THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.16653 OF 2005 DATE: 9-8-2005 Between: N.Balaji ….. Petitioner And The Union of India rep. By its Secretary,. Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperation, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi And four others …… Respondents ORDER: 1. The action, of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperation, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi and the National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Limited, New Delhi (respondents 2 and 3 in this writ petition), in amending the byelaws of the 3rd respondent, by providing 5 votes to each Member, and appointing the 5th respondent, (Sri P.Sampath, the Director (Cooperation) and Returning Officer of National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India, New Delhi), as the returning officer for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent, is challenged in this writ petition as being inconsistent with the provision of law, and as being passed only to defeat the efforts made by the petitioner in approaching the High Court of Delhi, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in exposing the illegal activities of respondents 2 and 3. Petitioner seeks consequential directions to set aside the newly amended bye laws and the illegal voters list. 2. Facts, to the extent necessary for the purpose of this writ petition, are that the petitioner, as the President of Bharath Cooperative Consumers Stores, Kothapet, Chirala, Prakasham District, (which society is said to be a Member of the 3rd respondent), is said to have regularly taken part in the affairs and to be interested in the proper functioning of the 3rd respondent society . The persons in the management of the 3rd respondent society are alleged to have so managed preparation of the voters list, as to include therein ineligible persons including defaulters and persons facing criminal charges and those facing CBI enquiry in respect of appropriation of hundreds of crores of rupees causing loss to the 3rd respondent society. 3. The petitioner submits that he filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court in CWP No.1583, that the Delhi High Court, by order dated 28.02.2003, directed the Union of India to decide the complaint within four months in accordance with law, that the 1st respondent registered the petitioner’s complaint and issued notice to the parties, that some of the respondents approached the Delhi High Court by filing CWP.No.3706 of 2003 which was allowed setting aside the notice issued to persons therein on the ground of limitation, that against the said order of the Delhi High Court, the petitioner filed SLP.No.8717 of 2004 and the same was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 05.10.2004, that the judgment of the Delhi High Court was set aside and that the 2nd respondent – The Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies was directed to proceed with the hearing of the petition filed by the petitioner expeditiously. 4. Petitioner contends that, in spite of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 2nd respondent has not decided the issue so far and is deliberately going out of station on the date of hearing. Petitioner contends that he filed a complaint, sent by registered post acknowledgement due, before the 2nd respondent on 07.04.2005 requesting him to complete the enquiry without giving any adjournments, and though the petitioner came over to New Delhi on 07.04.2005, his complaint was not heard and instead the 2nd respondent, in connivance with the illegally elected management, is said to have amended the byelaws proposing five votes to each Member. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that Section 31 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) prescribes only one vote to each member with regard to the affairs of the society and that amendment of the byelaws, providing 5 votes to each member, is contrary to Section 31 of the Act. Petitioner submits that he filed objections to the amendments proposed to the byelaws and requested the 2nd respondent not to register the same. It is alleged that the 1st and 3rd respondents, with a view to render the petition infructuous, devised a scheme of making the 5th respondent the returning officer to conduct the elections and that the returning officer is making attempts to issue election notification for conducting elections to the 3rd respondent. Petitioner contends that if elections are permitted to be held under the amended byelaws, which are contrary to Sections 31 and 16 of the Act, irreparable injury would be caused to the members of the 3rd respondent society including the petitioner herein. 6. Petitioner submits that the order appointing the 5th respondent as the returning officer, was communicated to him by the 5th respondent along with the voters list etc. Petitioner contends that he, as a president of the member society, located at Chirala, Prakasham District, Andhra Pradesh is entitled to maintain this writ petition on the file of this Court, as elections to the 3rd respondent are contemplated on the basis of five zones under the impugned byelaws i.e., North, East, West, South and Central Zones. Andhra Pradesh is a part of the Southern Zone and therefore, petitioner contends, this Court has territorial jurisdiction as a part of the cause of action has arisen in Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner submits that five directors, one for each zone, are to be elected by the General Body which is the supreme authority of the 3rd respondent. Under byelaw 19(b) of the byelaws of the 3rd respondent, the general body consists of one representative of each member, admitted under byelaw 4, and if for any meeting of the general body or the board of the 3rd respondent, the cooperative society, or other Multi State Cooperative Society is to be represented, they shall be represented in such meeting only through the Chairman/President or the Chief Executive of such cooperative society or other Multi State Cooperative Society as the case may be. The byelaws of the 3rd respondent further prescribes that every delegate, present at the general body meeting, shall have one vote and that the presence of at least 1/5th of the total number of members is necessary for disposal of any business at the general body meeting. Petitioner contends that these byelaws are sought to be amended and the zones reorganized only to control the entire elections scheduled to be held for other zones. Providing a right to vote for each of the five zones by a single member i.e., a member belonging to any zone will have 5 votes, one vote each for the five zone, is alleged as having been prescribed in furtherance of this objective. 7. In the documents filed, along with the writ petition, proceedings of the Special General Body Meeting held on 19.04.2005 in New Delhi is enclosed wherein the amendment to the existing byelaws, of the 3rd respondent, was taken up for consideration. The general body of the 3rd respondent, in its meeting held on 19.04.2005 at New Delhi, resolved to amend the byelaws and to submit the amended byelaws to the 2nd respondent for registration. 8. Sri K. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the 5th respondent had communicated his appointment as a returning officer, (for the elections to be held for electing the directors of the 3rd respondent), along with the voters list, to the petitioner at Chirala in Andhra Pradesh, as the amendment contemplated to the byelaws and the voters list, on the basis of which elections are to be held, include voters from the southern zone of which Andhra Pradesh is a part, and as one director is being elected from Southern Zone, which includes Andhra Pradesh, this court has territorial jurisdiction since a part of the cause of action has arisen within the state of Andhra Pradesh. Article 226 (2) of the Constitution reads thus: “The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.” 9. It is only if the cause of action, either wholly or in part, can be said to have arisen within the territory of the State of Andhra Pradesh, would this Court have jurisdiction to exercise its powers under Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The question which arises for consideration, is whether the cause of action in the present writ petition has arisen, even partly, within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 11. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted, inter alia, to mean every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily. Keeping in view the expression used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if a small fraction of the cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of a High Court, the said High Court will have jurisdiction in the matter (Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. V. Union of India). 12. Under clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is empowered to issue writs, orders or directions to any Government, authority or person exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, in whole or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. Cause of action, as understood in civil proceedings, means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. To put it in a different way, it is the bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. (National Textile Corporation Ltd. V. Haribox Swalram) 13. In order to confer territorial jurisdiction, on a High Court to entertain a writ petition, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in-part, arisen within its jurisdiction. Each and every fact pleaded in the application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.(Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd) 14. The cause of action for filing the present writ petition, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support thereof, is that the 3rd respondent has taken steps to amend the byelaws providing five votes to each member which, the petitioner contends, is contrary to the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. Based on the said amendment, the 5th respondent is said to have been appointed as the Returning Officer for conducting elections for the managing committee of the 3rd respondent society. 15. In this regard, relevant provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 need to be considered. Section 4(1) empowers the Central Government to appoint a person to be the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Section 7(1) empowers the Registrar to register a Multi-State Cooperative Society and its byelaws. Section 9(1) provides that registration of a Multi-State Cooperative Society Limited shall render it a body corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 10 relates to the byelaws of Multi-State Cooperative Societies and under Sub-section (1) thereof every multi- State Cooperative Society may make its bye-laws consistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made there under. Section 11 relates to amendment of bye- laws of a Multi-State Cooperative Society. Under sub-section (1) thereof, no amendment of any bye-law of a Multi-State Cooperative society shall be valid, unless such amendment has been registered under the Act. Sub-section (2) provides that the amendment of bye-laws of a Multi-State Cooperative society shall be made by a resolution passed by two-third majority of members present and voting at the general meeting of the society. Under sub-section (4), in every case in which a multi-State Cooperative Society proposes to amend its byelaws, an application to register such amendment shall be made to the Central Registrar together with copies of documents mentioned there under. Section 11(7) empowers the Registrar to register the amendment after he is satisfied that the proposed amendment is not contrary to the provisions of the Act or the Rules, that it does not conflict with co- operative principles and that the amendment would promote the economic interest of members of the Multi-State Cooperative Society. Section 12 provides that the amendment of the byelaws of a multi-state cooperative society shall, unless, it is expressed to come into operation on a particular day, come into force on the day on which it is registered. Chapter IV of the Act relates to Members of Multi-State Co- operative Societies, their duties, rights and liabilities. Section 31 relates to vote of members, and thereunder, every member of a multi-State Cooperative Society, shall have one vote in the affairs of the society. 16. The petitioner contends that five votes now given to each member, to elect one director from each of the five zones, is in violation of Section 31 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act. This proposed amendment to the byelaws is the cause of action for filing the present writ petition. As noted above, the amendment was passed unanimously in the special general body meeting held on 19-4-2005 in New Delhi. The amendment of the bye-laws are said to have been submitted to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies for registration in accordance with Section 11(4) of the Act. Power of registration has been conferred on the Central Registrar whose office is situated at Delhi. It is only after the amendment is registered that the byelaws would come into force. On his own admission, the petitioner has challenged the voters list in the Delhi High Court, rightly so, since it is the Delhi High Court which has territorial jurisdiction in this regard. 17. The territorial jurisdiction of this Court, to entertain and grant the relief sought for in this writ petition, is in question. Five respondents are arrayed in the writ petition of all whom are located at New Delhi. The 1st respondent is the Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. The 2nd respondent is the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperation, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. The 3rd respondent is the National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Limited, Deepali (5th Floor), Nehru Place, New Delhi, rep., by its Managing Director. The 4th respondent is the Managing Committee, of The National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Limited, rep., by its President, Deepali (5th floor), Nehru Place, New Delhi and the 5th respondent is Sri P.Sampath, Director (Cooperation) and Returning Officer, The National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India Limited, Deepali (5th Floor), Nehru Place, New Delhi. 18. The situs of the offices of all the five respondents are at New Delhi, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The 3rd respondent, whose byelaws are being amended, is located at New Delhi. The application submitted by the 3rd respondent, for registration of the amended byelaws, is to the 2nd respondent, who is also located at New Delhi. The objections filed by the petitioner, to the amendments made in the byelaws of the 3rd respondent, is to the 2nd respondent at New Delhi. The special General Body Meeting of the 3rd respondent, in which the byelaws were amended, was held at New Delhi on 19.04.2005. The 3rd respondent society, whose amended byelaws is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, is located at New Delhi and the 2nd respondent, to whom the petitioner is said to have filed his objections regarding the amendment and who is the competent authority to register the amended byelaws, is also situated at New Delhi. 19. It is thus clear that no part of cause of action has arisen, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner, however, contends that the 5th respondent had communicated his appointment as the Returning Officer along with a copy of the voters list, and that the petitioner had received a copy thereof at Chirala in Andhra Pradesh. Though such an averment is made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, a copy of the communication said to have been received from the 5th respondent, is not among the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 20. In State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Swaika Properties and another, the Supreme Court held that mere service of notice by itself would not give rise to a cause of action, pursuant to which the writ Court gets jurisdiction in the matter. In W. Havaldar R. Venkateswar Rao v. Union of India & others, a Division Bench of this Court held that service of summons on a witness to appear in a Court of inquiry, did not give rise to any cause of action to question the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner, particularly when at the relevant point of time, he was neither posted in the State of Andhra Pradesh nor was he charge-sheeted; nor any disciplinary proceeding before the Summary Court Martial was held; nor the order of punishment was passed and communicated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 21. It is thus clear that mere service of notice on the petitioner in Andhra Pradesh would not suffice to confer territorial jurisdiction in this court to entertain the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the elections proposed to be held are for all the five zones including the southern zone, of which Andhra Pradesh is a part. While it is no doubt true that members of 3rd respondent are located all over the country, no part of cause of action, relating to amendment of the byelaws of the 3rd respondent, has arisen within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Merely because the petitioner, as a representative of one of the members of the 3rd respondent Society, is residing in Andhra Pradesh and merely because among the five directors to be elected one director is to represent the southern zone of which Andhra Pradesh is a part, it cannot be said that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. 22. The caution administered by the Supreme Court In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu must be borne in mind. While deprecating cases being entertained by High Courts, even though no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “……..If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so but if we do not strongly deprecate that growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation.” 23. Since no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________ -8-2005 asp