IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16430 of 2008 Between: 1 The Indigenous Churches in India Trust, Hebron Church, Golconda Cross Roads, Hyderabad -500020 Rep. by its Chairman. 2 Bro.K.Phillip S/o.V.K.Phillip Hebron Church, Golconda Cross Roads, Hyderabad -500020 3 Bro.Theoder Reginald S/o.Late Sargunar Hebron Church, Golconda Cross Roads, Hyderabad -500020 4 Bro.F.C.S.Peter S/o.M.N.Peter Hebron Church, Golconda Cross Roads, Hyderabad -500020 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Registrar of Societies, O/o.The Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, NBK Estate, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Bro. G.T.Benjamin S/o.Tirumalaiah Hebron Church, Golconda Cross Roads, Hyderabad -500020 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in declaring that the Society i.e., 'Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India', which was dissolved more than four years back by Resolution dated 23.3.2004 and all its assets and liabilities were transferred to the 1st Petitioner Trust, i.e., 'The Indigenous Churches in India Trust', is in vogue by his proceedings in Letter No. Soc2/2111/08, dated 19.2.2008, as illegal, without jurisdiction, power or authority and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 (1) (c), 25, 26 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequentially set aside the proceedings of the 1st Respondent in Letter No. Soc2/2111/08, dated 19.2.2008 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.R.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 16430 of 2008 24-06-2009 Oral Order: The first petitioner is the Indigenous Churches in India Trust and the other three, individuals who claim to be the members of the 1st petitioner-Trust. They seek the following relief: declaring the action of the 1st respondent in declaring that the Society i.e., ‘Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India’, which was dissolved more than four years back by Resolution dated 23-03-2004 and all its assets and liabilities were transferred to the 1st petitioner- Trust, i.e., ‘The Indigenous Churches in India Trust’, is in vogue by his proceedings in Letter No. Soc 2/2111/08 dated 19-02-2008, as illegal, without jurisdiction, power or authority and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 (1)(c ), 25, 26 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 and the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequentially set aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Letter No. Soc. 2/2111/08 dated 19-02-2008. The impugned letter dated 19-02-2008 was addressed by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent in response to a letter dated 31-01-2008 addressed by the 2nd respondent to the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps requesting information as to whether the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India (Registered No. 114 of 1971) dated 22-02-1971 is in vogue or not. In response the 1st respondent addressed the impugned letter which reads: With reference to your letter cited, it is informed that the society i.e., “The Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India’ Regd. No. 114 of 1971 is in vogue, but some court cases are pending with various Court of law, after necessary inquiry pass such order as it may deem fit. Sri K. R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that in a Resolution of the Special General Body Meeting of the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India, Registered No. 114 of 1971, held on the 23rd March, 2004 at 12-30 P.M., it was resolved unanimously to dissolve the said Society and to transfer the assets and liabilities, if any to the Indigenous Churches in India Trust, by 10-00 A.M. on 25th March, 2004; that Resolution was communicated to the 1st respondent and therefore the Society stood dissolved as per the provisions of Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (Act No. 35 of 2001) (for short ‘the 2001 Act’). The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. To the extent relevant and material for the purposes of this lis, paragraph No. 14 of the counter asserts that the writ petitioners without prior intimation to the answering respondent as required under Section 24 of the 2001 Act had conducted the General Body Meeting and passed a Resolution and therefore the Resolution is not in accordance with law. It is however admitted that after the General Body Meeting, the Resolution was communicated on 24-03-2004, but there was no prior intimation of the General Body to dissolve the existing Society. It is asserted by the 1st respondent that subsequent registration under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (for short ‘the 1882 Act’) of another Trust cannot be valid since the previous Society was not dissolved in accordance with law. By the ambiguous assertions in paragraph No.14 of the counter, the 1st respondent (according to the learned Government Pleader) intends to convey that under Section 24 of the 2001 Act, a Society desirous of dissolution should give prior intimation of a meeting to pass a resolution for dissolution. Section 24 of the 2001 Act, to the extent relevant and material reads as under: 24. Dissolution of Society and adjustment of its affairs:-- (1) A society may, by passing a special resolution, determine that it shall be dissolved of and thereupon, with prior intimation to the Registrar, it shall be dissolved at the time specified in the resolution and all the necessary steps shall be taken for the disposal and settlement of the property of the society, and its claims and liabilities according to the bye-laws, if any, of the society, and if there are no bye-laws to this effect in the manner as the General Body may find it expedient: On a true and fair construction of Section 24 of 2001 Act, the conclusion is compelling that no prior intimation to the Registrar is enjoined to convene a meeting of the Society for passing a special Resolution for dissolution. A Society in the context is an association of persons whose associational and dis-associational rights are part of the guarantee under Article 19 (1)(c) of the Constitution of India which guarantees that all citizens have the right to form associations. The rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (c) are subject to imposition of reasonable restrictions spelt out in sub-Article (4). Article 19 (4) enacts that the guarantees enumerated in 19 (1)(c) shall be subject to the operation of any existing law insofar as it imposes in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of the India and public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause. In the absence of any legislative enumerated compelling interest as enumerated in Article 19 (4) an association of citizens has the right to associate and equally a right to dis-associate. Neither in the constitutional context nor in the context of the provisions of Section 24 of the 2001 Act, is it a necessitous that prior permission or leave of the 1st respondent is required, to convene a meeting of the Society for passing a special resolution for its dissolution. No prior intimation to the Registrar is enjoined for a Society, to meet to resolve to dissolve. A resolution for dissolution is a right integral to the right to associate. Only an intimation of a resolution as to dissolution is required to be given to the Registrar of Societies because the formal existence of the Society is owed to the process of registration under the Act. The legislative philosophy underlying the prescription as to an intimation to be given to the Registrar is to ensure that the book keeping activity of recording the dissolution is ensured. Nothing more and nothing else is enjoined. The assumption by the 1st respondent that the Registrar has a say in the decision of dissolution is a fallacy that has no legislative foundation. Since the fact is admitted by the 1st respondent in paragraph No.14 of the counter that the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India, had conducted a General Body Meeting and thereat had passed a Resolution dated 23-03-2004 and intimated the fact to the 1st respondent on 24-03-2004, the formalities enjoined under Section 24 of the 2001 Act are complied with and the dissolution of the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India has been formalized in accordance with law. If somebody aggrieved and having a locus is desirous to impeach the composition or regularity of the body which passed the resolution, such a dispute must be presented before the appropriate forum entrusted with the adjudication of disputes arising under the provisions of the 2001 Act. The 1st respondent does not contest the fact that the General Body at the Meeting held on 23-03-2004 has passed a special resolution to dissolve the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India. If that be so, the said Society stood dissolved (so far as the 1st respondent is concerned) on the intimation having been made to the said respondent on 24-03-2004. On the aforesaid analysis, the impugned letter dated 19-02-2008 addressed by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent stating that the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India, Registered No. 114 of 1971 is in vogue, is based on a fallacious interpretation of law and a misconstruction of the role of the 1st respondent in the matter of dissolution of a Society registered under the 2001 Act. Sri Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the 1st respondent had no business or authority to address the impugned letter to the 2nd respondent. This contention is stated to be rejected. The 1st respondent is a statutory authority and a keeper of public information as the Registrar under the provisions of the 2001 Act. In the absence of any compelling and counterveiling public interest considerations such as the security and integrity of India or other equally compelling public concerns, the 1st respondent is required to furnish any enquirer the information in the public domain, in this case as to the existence of a Society registered under the provisions of the 2001 Act. The act of Registration is an information in the public domain that any citizen may request information about. The 2nd respondent did address a letter dated 31-01-2008 is an enquiry whether the Society of the Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India is in existence. The impugned letter intimates to the 2nd respondent in the affirmative to the query. The response is erroneous but the right to respond cannot be gainfully contested. On the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds no infirmity in the conduct of the 1st respondent addressing the impugned letter dated 19-02-2008 to the 2nd respondent but holds and declares that the information in the said letter that the Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India, Registered No. 114 of 1971 ‘is in vogue’ is an information that is erroneous insofar as the 1st respondent is concerned, having regard to the special resolution passed by the said Society on 23-03- 2004 and intimation of such Resolution furnished to the 1st respondent on 24-03-2004. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 24-06-2009 Pvks