IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 26506 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ZIYAM P.ASHRAF, CHAIRMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION COUNCIL & LAW RESEARCH CENTRE, C/O.JALADHARA BOREWELLS, R.R.ARCADE, OPP.TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, MUNDAKAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY MR.M.V.THAMBAN, ADVOCATE MR.R.REJI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT: --------------- THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) KOTTAYAM. BY MR.P.NARAYANAN,GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26506 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent in directing the petitioner to undertake corrections, deletions and additions to Exhibit P2 Memorandum and bye law of the society proposed to be registered. The petitioner is the Chairman of Civil Rights Protection Council and Law Research Centre which is sought to be registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955. Exhibit P3 is the copy of the corrected Memorandum. Aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent and challenging the power of the respondent to suggest such variations, this writ petition has been filed. 2. As directed by this Court, a statement has been filed by the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that the proposal of Memorandum and bye law reveals the fact that the main aim and objects of the society are not consistent with W.P.(C) No.26506/2009 2 Sections 3 and 32 of the Act. Examples are shown in the statement as to how various clauses are opposed to the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. One of the amendments suggested is regarding clause 8(4) relating to amendment of bye law. As per the bye law produced by the petitioner, amendment can be passed only with majority of 2/3rd of the members present and voting. The amendment suggested by the Registrar is by replacing the number “2/3rd” with the words “3/5th” of the total members of the society. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that such majority is required only for the purpose of changing the object of the society as such. Therefore, appropriate provision can be incorporated in clause 8(4). Regarding the other suggestions made by the respondent, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is agreeable to effect the said corrections and variations. The petitioner will therefore, refile the Memorandum W.P.(C) No.26506/2009 3 and bye law in accordance with the said suggestions within a period of one month and the respondent will take such action in accordance with the provisions of the Act to register the bye law within a further period of one month. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp