Telangana High Court

K.S.Gopal vs The State Of Telangana on 4 February, 2025

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
               WRIT PETITION No. 31957 OF 2023
ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed praying to:

"to call for the records relating the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide Letter No 6309/15291983/Soc/2023, dated 03/10/2023 and quash the same and further direct to seize the records and supersede the managing committee of the 4th respondent-Society in the interest of justice."

2. Brief facts rising to file this writ petition are that the petitioner

is claiming to be founder Member of respondent No.4 Society i.e.,

Deccan Development Society (herein after referred as 'DDS'), vide

registered No. 1529/1983 and the said DDS brought an amendment to

bye-laws of the Society, which was approved on 07.09.1994. It is

submitted that initially the said DDS had purchased lands in many

villages by way of donations for the purpose of cultivating and eking

out the livelihood of the weaker section of the societies. The

Government of the then Andhra Pradesh also provided fund grant in

1994-95 to the said DDS based on public distribution system.

Petitioner's further case is that the said DDS withdrew the said funds

and transferred them to their own account leading to collapse of the

scheme.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that said DDS

had already sold 40 acres of land in Mahipatpur (meant for forestry

plantation) and 5 acres in Machnoor village and it is still in possession

of Ac.79-20 Gts. of land besides Krishi Vigyan Kendra land

admeasuring Ac.30. Learned counsel further submit that petitioner

came to know that the DDS incurred an expenditure to the tune of

Rupees 1.25 Crore on account of Apollo Hospital medical expenses of

Late Sri Sateesh, the then Secretary of Society. Subsequently,

petitioner issued legal notice on 16.06.2023, for which vague reply

was given by the said DDS on 05.07.2023 and without answering any

of the allegations / averments made by the petitioner. It is further

submitted that DDS have not indicated the dates of resolutions and

Annual General Meetings in their reply. Aggrieved by the same,

petitioner submitted all to respondent No.3, vide representation

dated 21.09.2023. However, the respondent No.3 without conducting

any enquiry has passed a mechanical order, vide Letter

No.6309/1529-1983/Soc/2023, dated 03.10.2023, which reads as

under:

"With reference to the subject and reference cited above, it is to inform that the Society "Deccan Development Society" was registered at this office vide Regn.No. 1529/1983 on Dt. 02-09- 1983. Later, the Society has submitted a request for the amendment of the objectives of memorandum of society and the same was taken into record by this office on Dt. 16-11-1994.

Thereafter, the society has not submitted any documents for change of the executive body or amendment of bye-laws till date.

Kindly note that Section 23 of the Societies Registration Ac 20 clearly envisages that the Registrar of Societies is not conferred with any power to resolve the internal disputes-of the Society or dispute in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the Society or an issue regarding the elected members. However, in case of any allegations or complaints of the irregularities found within the members of the Society, the same undoubtedly will have to be disposed of in accordance with the Law and further changes are sub-judice.

Hence, you may kindly proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said court shall after necessary inquiry pass order as it may deem fit."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

Respondent No.3 has every power to supervise, inspect and has

general control on the activity of the said DDS and if the DDS fails to

comply with the statutory needs like holding periodic meetings and

non-submission of financial statements, the respondent No.3 may

initiate penal action including cancellation of registration. He would

further submits that the respondent No.3 did not make any effort to

call the members of DDS for enquiry. Learned counsel for the

petitioner further contends that the very purpose of DDS is defeated.

He would further submit that instead of meeting such objections, the

said DDS has been asking it members to sign on blank white papers

and sold the DDS lands. Thereafter, the said amount is being used for

unauthorized personal purposes for corporate medical treatment

facility and further alleged that DDS is not providing information with

regard to statement to the respondent No.3 for the last 29 years. He

would further submit that petitioner has also filed Application under

Right to Information Act to the Registrar of Society seeking

information about Annual Financial Statements and Annual General

Body meetings resolution. However, it is informed to the petitioner

that DDS has not filed any paper from the year 1994 and the same

was brought to the notice of the respondent No.3 about the violation

of statutory provisions and violation of its bye-laws. It is further

submitted that DDS is not maintaining accounts and records of Society

and also not conducting meetings atleast once in a every three

months and is not following the said rules prescribed under law.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit and would submit

that respondent No.4-society has been registered with the Registrar

of Societies under Societies Registration Act, and the petitioner was

one of the Directors of the Society and requested for amendment of

the objectives of Memorandum of Society, dated 06.11.1994,

however the said DDS has not submitted any document for change of

the Executive Body or Amendment of By-laws till date. Learned

Government Pleader would further submit that petitioner has made

complaint on 21.09.2023 stating that the functioning of the said DDS

is not accordance with Articles of Association or Rules of the Society.

The respondent No.3 has replied to the petitioner vide letter, dated

03.10.2023 informing that respondent No.4 Society has not submitted

any documents for change of the Executive Body or Amendment of

Bye-laws till date and also stated that Section 23 of the Societies

Registration Act, 2001 clearly envisages that the Registrar of Society

is not conferred with any power to resolve the dispute of the Society

and the petitioner was informed to seek remedy under the provisions

of arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996) or

may file an application in the District Court concerned. However,

without availing remedy contemplated under law, the petitioner had

straight away filed this writ petition and would submit that the writ

petition is not maintainable and devoid of merits and pray this Court

to dismiss this writ petition.

6. Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit. Learned counsel,

Ms.Sheetal Srikanth appearing for the respondent No.4 reiterated the

submissions made by learned Assistant Government for Stamps and

Registration and submits that petitioner was one of the Director of

Respondent No.4 society. However, the petitioner chose not to

actively engage with the society affairs, while other members

continue to strive hard and mange the society and by its outreach

programmes helped thousands of the weaker section of society. She

would further submit that pursuant to the reorganization of the

States, the respondent No.4-society is governed by the Telangana

State under Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 further would further

submit that any decisions taken by the society is an internal matter

and the same has been taken after due consultation with all interest

parties including their members of the society and funds spend by the

Society is the sole discretion of the Managing committee of the

society and the same will be taken into consideration after taking

objections, if any, by all the members of the society. Learned counsel

had also placed balance sheet of the respondent No.4-Society for the

period between 2018 to 2023 and submits that the said balance sheet

is also available on the public domain of respondent No.4-Society

website.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 draws attention of

this Court to the order, dated 31.08.2021 passed in WP No.15852 of

2021, wherein similar issue was fell for consideration, wherein

respondent No.3 therein i.e., Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Kapra,

issued proceeding dated 06.07.2021 under Section 450 of GHMC Act,

which was challenged in the said writ petition. The Hon'ble Court

passed the following order and the relevant portion of the order is

extracted as under:

i) In view of the above discussion, according to this Court, the bye-laws of the petitioner are not statutory in nature and they do not have any force of law. The remedy available to the petitioner is under Section - 23 of the Act, 2001. This Court is not inclined to declare the proceedings Lr.No.06955/C1/LNZ/GHMC/ 2021-1, dated 06.07.2021, issued by respondent No.3 under Section - 450 of the GHMC Act as illegal and unjust. Further, the petitioner is also not entitled to seek revocation of Building Permit No.3/C1/06693/2021, dated 10.05.2021, issued in favour of respondent No.4 on the ground that respondent No.4 has obtained the same by suppression and misrepresentation of facts, and that he has obtained the same without NOC from the petitioner. As stated above, if at all the petitioner is having any grievance against respondent No.4, more particularly, with regard to violation of its byelaws the remedy available to it is under Section - 23 of the Act, 2001, but not by way of a writ petition. Though the present writ petition is maintainable, it is not an efficacious remedy. According to this Court, the efficacious remedy available to the petitioner is only under Section - 23 of the Act, 2001. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
ii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court on 16.07.2021 stands vacated.

iii) However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed".

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that earlier

WP No.42251 of 2022 was filed seeking to declare the action of the

society therein in not conducing meeting of Executive Committee and

General Body and Elections therein as illegal and the Hon'ble Court

passed the order on 22.11.2022, which reads as under:

"3. In the light of the provision contained under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act, 2001') which provides resolution of disputes arising among the Committee or the Members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, and also in the absence of any provision provided under the Act, 2001 providing for any supervisory jurisdiction or control to the respondents authorities, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under Section 23 2 of the Act, 2001 or any other remedies as available under law."

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 further submits that

earlier WP No.41859 of 2022 was filed seeking to declare the action

of the Department of Registration and Stamps therein to consider the

petitioner's representation against Educational Society therein

complaining certain illegal activities in the society and the Hon'ble

Court passed the order on 17.11.2022 , which reads as under:

3. The petitioner is an Educational Society registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act, 2001'). A perusal of the provisions contained in the Act, 2001, makes it clear that the respondents have no control or supervisory jurisdiction over the petitioner - Educational Society. If there is any grievance against the petitioner -

Educational society or among its Members etc., they have an effective alternative remedy provided under Section 23 of the Act, 2001. As the respondent authorities have no power or authority to deal with the grievances raised in the above referred representations, this Court is not 2 inclined to pass orders directing the respondents to consider the said representations.

4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner - Educational Society to pursue the remedies as provided under Section 23 of the Act, 2001. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 further submits that

without availing alternative remedy available under Section 23 of the

Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, the petitioner has filed

this writ petition, hence this writ petition is not maintainable in the

light of above judgments, hence pray this Court to dismiss the writ

petition in limine.

12. Heard both sides.

13. i) In Andhra Pradesh Kuruma Sangam, Hyderabad vs.

Registrar of Societies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 1 this Hon'ble

Court held that when a dispute as mentioned in Section 23 of the Act

arises, it is required to be resolved by means of arbitration under the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or on an application to be filed

in the District Court. Such a dispute may be among the Committee

members or Society members.

ii) In Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan Memorial Education Society

represented by its Secretary vs. District Registrar of Society,

Nellore, 2007 2,the Court held that power to adjudicate the internal

land dispute of society or to declare the validity of resolution passed

by the society, the aggrieved party can approach the District Court by

filing a petition under Section 23.

iii) In Pothi Swami & Bros vs. Rao Saheb D.Govindarajulu 3,

it was held that if there are disputes with regard to disposal of

property, the adjustment of its affairs shall be referred to the

Principal Court of Original Jurisdiction concerned and that the said

Court shall make such order in the matter including appointment of

Liquidator as it deem fit. The Court means in the cities of Greater

Hyderabad, the City Civil Court and else where the Principal Civil

2003(4)ALD 473=2023 (5)ALT 752

(6)ALT 16 = 2007 (6)ALD 709

AIR 1960 AP 605 = 1960 (1) AnWR 326

Court of original jurisdiction. The Jurisdiction to adjudicate the

dissolution of society and adjustment of its affairs is vested in the

court of the district where the society's registered office is situated.

14. Section 23 of Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 is

extracted below for ease of reference:-

"23. Dispute regarding management.

"In the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member of the society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Central Act 26 of 1996), or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said court shall after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit."

15. Section 23, of Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001

mandates that member aggrieved by the affairs of the Society may

proceed under the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1966

(Central Act 26 of 1996) or may file an application in the District

Court concerned. In the case on hand, the petitioner had not made

any submissions as to how the Registrar violated the statutory

provisions and by-laws.

16. In the light of the provision contained under Section 23 of the

Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act, 2001')

which provides resolution of disputes arising among the Committee or

the Members of the society, in respect of any matter relating to the

affairs of the society, and also in the absence of any provision

provided under the Act, 2001 providing for any supervisory

jurisdiction or control to the respondents authorities, this Court is not

inclined to entertain the writ petition.

17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the

petitioner to avail the remedy provided under Section 23 of the Act,

2001 or any other remedies as available under law. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

shall stand closed.
                                     _____________________________________
                                         JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
Date:    04-02-2025
Note: LR Copy to be marked
B/o.
SHA
 