.. ?; . ^: •^,.^'^a, cyw:' ^^ _......^%'^'< ...-•-•••".^••••^' .>.(--w^^'^^-"-r'' "s^^^-^""" .da -y^ i 'g'o'andwy Xsnei. •li'J. 'sBEtj ,5 ssmaQg 'asj^sfSsa 4y8^®Tssff fflt' (*3'3 ) •itidsst-Tg 'B^eqqEi.i.iei; [>IBOi6 e^u SRdfsy'sevie^s 'K.ieaififi 'SUaTJ !; SST1T009 ^o xex^sfSay ^ye^sfSS^ *(*3*3)*-ll'ldTBS <aanorR*j..'3B5B(i] wdnug 3— Q i'SUBT^ % SBi^sTaos ^o aea^STBB}] (*.z >*(*3*3) 31*clTBjj*8tltptT(ig*5*}ra 'id^SllpBI a; saasuiaiog ^ae^saoss qBiaoaqq. '43E6sT^eBt@ jos»e:t5 .*t SBsaafi ^ '^ 83 N0 It Xil.3 d j*(*9*3) s;Ela@ - t3T^ST@ t ITSt|el 'TCB-rTEjg'aefey njysy 'fr V/9 W >P°Ta'2-9I6M*°N s.iataeiie ss3yaaw faBapTsa-ld Bytx 4Snuiq»'( eggf -•O|!j |*68a) '55383803 »»HE51IHSl.iaV3SIlVHB3 lli s*z@@z ZZTT t-*q»*d*n • BaW9SIXVHN3 - BEldSfflIB 1»SyBlTOiatiC J0 18003 I.J3IM 3W.VI ^D /' ^ -'&. fC- > Paga II S.j Cbhatisgarh PradeahShikshafi; Gongress,thEOugh RattaBaiatree RagistcattoR No^- 36. Address*:1 fc-35,PEiyadarsanI lllaSsB»®ilaspBi-»| Tabsil & DIatriet- Bilaspur (G«6<i) R E.S P O K D 6H TS BBIT P&TITIOil UND6R aRTXCUe 226/227 OF EOHsmUTION OF t W. HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLB SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA. J, PETITIONER RESPONDBNTS WritPetItion No.lt77 of 2002 Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Petitioa u/ArticIe 226/227 ofthe Constitytion of todia Appearaace: Shri Rahul Birtharey, counsel for the petitioner. Shd Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt.. Advocate State/respondents 1 to 4. .-*1 . ' ' . ' None for respondent No.5. for ' the ORAL-QRDER (Passedon 27.4.2011) Heard. 2. By fhis petition, fhe petitioner has called in question correctness, legality and validity of order dated 10th April, 2002 passed by respondent-State in its capacity as the AppeUate Authority, dismissing the petitioner's appeal agalnst order dated 6ttl February, 2001 passed by fhe Registrar, Flrms and Society rejecting petitioner's objection aad registermg respondent No,5 in ffie name and style "Chhattisgarh Pradesh Shikshak Cpngress". . -ri->^. ' • - 3. Facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in fhis petition are that the petitioner, claimmg to be an asspciation of the teachers, appMed for registration as a Society under fhe ^s^• E-"'iSa ^^\ 1 &"sll^.l - 2 - - sii'l]!!'!!;: provision of the then MadUya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (heremafter referred to as "the Act of 1973"} and it was duly re^stered vide order of registration dated 17.7. 1998 in the name and st571e "Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress". A certi&cate of registration was issued by fhe Registrar of Society, placed on reeord as Annexure P-2. 4. Respondent No.5, which also claimed to be an association of the teachers, applied for grant of registration after re-organization of State of M.P. under M.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, before the Registrar of Firms and Sodety, CIihattisgarh. When fhe petitioner- association came to know that an application for registration has been made by respondent No.5 m the name, which too nearly resembles the name of the petitioner-sociely, an objection was preferred on 2.2.2001. However, the objection was over-n-iled and vide order dated 6.2.2001 (Armexure P-4), respondent No.5 was registered in the name and style "Chllatdsgarh Pradesh Shikshak Congress". Aggrieved by registration of respondent No.5 in the name of "Chhatti.sgarh Pradesh Shikshak Congress", the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the State Govt. which has been dismissed, ghring rise to fhis petition. 5. Leamed counsel for the pefitioner argued fhat fhe petitioner- Society has been registered in the name and style ''Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress" much before the applicatton for registratiou •-u:;r:l!;:i-.-3T- ; ^s^~^3SS:wi,!^,:,VJ:lsi^i&-svS\i i -f' %. l^ '^^'' .^y -3- ^ moved by respondent No.5. it is submitted that fhe respondent No.5 could not be granted registration in the name of "Chhattisgarh PradesU Shikshak Congress", because fhe same too nearly resembles fhe name of the petitioner-Society i.e. "Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress", in view _of the provision contained in Section 6 (2) (a) ofthe Act of 1973. He submits that except the word "Pradesh", the name and style, in which fhe two societies have been registered, is identical. Therefore, the naine tn wMch respondent No.5 applied for registration, too nearly resembles with the name and style ui which the petitioner association has been registered. It is submitted that fhis objection was not appreciated 3n proper perspective in the light of the aforesaid statutory provision contained m Section 6 (2) (a) of fhe Act of 1973. Respondent No.5 has been illegally registered in fhe name and style "Chhattisgarh Pradesh Shikshak Congress". It is next contended that on appeal being preferred, fhe AppeUate Authority has not at all adverted to this specific aspect, even fhpugh very specific grounds in that regard were raised by the petitioner in his statutory 'appeal preferred before the State Govt. with specific reference to the statutoiy scheme engrafted in Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act of 1973. Leamed cpunsel for the petitioner submlts ttiat in this manner fhe registration of respondent No.5 ia the nain~e and style "Chhattisgarh Eradesh Shikshak Congress" is Ulegal, being in violation ofthe statutory ; l:;j tit;fi "•]:37°;-T7ai3-;£isS.fif^i:Sti^Tit.'i:&'3??Sr;ti£'i^te 8 ;:1..^ -4- provision contained in Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act of 1973 and is therefore liable to be set aside. 6. On fhe other hand learned coiinsel for fhe State submitted that fhe president. of fhe petitioner -association was earlier president of Durg Division of M.P. Shikshak Congress, Bhopal. Later on, Union of Dui^ Division was dissolved and the president of fhe petitioner- society was also removed and expeUed from the prunary meiabership of the society. Whereafter, he applied for grant of reg.stration in the name of Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress, which was granted. It is subinitted by learned counsel for the State that in fact registration of the petitioner in the name of "Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress" itsetf is bad and illegal because fhat is also hit of the provision contained ui Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act of 1973 as it too nearly reseinbles fhe then registered society "M.P. Shikshak Congress". It is further submitted that fhe registering authority as weU as fhe appellate authority have duly considered the entire aspect of the matter and dismissed the appeal, which does not suffer from any illegality and fhe petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 7. The petitioner society was registered vide registraflon No.4968 vide order dated 17.7.1998 under the provision ofthe Act of1973 in the name and style ''Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress". Respondents have not substantially disputed the aforesaid fact. It has also not been disputed fhat'on fhe date when respondent .AS^^^SSSG ^-/5:- No.5 applied for registration in fhe name "Chhattisgarh Pradesh Shlkshak Congress", the registration in the name of fhe petitioner existed. Though, leamed counsel for fhe State made an attempt to coUaterally challenge the correctaiess and validly of regista-ation of petitioner-association earlier in fhe year 1998, I am not inclined to entertain fhe sarne as fhe respondents have never eanceUed nor have taken any action for cancellation of such registration. No laaterial to fhat efifect has been placed on record. In the absence of there being any chaUenge to fhe registration of the petitioner-society in fhe name and style "Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress", the aforesald submission of leamed counsel for the State has to be rejected. 8. The name and style "Chhattisgarh Pradesh Shikshak Congress" under which respondent No.5 has been granted registration by fhe Assistant Regstrar, Firms and Society, Raipur (Annexi.ire R-4J. and the nanie and style Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress", under which petitioner has been registered, if I may say so, too nearly resembles. Both (he Societies in their naine and style appeared to be representative society of teachers. The only word which has been admittedly mcorporated in fhe name and style of respondent No.5 is "Pradesh". Rest of fhe words in fhe name of both the societies are fhe same. Therefore, the registration of respondent No.5 in the name and style "Chhattisgarh Pradesh'SBikshak Congress" is clearly in fhe teeth of provision contained in Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act of1973. i]rt'r;|l!..:i|i •.:-ir.j;Ui,:';; ^S::5evS:£fS~r'^Ss i •^l ^ '^^' '•)i^^^^" •'siasf Praveen r - 6 - ^f 9. The aforesaid provision nof only prohibits use of a name whicli is identical, but also a name which too nearly resembles. Therefore, apparently, actioti of registration of respondent No.5 in the name and style "Chhattis^rh Pradesh Shikshak Congress" is Ulegal and in excess authority iinder the law. The Appellate Authority has also not looked into this aspect and hasjustified the order of registration in favour of respondent No.5, on certain consideration, which are whoUy irrelevant. 10. In the result, the petition is aUowed. The order dated 10th April, 2002 passed by the Appellate Aufhority as weU as registration of respondeht No.5 in the name and style ''ChhattisgarK Pi-adesh Shikshak Congress" (Aiinexure P-4) is quashed. 11. Since the action has been held to be illegal on the ground that fhe riame and style used by respondent No.5 has been registered in' violation of fhe provlsion contained m Section 6 (2) (a) of fhe Act of 1973, resporident No.5 would be at liberty to apply for registration in any ofher name and style before the competent authority in accordance with law. ^nindiaM"tlaB Judge Shrivastava ...:^S'SW^SsS^Si