IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 761 of 2011(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. MAJEED, S/O.MATHENA, AGED 42, PADINJARE KALATHEZHATH, NADUVATHU NAGAR.P.O., VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SHUAIUB.M., DARUL ISLAM, VADUTHALA JETTY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.L.GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTI SRI.A.DINESH RAO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VADUTHALA JUMA ATH, EDUCATIONAL TRUST, NADUVATHU NAGAR.P.O., REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, T.P.SYED MUHAMMED. 2. KOTTOOR KATTUPURAM PALLI JUMA ATH, NADUVATHU NAGAR.P.O., REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, E.KOCHUNNI KUNJU, S/O.ISMAIL, DHAROOL ABRAR, CHELATTU BHAGAM MURI, PANAVALLY VILLAGE. 3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.761 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4, notice issued by the 1st respondent, proposing to hold an Annual General Meeting on 7.3.2010 for the purpose of amending its bye-laws. According to the petitioner, the proposed amendment is against the provisions of Ext.P1 bye-laws of the society and therefore it is illegal and should be set aside. 2. First respondent is a society registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955. Going by the averments in this petition, apart from the fact that the society is receiving aid for running its educational institutions, petitioner has no case that the society is discharging any public duties nor is the society is subject to any pervasive state control to be an other authority as provided under Art.12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I am inclined to think that society outside the amenability of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under W.P (C) No.761 of 2011 2 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view I take is fully supported by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Tekraj Vs. Union of India. [AIR 1988 SC 469]. Therefore, in my view, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.761 of 2011 3 ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.761 of 2011 4