IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25735 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RASHEED. U, CHIRAMATH HOUSE KUNNAMPALLI BHAGAM,KAYAMKULAM ,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF DISTRICT REGISTRAR, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 2. MUSLIM SERVICE SOCIETY DISTRICT COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY IT PRESIDENT P.M.SHAUKATH ALI, PARAMPI VILAYIL,KAYAKULAM 690 502. 3. M.SHAMSUDHEEN, MOOSA MANZIL SOUTH OF PULAYAN VAZHI, VATTAYAL,ALAPPUZHA 688 001 4. I HASSANKUNJU, EDAPPALLIL, KANNAMPALLY BHAGOM, KAYAMKULAM 690 502. 5. MUHAMMED, MUBEEN COTTAGE, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 6. ALIKOYA, HANZATH MANZIL,LAJENATH WARD ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 7. ADV. NAJEEB, NAJEEB COTTAGE PALACE WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 8. ANSARI, ALIKUTH PURAYIDOM, ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 9. R.NIVAS, NAVAS MANZIL, LAJENATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. WP(C).No. 25735 of 2011 -2- 10. THARAYIL BAHSEER, THARAYIL HOUSE NORTH OF FIRE STATION, KAYAMKULAM 690 502. 11. NAZEER PUNNAKKAL,PUNNAKKAL LHOUSE LAJENATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001. 12. K.U. BAVA, RETURNING OFFICER STATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER MUSLIM SERVICE SOCIETY, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT 673 001. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25735 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF RULES AND REGULATIONS OF MUSLIM SERVICE SOCIETY, KERALA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE MUSLIM SERVICE SOCIETY OF ALAPPUZHA UNIT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.2.9.2011. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.18.9.2011 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. (True copy) P.A To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .......................................... W.P.(C). 25735/2011 .......................................... Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the petitioner disputes the alleged election of respondents 3 to 11 as Office bearers of the first respondent Society, which is stated to be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short 'the Act'). It is his case that disputing the eligibility of the aforesaid respondents to contest in the election, Ext.P4 representation has been filed before the first respondent and that the first respondent has not taken any action on the said representation. It is therefore, he has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:- (i). to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the first respondent Registrar to act upon Ext.P4 representation and before approving the names of respondents 3 to 11 as the newly elected office bearers, conduct an enquiry to see whether they are qualified and eligible to participate and contest in the election to hold the administrative office of the 1st respondent (ii). Through an enquiry if it is found that W.P.(C).25735/11 2 respondents 3 to 11 are not qualified and eligible to participate and contest in the election and thereby they are not the duly elected office bearers, to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to see that an election is conducted strictly in accordance with the Act and the Bye laws and a duly elected committee assumes the administrative office of the 2nd respondent society. (iii). To declare that respondents 3,5,7,8,9,10 and 11 are not members of the society to hold the office of the 2nd respondent society and for that reason their names cannot be approved under Section 4 of the Act. 2. In support of the prayers, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 4 of the Act, it is competent for the first respondent to conduct enquiry into the eligibility of the respondents and it was therefore he made the representation. The learned counsel relied on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in C.M.Z. Musliar v. Aboobacker (1998 (1) KLT, 136) and Prabhakar Adsule v. State of M.P and Another (2004 (11) SCC 249). W.P.(C).25735/11 3 3. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:- “Annual list of managing body to be filed – Once in every year, on or before the 14th day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the Scoeity, the annual general meeting of the Society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be field, with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies (IG) of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, councils, directions, committee or other governing body entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Society.” 4. This Section only provides that within the time specified, the Society shall give the details mentioned therein before the Registrar and this provision does not confer any adjudicatory power on the Registrar to decide about the eligibility or otherwise of anybody to contest as an Office bearer of any of the Societies. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4, ie, to determine the eligibility of respondents 3 to 11 to contest as Office bearers of the Society, W.P.(C).25735/11 4 is beyond the power of the first respondent and therefore the prayer sought cannot be granted. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that are the cases where two sets of lists were furnished before the Registrar and the Registrar, after conducting a prima facie enquiry, accepted one of the lists. It was in that context the judgment was rendered and the principles laid down in that judgments cannot be of any assistance to the facts of this case. In my view, there is no merit in the writ petition and as the prayer sought for is beyond the power of Registrar, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs