S. Afsar Ahmed v. The State of Kerala & Others

## **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, PIN695001.(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** ## **J U D G M E N T** 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 byelaw. 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 **WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) 5** 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 **WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) 6** 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] **WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) 7** 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 **WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) 8** 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** **WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) 9** ## **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** **WP(C).No.21999 OF 2019(Y) 10** **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**