Telangana High Court

A.Nitish Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 29 January, 2021

Bench: T.Amarnath Goud

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                  Writ Petition No.14666 OF 2020

ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

To issue a writ or direction more specially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in registering the 3rd respondent as a society under the provisions of the Telangana Societies Registration Act 2001, vide registration certificate bearing number 1650/2015 dated 14/12/2015, as illegal arbitrary high handed and contrary to the provision 3(1) of the societies Registration Act and also contrary to the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WP No.3319 of 2013 and consequently set aside the registration certificate bearing number 1650/2015 dated 14/12/2015 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner is owner and resident of

Villa No.08, Fortune Indra Villae, Guttala Begumpet, Madhapur,

Hyderabad. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein styling themselves

as President and Secretary along with the Executive Committee

Members who are the owners of the Villas / Apartments, formed

into an association, vide 3rd respondent, and approached the 2nd

respondent for registration of the said association as a society

under the provisions of the Telangana Societies Registration Act

2001 (for short, 'the Act'). The 2nd respondent in turn registered

the same as a society in the name and style of Fortune Indra Villae

Welfare Association, vide Registration Certificate bearing

No.1650/2015, in terms of the provisions of the Act.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that since none of the aims

and objects of the 3rd respondent are in strict compliance with the

provisions of the Section 3 (1) of the Act, which deals with the

registration of societies, the 2nd respondent cannot register the 3rd

respondent. Hence he filed an application dated 22.01.2020 before

the 2nd respondent to cancel the registration of the 3rd respondent.

But the 2nd respondent issued a reply dated 11.02.2020 stating

that he has no power to cancel the registration of the 3rd

respondent. Hence the present Writ Petition.

4. The 5th respondent filed his counter. It is submitted that

Clause No.9 of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner

shows that the petitioner and his wife agreed to be a Member of the

society to be registered and shall abide by the bye-laws of the

society. The petitioner is a beneficiary of the association and its

activities, but, he is a defaulter in payment of monthly

maintenance etc., to the society and to get over his defaults he filed

the present Writ Petition. After formation of the association of 3rd

respondent it has been conducting its activities in accordance with

its bye-laws as well as for the benefits of the members. However,

with a mala fide intention, the petitioner as one of the active

member, registered another association under the same name and

style of Fortune Indra Villae Welfare Association and with the same

registration bearing No.1650 dated 16.6.2016 and used the same

PAN card for one year for operating bank accounts for their

transactions in the rival society. As the members of the rival

association are interfering with the 3rd respondent, the 3rd

respondent filed SOP No.599 of 2016 under Section 23 of the

A.P.Public Society Registration Act, 2001, seeking a declaration

and injunction against the rival society and its office bearers

wherein an interim injunction was also grated by the learned XIII

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, vide order dated

10.4.2017. As against the said interim order, the petitioner herein

filed Civil Revision Petition No.3063 of 2017 before this Court and

it is still pending. Hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondent Nos.4 and 5 are collecting money from all the villa

owners and failed to attend to the necessary services promised by

them and that the amounts so collected are not being utilized

properly and the society became defunct. He further submitted

that the registration of the 3rd respondent itself is in contravention

of Section 3 (1) of the Act since none of the aims and objects of the

3rd respondent fulfill the conditions laid down in the above Section

of law. He relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.3319 of 2013 dated 05.3.2013.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the petitioner has contested in the elections

conducted for different posts of the society and was declared

elected as Joint Secretary of the 3rd respondent society

unanimously as there was no contest to all posts. He further

submitted that in order to over come the dues payable by him, the

petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court as an arm twisting

method.

7 For the purpose of resolving the issue in the present Writ

Petition, this Court feels that it is apposite to extract Section 3(1) of

the Act, which reads as under:

"Any seven or more persons forming a society which has for its object the promotion of art, fine art, charity, crafts, religion, sports (excluding games of chance), literature, culture, science, political education, philosophy or diffusion of any knowledge or any public purpose may be registered under this Act."

8. As could be seen from the records, the Election Officer

issued the election notification on 24.12.2020 and the elections

were scheduled on 20.01.2021 and since only one set of

nomination was received for all the posts and as there was no

contest, all office bearers were declared elected as unanimously. It

is pertinent to note that the petitioner also got elected to the seat of

Joint Secretary along with other office bearers as seen from the

proceedings of the election officer dated 20.1.2021.

9. It is also an admitted fact that in Clause No.9 of the

registered sale deed document No.3744 of 2015 dated 26.3.2015,

the petitioner and his wife agreed to be a Member of the society to

be registered and shall abide by the bye-laws of the society.

10. It is a further admitted fact that the 4th respondent herein

filed SOP No.599 of 2016 seeking a declaration and injunction

against the rival society and its office bearers wherein an interim

injunction was also granted by the learned XIII Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy, vide order dated 10.4.2017. The said suit is

still pending. Questioning the interim order, the petitioner filed

CRP No.3063 of 2017 but failed to get any interim order.

11. Further, it is the undisputed contention of the respondents

that the petitioner is a defaulter in payment of the maintenance

charges.

12. All the above admitted facts go against the petitioner.

Further, on one hand, the petitioner is seeking to cancel the

registration granted to the 3rd respondent and on the other hand,

he was in the elections to the same society on 20.01.2021 and was

elected as Joint Secretary. The actions of the petitioner are in

gross violation of the maxim of 'approbate and reprobate'. He

cannot both approve and reject an instrument, often more

commonly described as blowing hot and cold.

13. A civil litigation is already pending before the competent civil

court. Therefore, the petitioner, having not been successful before

the civil court, has intelligently approached this Court to get

redressal, which action of the petitioner in approaching different

forums, one after another, is not appreciable.

14. The facts and circumstances of the case referred to in

W.P.No.3319 of 2013 between M/s. Nuggest Estates Pvt Ltd, Vs.

Govt. of A.P & Others, are distinguishable to the case on hand.

The bye-laws of the society in the said case are different from the

bye-laws of the 3rd respondent society herein since the Society in

the above Writ Petition was registered without complying with

requirements under Section 3 of the Act, the registration was

questionable. But whereas in the present case, the 3rd respondent

society in its aims and objectives vide Cl.3 (vii) and 3 (x) viz.,

3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

(i)x x x x

(ii)x x x x

(iii)x x x x

(iv)x x x x

(v)x x x x

(vi)x x x x

(vii) To increase a sense of brotherhood, co-operation, mutual harmony, love and affection amongst the members of the Association and also amongst the general public.

(viii)x x x x

(ix)

(x) To promote/encourage social activities like entertainment, sports, educational programs etc.

15. The above clauses are as per Section 3 of the Act. Therefore,

the said judgment in W.P.No.3319 of 2013 is not applicable to the

facts of the case on hand.

16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I

am of the considered view that the present Writ Petition is frivolous

and misconceived and is accordingly liable to be dismissed with

costs.

17. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable to the Telangana