Santhigiri Ashram v. State of Kerala and Others

WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SANTHIGIRI ASHRAM SANTHIGIRI P.O., POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 589, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SWAMI CHATHANYA JNANA THAPASWI** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.V.DEVADETH SMT.C.LEENA SMT.K.S.SUDHA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001** - **2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GENERAL SOCIETY REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001** - **3 SANTHIGIRI NAVAJYOTHISREE KARUNAKARA GURU CHARITABLE SOCIETY (REGISTRATION NO. SNKGCS/TVM/TC - 686/2016, BUILDING NO. 20/54, SANTHIGIRI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 589 REP/ BY ITS PRESIDENT** WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 2 **4 SRI.CHANDRABABU CPCGUTTEJJAT ORESUDEBT IF SABTGUGURU BAVAHYITGUSREE KARUNAKARA GURU CHARITABLE SOCIETY, RESIDING AT JANAPRIYA VILASAM, SANTHIGIRI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 589** **BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN BABU SRI.G.HARIPRASAD** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 3 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** – **-------------------------------------** **W.P.(C.) No.25949 of 2017 -------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of June, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a Charitable Society registered under the provisions of Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. It is submitted that Santhigiri Ashram was established by its founder Navajyothisree Karunakara Guru. It is further submitted that Santhigiri Ashram has obtained registration under the provisions of the Trade Mark Act enabling the society to make use of the name Santhigiri (both in English and Malayalam) and the figure of Lotus Parnasala, believed to be the seat of Guru in view of the certification obtained under the statute. According to the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent-Society, WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 4 Santhigiri Navajyothisree Karunakara Guru Charitable Society got registered under the provisions of the Travancore -Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act by suppressing the material facts and furnishing false and misleading information with regard to its aims and objects and the registration of the society is obtained. It is submitted that on finding these illegal activities undertaken by a person, who was expelled from the organizational setup of Santhigiri Ashram due to his involvement in POCSO Act and his henchmen, the petitioner submitted a representation before the 2[nd] respondent seeking cancel/revoke the registration of the society. The 2[nd] respondent refused to interfere with the same and rejected the application stating that the registration once obtained cannot be cancelled under the provisions of Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. Hence, this writ petition is filed with following prayers : - (i) “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 5 order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P7 order and quash the same. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2[nd] respondent to take up, consider and pass orders afresh on Ext. P6 representation within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court. (iii) Declare the 3[rd] respondent society is not entitled to use the name and address similar to that of the petitioner society on the strength of the registration bearing No.TVM/TC/686/2016 till a final order is passed on Ext.P6 representation by the 2[nd] respondent. (iv) To grant such other and further reliefs this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” [sic] 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the 2[nd] respondent which is challenged by the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P7 would show that the Deputy Registrar dismissed the representation submitted by the petitioner stating that there is no jurisdiction to cancel the registration, once it is registered as per the Travancore-Cochin-Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. The counsel for the WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 6 petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in **Pulluchira Parish Protection Council v. District Registrar (Gen.) Kollam and another.** [2013 (1) KHC 863]. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder : “7. The preamble of the Act itself provides that, it is intended for improving legal conditions of societies established for promotion of literature, science, fine arts or for diffusion of useful knowledge or for charitable purposes. S.3 of the Act enables any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific or charitable purpose, or for any such purposes described in S.32 of the Act, to form themselves into a society by subscribing their names to a Memorandum of Association, and by filing the same with the Registrar. It indicate that any seven or more persons subscribing their names to a Memorandum of Association with an intention and objective of associating themselves for activities enumerated in the said provision, alone is entitled to get registration. S.32 specifies about the categories of societies which can be registered under the Act. It includes, Charitable societies, societies established for promotion of science, literature or fine arts, for diffusion of useful knowledge, for foundation or maintenance of libraries or reading rooms for general use among members or open to the public, for public museums and galleries of painting and other works of art, collections of natural history, mechanical and WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 7 philosophical inventions, instruments or designs. Therefore it is evident that, only those societies with objectives coming within the purview of S.32, read with S.3 of the Act, alone can be registered under the Act. If a society which is formed with an objective other than one coming within the categories of societies mentioned in the Act, is happened to be registered by way of mistake or omission or on the basis of misrepresentation, can the Registrar cancel such registration, is the question mooted for decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as long as the Statute does not confer any power on the 1st respondent to recall or to cancel the registration, such an exercise cannot done by the Registrar. But I am of the opinion that inspite of any specific power conferred under any of the provisions of the Act, the authority empowered to grant registration has got inherent power to cancel / recall the registration, if it is convinced that the registration happened to be issued on the basis of mistake or omission or on the basis misrepresentation. Therefore, the contention that the Registrar will become 'functus officio' once the registration is granted, cannot be accepted. **(underline supplied).** 4. From the above judgment, it is clear that the Registrar has got inherent power to cancel/recall registration, if it is convinced that the registration happened to be issued on the basis of mistake/omission or on the basis of WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 8 misrepresentation. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has no such case in his application. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that his case is that there is mistake/omission/misrepresentation on the part of the party respondents. I do not want to make any observation about the same. A perusal of Ext.P7 would not show that this point is considered by the District Registrar, while deciding the matter. Therefore, to decide this question alone, the matter can be send back to the 2[nd] respondent. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the 2[nd] respondent can decide whether there is mistake or omission or on the basis of misrepresentation, the registration is happened. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : - 1) Ext.P7 is set aside. - 2) The 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 9 **Pulluchira Parish Protection Council's** case (supra), after giving notice to the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. - 3) I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the 2[nd] respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 25949 OF 2017 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25949/2017** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BYE LAWS OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 21.03.2009.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE MARK.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.08.2017 ADDRESSED TO 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.08.2017 ADDRESSED TO 5TH RESPONDENT.**