Telangana High Court
Durvasula Sita Mahalakshmi vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.17184 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. This writ petition is filed to call for the records from the respondents and quash the registration certificate of respondent No.4 bearing No.1511/2014 dated 15.11.2014 registered by respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary as the same is not registered in accordance with the circular memo No.Soc/7124/2018 dated 28.01.2019 issued by respondent No.2 against the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2024, 01.04.2024.
3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstance this Court in W.P.No.8856 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022, passed the following order:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court the decision 2 in Nugget Estates Private Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, wherein this Court, while quashing the registration impugned therein, has held as under:
'8. In Hamabai Framjee Petit Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council, MANU/MH/0129/1911 : (1911) 13 BLR 1097, the High Court of Judicature of Bombay held that the phrase 'public purpose' must include a purpose i.e., an object or aim in which the general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of individuals is directly and vitally concerned. On appeal, this view was upheld by the Privy Council AIR 1914 P.C. 20.
9. While dealing with the phrase 'public purpose' a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Singh (MANU/SC/0020/1952:AIR 1952 S.C.
252) held as under: "...The expression 'public purpose' is not capable of a precise definition and has not a rigid meaning. It can only be defined by a process of judicial inclusion and exclusion. In other words, the definition of the expression is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and state of society and its needs.
The point to be determined in each case is whether the acquisition is in the general interest of the community as distinguished from the private interest of an individual". (Emphasis supplied)
10. The members of respondent No.4- Association are private individuals who came together for the purpose of maintenance of the apartments purchased by them. Even if the term 'any public purpose' is stretched to its widest amplitude, none of the objects with which respondent No.4- 3 Association has been formed, would satisfy the said term, for, 'public purpose' necessarily involves the interests of community at large and their well-being. In the context in which the phrase 'public purpose' is used in Section 3(1) of the Act, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that it intended to cover a group of residents of a residential apartment.
11. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned registration cannot be sustained under the provisions of the Act and accordingly the same is quashed. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.4-Association from registering itself under any other enactment, under which such registration is permissible".
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 has fairly conceded the above said judgment.
Having regard to the same, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned registration in favour of the respondent No.4 is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, and the same is accordingly quashed. However, it is made clear that this order, does not preclude respondent No.4-Association from registering itself under any other enactment, under which such registration is permissible.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pray this Court to pass similar orders as passed in W.P.No.8856 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022. While deciding the said case, this Court referred to 4 the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nugget Estates Private Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents has not disputed the same.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.
7. Recording the submission made by learned counsel appearing on either side and in terms of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8856 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned registration in favour of respondent No.4 is contrary to the provisions of the Act, and the same is hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Date: 21.08.2024 mrm