tt//s_Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd v. 1. The state of relangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 3: MS D. HARITHA KIRAN, AGP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No 4: SRIT. S. ANIRUDH REDDY The Court macle the following: ORDER r HIGH COURT F.OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKAI{TI WRIT PETITION No.4487O of 2o22 DATE OF ORDER: 22.L2.2O25 Between: M/s Janapriya Engineers Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. And The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Registration and Stamps Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others ... petitioner ORDER: ...respondents This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: "...to issue q. Writ, Order of Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ Certiorari or a-nA other approprtate Writ calling for the records pertaining to Certificate of Registration of Respondent No. 4 bearing No. 682 of 2013 dt. 27.09.2013 fssued bg Respondent No. 3 and consequently quash tlrc Certiftcate of Registration of Respondent No. 4 Lerein bearing I[o. 682 dt. 27.09.2013 registered bg Respondent No. 3 as being arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction arud uiolatiue of inter alta, Article, 14 ond 21 of the Constitution of Indta and further being contrary to Circttlar Memo No. Soc/7124/2018 dt. 28-01-2019, Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and pass..." 2 2' Heard Mr. D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. D.Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Gove.nment pleader for stamps and Registration for respo.edent Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Tanushree Bose, learned counsel representing Mr. T.S.Anirudh Reddy for respondent No.4. 3' It is the case of petitioner that respondent No.3 registered respondent No.4 as a society on 22.og.2o13 under AndhrzL Pradesh societies Registration Act, 2ooL (presently Telangema Societies Registration Act, 2ool) (certificate of Registr.tion pg.14 p1). It is further the case that certificate of Registrettion bearing No.6B2, dated 2z.og.2or3 issued, is violative, of provisions of the Act and contrar5r to circular Memo bearing No. soc/TL24l2o1g, dated 2g.0r.2019 under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2oor (for short, the Act, 2octL). It is also the case of petitioner that owners of residential flats in Janapriya Metropolis Apartments have formed themselves into an Association and got registration done ano the sarne is not valid under law as the definition of 'public purpose'is not made out. n J

4. It is submitted that section 3 of the Act, 20o1 mandates registration of a Society, which promotes certain activities enumerated in the Section and also for any public purpose' Laying stress on the contents of Section 3 of the Act, 2001, it is contended that respondent No.4-Society does not promote, profess, propagate or undertake any .activities which fall under the ambit of 'public purpose'. It is further contended that the phrase 'public purpose', embedded in Section 3 of the Act, 2001, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to cover the activities undertaken by the Association comprising of owners of residential flats of Janapriya Metropolis Apartments. It is also submitted that Writ Petition bearing No.2 l5g2 of 2021 pending before the Hon'lcle High court (in which an interim order calne to be passed on 08.09.20211, does not have any bearing on the present facts of the case. It is submitted that registration of Association and issuance of certificate is not in accordance with law.

5. It is contended. that the purport of the phrase 'public purpose' has to be viewed in a larger perspective, the salne cannot be interpreted in a narrow manner and be made I 4 applicable to the ar:tivities undertaken by respondent No.4- Associaticn.

6. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition 1,1o.8856 of 2022. It is pointed out that the learned Single Judge dealing with a similar issue had held that members of an Association (of flats) are individuals who come together to promote the maintenance of apartments purchased by them. That even if the term 'any public purpose' is stretcht:d, the objects of respondent No.4-Association would not fall uLnder the category of 'public purpose'. That, the learned S:.ngle Judge's order is applicable in the facts and circumstarlces of the case.

7. Leanred counsel invited the attention of this Court to the by-la,vs of the Janapriya Metropolis Flat Owners Association and it is submitted that in view of the contents of the by-lawr; read with Section 3 of the Act, 2001 and the order of the lea:ned Single Judge, the Writ Petition has to be allowed and the Registration Certificate issued by the Registering Authorities to respondent No.4 not being in accordance with law has to be set aside. It is further pointed i : i : Ili It ,t I j I I I i : i i I i I I i l i I i l i' Ir lI l;l i1 I 5 out that the activities undertaken by respondent No.4 viewed from any angle do not fall within the ambit of 'any public purpose

8. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the order of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1372 of 2025, dated 10.t2.2o25. Relying upon the Judgment of the Division Bench, it is contended that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in respect of the interpretation of phrase ,public purpose" that the facts in present case being similar to that which fell for consid.eration before the Division Bench, the Writ Petition needs to be allowed. "9 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that by-taws of respondent No.4- Association not only speak of activities undertaken for the purposes of residents of Association but also for public in general' It is further submitted that by-laws cannot be given a restrictive meaning and the activities of Association do fall under the ambit of 'any public purpose'. That the activities cannot be said to be only for the purposes of owners or residents of Association. That the respondent Authorities have rightly r =r l 6 interpreted the by-laws and issued Registration Certilicate and the said Regist.ration Certificate cannot be set aside by giving a restricted interpretation to Section 3(1) of the Act, 200r.

10. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the aims and object.ives of Association, to the definitions at clause 7, thre powers and duties of the Association and other relevant ,:y-laws. Placing reliance on these contents, it is submittec that the by-laws have to be viewed in entiretv and not in pie:ce meal. That if the by-laws are read in entirety, aims and objectives of the Association would encompass of 'any publi: purpose' as defined under Section 3(1) of the Act, 2OOl. That the activities enumerated under Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001 are being undertaken with a larger perspective by involving the general public and the activities cannot be said to be restricted to the owners/residents of Association 1 1. LearrLed counsel submitted that a Writ Petition bearing No.21592 of 2O2l is preferred before this Court, that a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated O8.O9.2021 granted it.Lterim directions. That it is the very same 7 Association which preferred the Writ Petition, with the following prayers: I.A.No.1 of 2O2l: under Section 151 cPC praying that in t]:e circumstances stated in the affidavit in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct -p.tition iRespondent Nos.6-8 not to register sale deeds with respect to the Amenities Block forming a part of Residential Housing Complex titled "Janapriya Metropolis" in Sy.No.74 & 75, Mothi Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 500018, pending disposal of WP No'21592 of 2021, on the firle of the High Court. I.A.No.2 of 2O2l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the aJfidavit in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct ilespondent Nos.2-5 not to grve permission to the Respondent Nos.9- 11 to induct any third party "hop, restaurant or establishment in the Amenities Bl0ck forming a part of Residential Housing Complex titled "Janapiiya Metropolis" in Sy.No.74P & 75P, Ward No' 8, Block No.4, Mothi Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 5OOO18, pending disposal of WP No.2t592 of 2021, on the file of the High Court. I I I t; |j :,1 t2. Placing reliance upon the contents of the prayers in I.A.Nos.l and 2 0f 202L, it is submitted that the matter pertains to amenities block forming a part of Residential Housing complex (Janapriya Metropolis) and that the petitioner herein is respond.ent No.9 and that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are binding on I ; I ! i l 8

13. Reliance is also placed on the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.27l49 of 2022 and the Apex Court Judgments rr:ported in (2}ll) 9 SCC 286, (19761 1 SCC 671 and further on 2022 (1) ALD 134 (TS). Placing reliance on these jr-tdgments, it is contended that respondent No.4- Residents Association's activities undertaken cannot be said to be failing out r>f the purview of 'any public purpose,. Inviting the attention of this Court to the (1976) 1 SCC 671 Judgment of the Apex Court, it is submitted that the petitioner does not have locus to maintain the writ Petition and he is not an aggrieved party nor any of his legal rights are affected. Placing reliance on the Apex Court's Judgment reported in (2oi 1) 9 scc 286, it is submitted that cooperative Societies ,\ct is to ensure autonomy and independence in the manner ard functioning of societies and that there cannot be any objection merelv because certain activities do not fall under the ambit of the phrase of 'any public purpose', that the registretion cannot be invalidated.

14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondenr.s reiterated the contentions advanced on behalf of respondent No.4 and submitte4[ that activities of respondent Ct 9 No.4 falI under the ambit of phrase 'any public purpose'and the Registration certificate issued, cannot be set aside.

15. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.

16. Entire issue in the present writ petition revolves around the validity of the certilicate of Registration issued to respondent No.4 by the Registrar of Societies. Before venturing further, it is pertinent to extract the relevant Section of the Act, i.e., Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001.

17. Section 3(1) of the Act, 2OOl is as follows:

3. Societies which may be registered under this Act - (1) "Any seven or more persons forming a society which has for its object the promotion of art, Iine art, charity, crafts, religion, sports (excluding games of chance), literature, culture, science, political education, philosophy or diffusion of any knowledge or any public purpose may be registered under this Act". On a perusal of Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001, it is apparent that a society whose object is for the purpose of activities reflected in section 3(1) of the Act, 2ool or for'any public purpose', such a society can be registered under the Act 2001. The phrase 'any public purpose, has a wide connotation. A learned single Judge of this court relying r0 upon t.ee law laid down in writ petition No.3319 of 2013, (order <lated 05.0:1.2013), in an identical matter upheld the contentlons advanced by the petitioner in w.p.No.3432 of 2o2l b5' order dated 06. i r.2o2s. The relevqnt portion of the Judgment in w.P.No.3319 of 2or3 of the learned Single Judge is as follows: "The membcrs of respondent No. 4-Association are private inCivicluals who canne together for the purpose of m,a-intenance ol'the apartments purchased by them. Even if the term 'an1' public purpose' is stretched to its widest anrplitude, none of the objects with which respondent No. 4-.\ssociation tras been formed, would satisfy the said term, for, 'public purpose' necessarily invoh,es the interests of community at large and their well-being. tn tht: context in rvhich the phrase 'public purpose' is used in Section 3(1) ,tf the Act, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that it intended to cover a group of residents of a residential zrpartment. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned registration cannot be sustained under the provisions of the Act and accrtrdingly the same is quashed. This order, horirever, does not preclude respondent No. 4-Association frorn registering itself under any other enactment, under which such registration is permissible. Subject to the above observation, the Writ petition is allowed,,.

18. The order of the learned single Judge in (w.p.N o.3434 of 2o2l) dated 06. 1 1.2025 was carried in appeal. A Division Bench of lhis court in writ Appeal No.1372 of 2025 upheld the order of the learned Single Judge further analyzing the term 'public purpose' in the light of the by-laws of the appellant therein i -_/ 1l

19. A perusal of aims and objectives and the by-laws of the Association in the present case becomes imperative. The following are the aims and objectives of the by-laws of the Association of respondent No.4.

3. Aims and Objects The Association is formed primarily to constitute an organization of persons who are the owners of Flats in the complex known as 'Janapriya Metropolis' situated &t, Janapriya Metropolis, Mothinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad-s0OO18. The aims and objects of which shall be: I. To ensure that the Builder provides all the amenities and facilities as per the contracts of sale executed by him, sale deed in conjunction with the construction agreement and brochure issued by him; II. To provide for, and do all or any of the matters as laid down in these byelaws; III. To represent the Association before Government and other authorities for any common purpose, which may impact the members monetarily or otherwise and take all such steps as may be necessary in this regard; IV. To frame rules and administrative procedure with the approval of the general body of the Association. In exceptional/day-to-day cases, the Executive Committee is authorized to frame /change rules from time to time; V. To promote/encourage social activities like entertainment, sports, educational programs, etc. ; VI. The income of the Association shall be utilized for the objects of the Association and shall not be distributed among its members. Clause 6 of the by-laws is as follows:

6. Application of Byelaws The provisions of these byelaws apply to METROPOLIS FLAT OWNERS' WELFARE ASSOCIATION. All present or future owrrers, tenants, or their employees, or any other E4 l2 person who is lawfuily entitled to use the facilities of the sild fluildings/Complex, in any murnner whatsoever, shall be subject to the regulations set forth in these Bye-laws. T:re mere act t>f acquisition or rental or taking on license ar-ry property or mere occupancy of any of the Apartments ir thr: .IANAPRIYA METROPOLIS will signify that these b.reiarvs have been read and understood, are accepted, stand r:rtified and will be complied with at all times.

20. on a perusal of the material on record and the aims and objectives and the by-laws, it is apparent that the Association registerei is for the purposes of the Janapriya Metropolis Flat owners \velfare Association i.e., the future owners, tenants or employee s or any other person (s) u,ho is/are entitled to use the facilities of the said building/complex in any manner permitted. It is obser:ved that sub-clause 5 of clause 3 speaks of the Association's activities to promote/encourage entertainrnent, sports, educational prograrns etc. It is further observed that the income of the Association is utilized for the Association and shall not be distributed among its members.

21. on a perusal of all the by-laws, it is observed that all by-laws SF,eak of activities undertaken by the Association are for the owrrers, tenant-s or their employees. It may be true that while pror:roting, propagating or undertaking activities like entertainment, sports and educational programs, etc., a few l3 persons who are not residents of the flats, ffi&Y take part, but that by itself would not encompass the activities undertaken under the ambit of 'public purpose'as under section 3(1) of the Act, 2OOL.

22. This Court is bound by the law laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1372 of 2025 and has to adhere to the view expressed by a Coordinate Bench of learned Single Judge in w.P.No.3319 of 2013 and order passed in a simiiar matter by this very Bench. Having perused the aims and objectives of the Association and the by-laws, in consonance with section 3(1) of the Act, 2ool, it is aptly clear that aims and objectives of the Association and the by-laws of the Association do not in any way, come under the ambit of 'any public purpose'. If the activities undertaken, aims and objectives of the Association read with the by-laws do not \ \ come within the perimeter of 'any public purpose', under such circumstances, the Registration Certificate issued cannot be said to be valid Certificate.

23. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate that liberty 14 be g'anterd to respondent No.4-Association to carry out regisb:ation under any other Act within a period of two mont}-s. The certificate of Registration issued by respondent No'4 bearing No.6B2 dated 2T .0g.2o13 stands quashed. Learned counsel rbr the petitioner undertakes not to press in respect of this issue in any of the proceedings pending before the Corrrts for a pr:riod of tu,o months. 24- with the obs,:rvations, the writ petition stands disposed of. The Registrati.n certificate issued by the Registrar of Societier;, annexed at page No.14, is set at naught in other words, 'is quashecr', ,.s it is not in accorddnce with the provisiorrs of Section 3(1) of the Act, 2oo1 There shall be no oriler as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, i. The Principal Secretary Registration and Stamps Department, State of Telangatta, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The lnspector General of Registration and Stamps, Government of Telangarta, Mozamjahi [/arket, Hyderabad

3. The Reg strar of Societies, Hyderabad (South), Erragadda, Kukatpally 4. one cc to SRl. D JAGAN TUOHAN REDDY, Advocate [oPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP FOR STANIPS AND REGISTRATION ,High court for the Staie of Telangana at Hyderabad ' [OUT]

6.oneCCtoSRlT.S.ANIRUDHREDDY,Advocate[oPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies I DAN BS HIGH COURT DATED,:2211212025 \ L ORDER WP.No.4.4870 of 2022 -a, ., I () 2 3 JAN 202[ * ,-',;i i \-r: ' DISPOSII{G OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUI- COSTS *s t [il