Telangana High Court
Durvasula Sita Mahalakshmi vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.17184 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. With their consent, this
writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. This writ petition is filed to call for the records from the
respondents and quash the registration certificate of respondent
No.4 bearing No.1511/2014 dated 15.11.2014 registered by
respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary as the same is not
registered in accordance with the circular memo
No.Soc/7124/2018 dated 28.01.2019 issued by respondent No.2
against the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2001
pursuant to the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2024,
01.04.2024.
3. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstance
this Court in W.P.No.8856 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022, passed the
following order:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioners has
brought to the notice of this Court the decision
in Nugget Estates Private Limited v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, wherein this
Court, while quashing the registration
impugned therein, has held as under:
'8. In Hamabai Framjee Petit Vs.
Secretary of State for India in Council,
MANU/MH/0129/1911 : (1911) 13 BLR
1097, the High Court of Judicature of
Bombay held that the phrase 'public
purpose' must include a purpose i.e., an
object or aim in which the general
interest of the community as opposed to
the particular interest of individuals is
directly and vitally concerned. On
appeal, this view was upheld by the
Privy Council AIR 1914 P.C. 20.
9. While dealing with the phrase
'public purpose' a Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs.
Kameshwar Singh
(MANU/SC/0020/1952:AIR 1952 S.C.
252) held as under: "...The expression
'public purpose' is not capable of a
precise definition and has not a rigid
meaning. It can only be defined by a
process of judicial inclusion and
exclusion. In other words, the definition
of the expression is elastic and takes its
colour from the statute in which it
occurs, the concept varying with the
time and state of society and its needs.
The point to be determined in each case
is whether the acquisition is in the
general interest of the community as
distinguished from the private interest
of an individual". (Emphasis supplied)
10. The members of respondent No.4-
Association are private individuals who
came together for the purpose of
maintenance of the apartments
purchased by them. Even if the term
'any public purpose' is stretched to its
widest amplitude, none of the objects
with which respondent No.4-
Association has been formed, would
satisfy the said term, for, 'public
purpose' necessarily involves the
interests of community at large and
their well-being. In the context in which
the phrase 'public purpose' is used in
Section 3(1) of the Act, by no stretch of
imagination it can be held that it
intended to cover a group of residents of
a residential apartment.
11. For the above mentioned reasons,
the impugned registration cannot be
sustained under the provisions of the
Act and accordingly the same is
quashed. This order, however, does not
preclude respondent No.4-Association
from registering itself under any other
enactment, under which such
registration is permissible".
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.4 has fairly conceded the above
said judgment.
Having regard to the same, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned registration in favour
of the respondent No.4 is contrary to the
provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies
Registration Act, 2001, and the same is
accordingly quashed. However, it is made clear
that this order, does not preclude respondent
No.4-Association from registering itself under
any other enactment, under which such
registration is permissible.
Subject to the above, the writ petition is
allowed."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pray this Court to
pass similar orders as passed in W.P.No.8856 of 2022 dated
01.09.2022. While deciding the said case, this Court referred to
the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nugget
Estates Private Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents
has not disputed the same.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. None appeared on
behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.
7. Recording the submission made by learned counsel
appearing on either side and in terms of order passed by this
Court in W.P.No.8856 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022, this writ
petition is allowed and the impugned registration in favour of
respondent No.4 is contrary to the provisions of the Act, and the
same is hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Miscellaneous
applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to
costs.
_________________________________
JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date: 21.08.2024
mrm
