THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7426 of 2010 16.04.2010 Between: Sulthan Cricket Club And others ….Petitioners AND The Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7426 OF 2010 ORDER: The three petitioners are statedly registered associations. They run cricket clubs. They are affiliated to Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) – second respondent herein. They invoked Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of first respondent, namely, Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration & Stamps in refusing to receive and register the resolutions passed in the General Body Meeting dated 14.03.2010 of HCA as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential direction to first respondent to register the resolutions. The case of the petitioners is as follows. There are 144 members in HCA. The proposal to amend its bye-laws has been pending since long. Therefore, 120 members of HCA gave a requisition, dated 02.01.2010 to HCA to call for Extraordinary General Meeting to consider and pass resolutions. According to petitioners, such requisition can be given by 20 members for convening a Special General Body Meeting. In spite of reminders, HCA failed to convene the meeting. Therefore, a final notice, dated 01.03.2010 was sent to Members and office bearers of HCA requesting to convene the said general meeting on 14.03.2010 at 10.30 a.m., at Gymkhana Grounds, Secunderabad. It was served on all members who form majority. The President of HCA in a circular letter, dated 09.03.2010 inform all the members that it shall be prerogative of the executive committee to call for a meeting and caution members to desist from making such demands. As per the requisition notice, dated 02.01.2010, 82 members met on 14.03.2010 under the Chairmanship of Dr.K.V.Ramana, Secretary of Sultan Cricket Club, which considered the amendment of the bye-laws. All the amendments proposed were passed. These were submitted to first respondent on 20.03.2010. In response thereto, first respondent issued a Memo stating that under Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (the Act, for brevity), resolutions cannot be received after fifteen days from the date of passing. Petitioners allege that the powerful members of the executive committee of HCA are behind first respondent not to register resolutions passed on 14.03.2010. Therefore, they filed instant writ petition. After hearing counsel for petitioners, and after giving anxious consideration and perusing the material, this Court is of considered opinion that the right to form association is a common law right recognized and protected by Part III of Constitution of India. It does not, however, mean that a member of association can act or behave contrary to the law regulating such associations/ societies and contravene the rules/bye-laws of the Society under the Act. The bye-laws framed in accordance with Section 5 of the Act can be amended by a special resolution as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. Such amended bye-laws shall not be valid unless they are registered under the Act by the Registrar of Societies. Who can amend and who can submit for registration? A perusal of Sections 4, 5 and 8 of the Act would reveal that it is only the authorized committee/persons who was/were entitled to amend the bye-laws and file for registration. Section 3 of the Act contemplates that any seven or more persons can form a society. It does not mean that every member can independently make/amend bye-laws or approach the authorities for registration. The amendment of bye-laws and submission of the same for registration shall also be in accordance with bye-laws. Counsel for petitioners admits that the resolutions for amending bye-laws have to be passed by the General Body of the HCA. If the dissenting members themselves constitute a General Body and pass resolutions it would be “free for all associations and certainly not a Society which is contemplated under the provisions of the Act”. If the petitioners have any dispute with second respondent, the remedy is to file appropriate petition before the District Court under Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in refusing registration of resolutions by first respondent. The writ petition is therefore dismissed at the stage of admission itself. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.04.2010 Pln