Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tayyib Muslim Welfare Society vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 October, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.13386 of 2019 and 2389 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
As both these writ petitions relate to the disputes between
the same parties, they are being disposed of, by way of this
common order.
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.13386 of 2019 and
W.P.No.2389 of 2021 are M/s.Tayyib Muslim Welfare Society
and Tayyib Muslim Polytechnic College said to be represented by
their Secretary and Correspondent Sri S.Mohammed Azam. The
case of the petitioners in both these writ petitions is that the
District Registrar of Societies, who is arrayed as respondent
No.2, is refusing to receive the list of members, to the newly
elected Managing Committee, for the year 2019-2020 and the
year 2020-2021.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the persons
mentioned in the list that are sought to be furnished to the 2nd
respondent were elected as members of the Managing
Committee in a properly conducted election and the refusal of
the 2nd respondent in accepting the said list is arbitrary,
highhanded and violative of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh
2
Societies and Registration Act, 2001 as well as Articles 14, 19
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. This Court, in W.P.No.2389 of 2021, by way of an
interim direction, directed the 2nd respondent to receive the list
of elected members for the year 2020-21. There was no interim
direction in W.P.No.13386 of 2019.
5. After the interim direction granted by this Court on
02.02.2021, a vacate petition was filed by the 2nd respondent
and an implead petition was also filed by one Sri Shaik Subhani
Basha. It was contended in the implead petition that there have
been disputes between the members of the societies since the
year 2011 resulting in various writ petitions being filed before
this Court including the W.P.No.29311 of 2011, W.P.No.40072
of 2012, W.P.No.41238 of 2016 and W.P.No.13386 of 2019. It is
the contention of the implead petitioner that the writ petitioners
suppressed the information relating to all these writ petitions
and as such, would not be entitled to any relief before this Court
on this short ground.
6. The implead petitioner would also submit that the
list of elected members furnished by the petitioners to the 2nd
respondent is an irregular list as they were not properly elected
members of the elected body.
3
7. Smt.S.Anvesha learned counsel, appearing for the
implead petitioner in W.P.No.2389 of 2021 would submit that
the petitioners had earlier obtained orders in W.P.No.40072 of
2012, by suppressing the facts and the said order was
subsequently set aside, by way of a review, after the implead
petitioner could bring the necessary facts before this Court. She
would further submit that a Writ Appeal filed against the said
order in review was withdrawn with some observations made by
the Division Bench of this Court.
8. Smt.S.Anvesha submits that on account of these
facts, the petitioners cannot be permitted to press these writ
petitions.
9. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri learned counsel, appearing
for the writ petitioners submits that petitioners have actually
become infructuous as the lists produced by the petitioners
have been accepted by the 2nd respondent. He would submit
that the list relating to the year 2020-21 was accepted after
directions of this Court and that the list for the earlier years was
not accepted by the 2nd respondent. He would further submit
that a Writ Appeal had been filed against the earlier order in
review and the same was withdrawn in view of the observations
of the Division Bench which were in favour of the petitioners.
4
10. Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri would also rely upon the
judgment of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court
of Andhra Pradesh reported in Sri Panguluri Srinivasa Rao vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh1 to contend that the 2nd respondent
has no discretion in the matter and has to simply accept the list
produced by the society.
11. This Court has also been informed, by both sides,
that the original petitions have also been filed and are pending
before the District Court, Kadapa, under Section 23 of the
Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short „the
Act, 2001‟).
Section 9 of the Act, 2001 reads as follows:
"9.Filing of annual list:- Every year the society
shall, within fifteen days from the date on which the
General Body meeting was held, furnish a list to the
Registrar of Societies which shall contain the names
and addresses of the members of the Managing
Committee and Officers entrusted with the
management of the affairs of the Society".
12. This provision has been considered and interpreted
by a learned Single Judge in the Judgments cited above. The
learned Single Judge after considering this provision had held as
follows:
1
2017(5)ALT434 : 2017(6) ALD page 14
5
"A reading of the above provision makes it clear
that it is only an intimation that has to be given by
the Society and the registrar has no role except to
keep the said intimation in his record. No
adjudication is involved. In view of the same, the
action of the second respondent in receiving the
communication from the respondents 3 to 5 can
only be stated to be purely ministerial in nature.
Probably, in view of such a situation, learned
counsel, now tried to place the present situation
under Section 8 of the Act contrary to earlier stand
and it is totally inapplicable to the present case."
13. I am in respectful agreement with the said
interpretation of the provision.
14. In the light of this interpretation, it is clear that any
list produced by persons claiming to represent the society would
have to be kept on file by the Registrar of Societies. However,
mere acceptance of such lists does not in any manner mean that
the Registrar is certifying or legitimizing such lists. The
provision by its very nature makes it amply clear that what is
required by the Society is the furnishing of a list of elected
members. This requirement would not extend to mean that
production of such lists before the Registrar would automatically
amount to a certification of such a list as genuine or that
furnishing of such lists would automatically amount to
6
recognition of the persons mentioned in the list as members of
the Managing Committee.
15. In the event of any dispute as to the status of the
persons mentioned in such lists, the only option available for
resolution of such a dispute is to approach the District Judge
under Section 23 of the Act, 2001.
16. As also held by the learned Single Judge, such
issues cannot be raised by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. In the circumstances, without going into the
question of suppression of fact etc., raised by the implead
petitioner, who has been impleaded as 3rd respondent in both
the writ petitions, these writ petitions are closed, leaving it open
to the petitioners and the 3rd respondent to avail of their
remedies under law.
18. Accordingly, these writ petitions are closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Date: 17-10-2022
RJS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.13386 of 2019 and 2389 of 2021
Date : 17-10-2022
RJS
