Dinesh Kumar & Another vs The Registrar Of Societies & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 3268 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 11th July, 2011
+                  W.P.(C) 6988/2010

         DINESH KUMAR & ANOTHER                 ..... Petitioners
                     Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Adv.

                            versus
         THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES & ORS         ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Mirza Aslam Beg for Ms. Sonia
                                Sharma, Adv. for R-1.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may              Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             Not necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            Not necessary
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Though this petition had come up before this Court first on 20 th

October, 2010 and has been adjourned from time to time but only for

consideration for admission. On the last two dates the petition is being

adjourned for the petitioner to file an affidavit explaining the laches in

filing this petition. The counsel for the petitioner today states that an

affidavit has been filed in this regard. Not finding the same on record,

another copy thereof has been handed over by the counsel for the petitioner

and taken on record. The counsels have been heard.

2. The two petitioners claim to be members of the respondent no.2 All

India SC/ST Railway Employees Association, a Society registered under

the Societies Registration Act, 1860. They have filed this petition

impugning the amendments carried out in the year 2004 to the

Memorandum of Association of respondent no.2 Society averring that such

amendments were carried out without following the requisite procedure.

Mandamus is sought against the respondent No.1 Registrar of Societies to

decide the representation of the petitioner impugning the said amendments.

3. The challenge to the amendments as aforesaid is after six years from

the time they were carried out. In the affidavit handed over today, the

delay is explained by pleading correspondence exchanged from time to

time. It is also stated that though elections to the respondent No.2 Society

were held in the year 2008 but the newly elected office bearers also

adopted the said amendments of 2004. It is also pleaded that earlier also a

writ petition being WP(C) No.247/2009 was preferred in this regard but

which was withdrawn on 27th April, 2009 with liberty to seek appropriate

civil remedy in accordance with law. It is yet further pleaded that

thereafter a civil suit was filed by some other persons impugning the

amendments but the plaint therein was rejected vide order dated 1st

December, 2009. It is stated that this petition has been filed thereafter.

4. The counsel for the respondent No.1 Registrar of Societies

appearing on advance notice states that the Registrar under the Societies

Registration Act has no power in the matter and is not in a position to

decide the inter se disputes between the Members and the Management of

the Society. It is stated that the Registrar is only a registering authority and

is not empowered to approve or disapprove any amendment or to take any

action with respect to any irregularities.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to show any

duty or obligation under the law upon the Registrar of Societies to take any

action and which it may be failing to perform or take. Without the

petitioners showing that there is any denial to perform the obligation or

duty required to be performed in law, no mandamus can be claimed.

6. Besides the aspect of delay, which has not been satisfactorily

explained, I am also of the view that the writ petition qua the inter se

disputes of Members and the Management of the Society does not lie. The

earlier writ petition preferred for the same relief though by others was also

withdrawn with liberty to seek appropriate relief. The rejection of the

plaint in the suit preferred thereafter was as barred by limitation. If the

plaintiffs in the suit are aggrieved from the said finding, they are to seek

remedies against the said judgment and cannot again maintain a writ

petition. I may also notice that the challenge to the amendment is inter

alia on the ground that the notice preceding the meeting in which the

amendments were carried out was defective. The said plea raises a

disputed question of fact which in any case cannot be adjudicated in writ

jurisdiction.

7. The counsel for the petitioners has invited attention to the letter

dated 15th September, 2006 of the Registrar of Societies intimating the

respondent no.2 Society that the amendment of 2004 had been accepted.

The counsel has contended that the writ petition would be maintainable

impugning the said acceptance. However, the counsel is unable to show

any provision in the Act vesting any discretion in the Registrar of Societies

in this regard. None is found by this Court. The dispute as aforesaid is as

to the internal management of the respondent no.2 Society and ought to be

raised by way of civil suit and cannot be the subject matter of a writ

petition.

8. There is thus no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 11, 2011 M.

(corrected and released on 28th July, 2011)