Kerala High Court
S.Afsar Ahmed vs The State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y)
PETITIONER/S:
S.AFSAR AHMED,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.A.G.SAYED AHMED, MAIL GUARD, RESIDING AT
'SUHAAG', SURYA NAGAR, N.S.S. ENGINEERING COLLEGE
P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678008.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
SMT.V.S.RAKHEE
SMT.K.J.GISHA
SMT.SAYUJYA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
DIRECTORATE OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695035.
3 REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
PALAKKAD, PIN-678008.
4 KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL,
STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001, REPRESENTED
BY THE SECRETARY.
* 5 R.AYYAPPAN,
AMBADI, POOJAPPURA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-
695001.(CORRECTED) .
* (THE ADDRESS OF 5TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS'
R.AYYAPPAN, VNRA-165, PANGODU, THIRUMALA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN- 695 006' AS PER ORDER DATED
20.9.2019 IN IA.NO.1/2019 IN WP(C)).
WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) 2
** 6 V.SUNIL KUMAR,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.4 A, M.G.APARTMENTS, VIDHYA
VIHAR ROAD, THEVARA, COCHIN-682013. (CORRECTED).
** (THE ADDRESS OF 6TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS'
V.SUNIL KUMAR, TC.24/1085, METTUKADA, THYCAUD P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 014' AS PER ORDER
DATED 20.9.2019 IN IA.NO.1/2019 IN WP(C)).
7 MRS.MARIAMMA KOSHY,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.4A, M.G.APARTMENTS, VIDHYA
VIHAR ROAD, THEVARA, COCHIN-682013.
8 HOCKEY INDIA,
B1/E3, GROUND FLOOR, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044. REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL.
# 9 KERALA HOCKEY,
SUHAAG, SURYA NAGAR, N.S.S.ENGINEERING
COLLEGE.P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678008, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.(CORRECTED) .
# (THE ADDRESS OF 9TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS'
KERALA HOCKEY, VNRA-165, PANGODU, THIRUMALA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 006' AS PER ORDER
DATED 20.9.2019 IN IA.NO.1/2019 IN WP(C)).
*# 10 ADDL.R10 IMPLEADED:
INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION,
OLYMPIC BHAVAN, B-29,
QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 016.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL.
*# ADDITIONAL R10 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
10.08.2020 IN I.A.1/2020 IN WP(C).
R5 & R9 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.MOHAN LAL
R7 BY ADVS. SRI.YASH THOMAS MANNULLY
WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) 3
SRI.SOMAN P.PAUL
R8 BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SRI.R.GITHESH
SMT.HANI P.NAIR
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
R10 BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE
SRI.A.L.GEORGE
SMT LATHA ANAND, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) 4
JUDGMENT
The Kerala Hockey, the 9th respondent herein, is a Society registered
under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.The Society was
formed with the objective to develop, organize and promote the game of
Hockey in the State of Kerala and other incidental activities. The petitioner
herein was the former Secretary General of the 9th respondent Society.
2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition pertains to
an amendment which was carried out to the bye-laws of the Society in the
Annual General Body Meeting which was held on 2/10/2016, which according
to the petitioner was carried out in a surreptitious manner by the respondents
5 to 7 without properly convening a meeting as per the provisions of the bye-
law. The said respondents are stated to have assumed positions of power by
dethroning the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the amendment so
brought to the bye-laws was filed before 3rd respondent Registrar, who is the
statutory authority, was accepted without properly verifying the same and
without conducting an enquiry. The petitioner also seeks to quash Exhibit P10
endorsement made by the Registrar in the Register maintained by the Registrar
of Societies. The petitioner states that he approached this Court challenging
the acts of the respondents 5 to 7 and by judgment dated 19.12.2017 in
W.P.(C) No.32620/2017, this Court had directed the District Registrar to enquire
into his complaint and take a decision. The District Registrar, in compliance
with the directions, passed Exhibit P17 order holding that the decision to
amend the bye-laws of the society taken on 2/10/2016 was in order and that
there was no violation of the provisions of the Registration Act or the Rules
framed thereunder with regard to the incorporation of the amendment in the
Register maintained in the office of the Registrar of Societies. The District
Registrar proceeded to hold that the internal disputes between the members of
the Society have led the petitioner to raise such claims and the said authority
will not be justified in entering into a deeper probe into the affairs of the
Society which can only be done by the Civil Court. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner has approached this Court with this Writ Petition.
3. The 8th respondent has filed a statement contending that the writ
petition itself was not maintainable. According to the 8th respondent, the
Registrar of Societies is not conferred with the powers or the authority to
determine the validity or otherwise of the Minutes of the meeting or the legality
of the amendment made to the bye-laws of the Society as per the provisions of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is contended that the dispute, if there is
one, has to be adjudicated by the Civil Court under Section 6 of the Act.
4. I have heard Sri. Biju Balakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Smt. Latha Anand, the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th
respondent, Sri. B.Mohan Lal, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.5, 6 and 9 and Sri. John Vargheese, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Indian Hockey Association and Sri.S. Sreekumar, the learned
Senior Counsel who appeared for the 8th respondent Society.
5. The first question is whether the writ petition itself is maintainable or
not. Sri. Biju Balakrishnan, the learned counsel relying on the judgment of the
Apex Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. V. Union of India 1 and the Board of
Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar 2 has argued
that the 8th respondent Association being a body discharging public functions
by holding monopoly over the game of Hockey though would not amount to a
State, would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, tried to
distinguish the ratio and it was argued that the principles laid in the above
decision would be applicable only if the Hockey Association commits any act in
violation of these statutory rights of a citizen. In the case on hand, the internal
dispute between the members of a Society concerning the amendments which
were brought to the bye-laws is being agitated. Essentially, what is contended
is that the amendment carried out to the bye-laws is not in tune with the
regulations governing the functioning of the Society and its bye-laws. There is
no violation of any statutory or fundamental rights of the petitioner nor any
other person. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that while
disposing of the earlier writ petition this Court had no occasion to consider the
1 [2015(4) SCC 649]
2 [2015 (3) SCC 251]
question as to whether the disputes raised by the petitioner are amenable to
be considered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
After hearing the rival submissions and after going through the records, I find
considerable merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel. The inter
se disputes between the members of the Society cannot be a matter which
requires to be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
would also not be proper for this Court to venture into disputed questions and
adjudicate as to whether a meeting was in fact held on 2.10.2016 or whether
the amendment was carried out in a legal manner. The petitioner may have to
establish these aspects in accordance with law if he wants to succeed and that
can only be in a properly instituted suit.
6. Even on merits, I do not think that the petitioner has made out any
case for interference. Insofar as Ext.P17 order is concerned, it is well settled
that this Court, in exercise of judicial review, is not concerned with the
correctness of the finding of fact on the basis of which orders are made so long
as those findings are reasonable and supported by evidence. The duty of the
Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. The Court has to consider
as to whether the decision making authority exceeded its powers, committed
an error of law, violated rules of natural justice, reached a decision which no
reasonable man would have reached or otherwise abused its powers. Though
the Court is not expected to act as a court of appeal, nevertheless it can be
examined whether the decision making process was reasonable, rational, not
arbitrary or not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The 3rd
respondent, after having heard all the parties pursuant to directions issued by
this Court, has concluded that the decision taken to amend the bye-laws on
2.10.2016 and the manner in which the amendment was filed before the
Registrar are in order. Having considered Ext.P17 in all its perspectives, I find
no reason to interfere with the same.
This writ petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL
BODY MEETING OF THE SOCIETY HELD ON
24.8.2014 AT ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CONDUCTING
ELECTION.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
29.8.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
CONTAINING LIST OF OFFICE BEARERS OF
THE SOCIETY.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
13.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER AS
THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE SOCIETY IN
RESPECT OF ANNUAL GENERAL BODY MEETING
PROPOSED TO BE HELD ON 2.10.2016 WITH
AGENDA CIRCULATED AMONG THE MEMBERS OF
THE SOCIETY.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MR.ANIL KOSHY
AND THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 4.10.2016,
07.10.2016 AND ON 13.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE
ATTACHMENT REFERRED TO IN EXT.P5.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
31.7.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
31.7.2017 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURPORTED AMENDMENT
AND THE FABRICATED MINUTES OF THE
MEETING HELD ON 2.10.2016 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF
SOCIETIES IN RESPECT OF THE 9TH
RESPONDENT SOCIETY.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED
6.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
28.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
22.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
& PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
THE WEBPAGE OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
14.8.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.12.2017 IN WPC.NO.32620/2017 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G3-5042/2017
DATED 22.5.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
12.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.17.1.2020
IN WPC NO-1358/2020
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.23.6.2020
IN WPC NO-12153/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
RESPONDENTS'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
