.R. Singh,R.C. Tewari Respondent Counsel :- S.N. Srivastava,S.C.,Sudhanshu Srivastava Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J.
The petitioner-society was registered as Saraswati Vidyalaya, Sarai Mamrej, District Prayag, in the year 1962. The registration was to remain in force for a period of 5 years. However, no renewal of registration was made. One more society in the name of Saraswati Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sarai Mamrej, District Allahabad, was registered in the year 1986. An application for renewal was filed by the present petitioner under Section 3-A(5) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (called the 'Act' for short) for renewal of the licence. An order came to be passed by the Prescribed Authority renewing the licence of the petitioner. On an application being filed, notice was issued to the petitioner and after conclusion of the proceeding the Registrar has issued a direction to the petitioner to change the name of the society, registered in the year 1962. A direction to reconsider the issue of renewal was issued by this Court on 26.11.1993.
The short question that arises in this writ petition is as to whether any such direction could be passed by the Registrar exercising power for reconsideration of an order of renewal passed in favour of the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only direction that could be passed by the Registrar was to cancel the order of renewal. He has issued a direction directing the petitioner to change the name of the society, which is beyond the scope of the power conferred upon him under Section 3-A(5) of the Act. The power of the Registrar in the matter of refusing the registration is contemplated under Section 3(2) of the Act, which, for the facility of reference, is quoted herein below :
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) the Registrar shall refuse to register a society, if after giving it an opportunity of showing cause against such refusal, he is satisfied that -
(a) the name of the society is identical with that of any other society previously registered under this Act;
(b) the name of the society sought to be registered uses any of the words namely "Union", "State", "Land Mortgage", "Land Development, "Cooperative", "Gandhi", "Reserve Bank" or any words expressing or implying the sanction, approval or patronage of the Central or any State Government or any word which suggests or is calculated to suggest any connection with any local authority or any corporation or body constituted by or under any law for the time being in force or is such as is otherwise likely to deceive the public or the members of any other society previously registered under this Act;
(c) any one or more of the objects of the society sought to be registered is not an object mentioned in sections 1 and 20; or
(d) its objects are contrary to any other law for the time being in force:
Provided that the State Government may, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be recorded, permit any society to use the word "union" or the word "Gandhi" in its name, and thereupon, the use of that word in the name of the society shall not be ground for refusal to register or to renew the certificate of registration of such society."
It is within the precinct of aforementioned provision that registration can be refused.
In the case of grant of renewal, a licence in addition to the grounds enumerated herein supra, it can be refused also on the ground of latches. The upper limit provided under the statute is that the renewal application must be entertained within a period of one year from the date of expiry. This period, however, can be extended on a cause being shown. The discretion of the authority for renewing a licence has to be exercised within the precinct provided herein. While examining the cancellation of renewal, the issue of latches is also required to be considered while dealing with the matter.
Hence, I find that the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be quashed on the ground that no such direction can be issued by the Registrar in this respect. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Registrar for reconsidering the matter afresh on the issue of cancellation of renewal of the registration granted to the petitioner, which shall be done after hearing both the parties in this behalf. The matter will be disposed of within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
Order Date :- 20.9.2011 PG