Citation : 2004 Local Law (CG) 4
the Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside a ministerial order that overturned the results of a school society election in Raipur, finding serious procedural lapses in how the dispute was handled. The court’s decision, issued after a petition from an office bearer of the Shri Muddu Venkat Narayan Rao Memorial School Society, focuses on two central problems: the absence of the threshold number of applicants required to trigger an inquiry under the Societies Registration law, and the improper forum chosen for the appeal.
The dispute began after the society’s election, held on January 5, 2003. The society’s secretary filed the list of elected office bearers and the Assistant Registrar issued a certificate on January 15, 2003, confirming the process. A group of society members — eight in number — challenged the election, claiming they had not been given an opportunity to be heard. They sought relief through a filing addressed to the ministerial appellate authority on January 17, 2003, and the minister entertained and disposed of the appeal on the same day.
Under Section 32 of the Societies Registration Act, however, a formal enquiry into a society’s affairs may only be initiated on the application of either a majority of the governing body or at least one-third of the total society membership. In this case the society had 35 members, so at least 12 were required to meet the one-third threshold. The court noted that only eight members had signed the application, falling well short of the statutory minimum. That shortfall, the court held, fatally undermined the legality of proceeding under Section 32.
The court also examined whether the appeal had been filed in the correct forum. The assistant registrar had issued the initial order, and the statute contemplates an appeal to the Registrar or, ultimately, the State. The High Court found that, rather than lodging the appeal with the Registrar or an appropriate deputized registrar (such as an Additional or Joint Registrar), the appellants took the matter directly to the minister. The court stressed that the statutory definition of Registrar includes those officers deputized to exercise the Registrar’s functions. Given that channels within the Registrar’s office were available and that the appeal should have been routed there, the minister’s intervention was held to be without proper jurisdiction.
Recognizing that the challengers might still have a legitimate grievance, the court gave a narrow and practical direction: if the concerned members file an appeal or petition to the Registrar within 15 days, the Registrar must examine it on the merits and decide according to law. Subject to that direction, the writ petition challenging the ministerial order was disposed of.
This ruling underscores two clear principles. First, statutory thresholds for initiating inquiries into registered societies cannot be ignored; procedural requirements are substantive when they determine who may invoke an investigatory power. Second, administrative hierarchy matters. Appeals should generally flow through the statutory channels set out in the Act, and ministerial intervention where appropriate delegated officers are available will not supplant those channels.
For societies, registrars, and members, the judgment is a reminder to follow the letter of the statute when challenging internal elections. It also leaves the door open for the dissatisfied members to seek relief, provided they proceed through the Registrar’s office within the timeline set by the court.
Case Details : Writ Petition No. 620 of 2003, Shri Mudhu Venkat Narayan Rao Memorial School Society vs. State of C.G. and Ors. (05.01.2004)
Counsels:
For Respondents/Defendant: Rajiv Shrivastava, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 4 to 11
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 27, Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 3(c), Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 32, Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 32(2), Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 4, Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 40
======
ट्रस्ट्स और सोसाइटीज़ – याचिका मंत्री द्वारा पारित आदेश को चुनौती देने के संबंध में दायर की गई थी, जिसमें सहायक रजिस्ट्रार को भारसाधक अधिकारी (मंत्री) के समक्ष बुलाया गया था। न्यायालय ने कहा कि यदि रजिस्ट्रार अवकाश पर थे, तो मामला अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार या संयुक्त रजिस्ट्रार के समक्ष रखा जाना चाहिए था। यह स्थिति नहीं थी कि विभाग में कोई अतिरिक्त या संयुक्त रजिस्ट्रार उपलब्ध नहीं था।
अदालत ने स्पष्ट किया कि “रजिस्ट्रार” का अर्थ सोसाइटी अधिनियम की धारा 3(ग) के अनुसार रजिस्ट्रार, अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार, संयुक्त रजिस्ट्रार आदि सभी अधिकारियों से है, जो रजिस्ट्रार के कार्यों का निष्पादन करने के लिए अधिकृत हैं। इसलिए, भारसाधक अधिकारी अर्थात् मंत्री के समक्ष दायर की गई अपील कानूनन ग्राह्य नहीं थी और मंत्री द्वारा पारित आदेश टिकाऊ नहीं माना गया।
इस चरण पर प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 4 से 11 के अधिवक्ता ने यह प्रार्थना की कि उन्हें रजिस्ट्रार या अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार के समक्ष अपील या आवेदन प्रस्तुत करने का अवसर दिया जाए। इस प्रार्थना का विरोध नहीं किया गया।
न्यायालय ने निर्देश दिया कि यदि ऐसी अपील या आवेदन 15 दिनों के भीतर प्रस्तुत की जाती है, तो रजिस्ट्रार उसे विधि के अनुसार स्वतंत्र रूप से विचार कर निर्णय देंगे।
इन निर्देशों के साथ याचिका का निस्तारण कर दिया गया।
