Delhi High Court
Pritam Singh vs Registrar Of Firm And Society And ... on 9 April, 2015
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7517/2012
PRITAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Atul Nigam, Mr Gaurav Prakash &
Ms Priya Pathania, Advs.
versus
REGISTRAR OF FIRM AND SOCIETY
AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms Purnima Maheshwari, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 09.04.2015
1. This writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 27.09.2012 passed by
the Registrar of Societies (ROS)/ SDM (HQ)/District East, Delhi. The
controversy, in short, is as follows:
2. By virtue of the impugned order, the Certification of Registration (in
short COR) of the society bearing title: Gurudwara Singh Sabha Dera Baba
Wadbhag Singh (in short Wadbhag Singh society), has been cancelled. The
said society claims to reside in and operate from the address: 9-11, Shankar
Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi - 110 092 (hereafter referred to as 9-11, Shankar
Vihar property). The application for registration was made by the said
society in 2011-2012.
2.1 At the time of registration requisite documents, relevant for
registration, were supplied by its president, Mr Pritam Singh, i.e., the
petitioner herein. Consequent thereto, a COR was issued by the ROS. This
COR is dated 05.03.2012.
2.2 It appears that the ROS conducted an inquiry based on a
representation made by another society by the name of Gurdwara Siri Guru
Singh Sabha (in short GSGSS). This society, i.e., GSGSS, was registered in
1990 and was accorded a registration no. S-20892/1990. The peculiarity of
this matter is that, this society also claims to reside and operate from the
same premises at which the earlier society, i.e., Wadbagh Singh society,
claims to reside and operate; that is, 9-11, Shankar Vihar property.
2.3 The record shows that upon an inquiry being carried out by the ROS,
it came to light that in respect of Wadbagh Singh society, a lease deed dated
08.02.2012 has been executed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
The ROS, therefore, came to the conclusion that the Wadbagh Singh society
had played a fraud upon him by claiming that it operated from 9-11, Shankar
Vihar property.
3. The petitioner, as indicated above, who was at the relevant time, the
president of the said society, has approached this court under Article 226 of
the Constitution to assail the order dated 27.09.2012, on a short ground,
which is that, ROS had no power under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
(in short SRA), to cancel the COR accorded in favour of the Wadbagh Singh
society.
4. Ms Maheshwari, who appears for respondent no.1, i.e., the ROS, is
unable to show, any provision, under the SRA which would confer power on
the ROS to cancel a COR issued by him.
4.1 It is, on perusal of the provisions of the SRA, that it is discovered, that
the, power to cancel registration accorded or, certificate of renewal issued,
on the ground that it has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud - is
available, under a State Amendment carried out by the State of U.P. The
relevant provision inserted in that behalf in the SRA is, Section 12D(1)(c).
4.2 Quite clearly, this power is not available to the ROS vis-a-vis
societies registered in Delhi.
5. Ms Maheshwari, however, seeks to sustain the order by advancing the
following submissions.
5.1 It is the learned counsel's submission that since the ROS granted the
registration, he would impliedly have the power to withdraw and/or cancel
the same in view of the fraud employed by the Wadbagh Singh society.
Learned counsel contends that since fraud vitiates every action, the
registration accorded by the ROS, can also be cancelled and/or withdrawn.
5.2 Ms Maheshwari says that, essentially, the registration, in this case, has
been cancelled on the ground that the Wadbagh Singh society was unable to
establish its ownership in the premises referred to as : 9-11, Shankar Vihar
property. In this connection, Ms Maheshwari goes on to submit that the said
society had also claimed ownership of the abutting land being, plot no. 12,
which is, a vacant nazul land.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view
that the impugned order passed by the ROS cannot be sustained for the
following reasons:
(i) Clearly, there is no power available with the ROS to cancel the
registration.
(ii) There is nothing brought to my notice, which would show that the
documents furnished at the time when the application for registration was
made by the Wadbagh Singh society were fraught with any defect.
6.1 The only ground on which the COR appears to have been cancelled is,
that, the Wadbagh Singh society, had not been able to show that it was the
owner of 9-11, Shankar Vihar property or the land abutting the said
property, which is referred to as plot no.12.
6.2. In my opinion, this aspect of the matter can have no bearing on the
registration of the Wadbhag Singh society. It is quite clear that there are two
factions which are claiming ownership in the aforementioned immovable
property, and that, one of them, in 2012, obtained a lease deed in its favour,
which has been executed by the DDA.
7. A perusal of the impugned order, in this context, would show that the
petitioner claims that he has been residing in the aforementioned property,
since 1960. In so far as plot no. 12 is concerned, it is not even the case of
GSGSS that it owns the said land.
7.1 Ms Maheshwari has not been able to demonstrate from the provisions
of the SRA or the Rules framed thereunder, anything, which would show
that two societies cannot be housed in the same premises.
7.2 As to which faction can claim ownership of the immovable properties,
referred to above, does not fall within the domain or jurisdiction of the ROS.
8. Therefore, the only logical conclusion which I can reach in the matter,
is that, the impugned order will have to be set aside. It is ordered
accordingly.
9. Needless to say, setting aside of the impugned order will not confer
any right of ownership in the aforementioned immovable properties in the
Wadbagh Singh society. The rights of the other faction in that behalf are not
touched by any observations recorded hereinabove by me.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 09, 2015
kk
