Welfare Association of Rain Tree Park vs G. Sarojini,

Judgment

1. G.Sarojini, W/o V.Gopala Rao, R/o. Flat No. 1O7, Block 15, Malaysian Township, Rain Tree Park Apartments, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER Government of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Telangana Secretariat B uild i ngs, Hyderabad. Commissioner and lnspector General, Registration and Stamps, Telangana, Hyderabad..

4. Registrar of Societies, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabid. ."'

9. -r;[: ::::;il:::;H::]l: ] c h er Manaser, And h ra Ban k ^r Chief Manager, AXIS Bank, Kukatpally Branch, Opposite Manjeera Mall, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana. Chief Manager, South lndia bank, Kukatpally Branch, Rajiv Circle, 6th Phase, KPBH Colony, Hyderabad The Chief Manager, lClCl Bank, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, 500032. The Chief Manager, lndian Bank Ltd., Kukatpally Branch, Opp JNTU, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the operation of the order dated 06111|ZO2S passed in Wp No. 3432 oI 202'l pending disposal of the main Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M.S.PRASAD, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR SRI SRIKANTH CHINTALA Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI E.MAOHAN MOHAN RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI DASARI PHANT RANI Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY, GP FOR REVENUE The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 1 2 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD **** THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1372 OF 20.25. DATE: 1O.L2.2O25 Betw,een Welfare Association of Rain Tree Park Versus ...Appellant G. Sarojini, W/o. V. Gopala Rao and 8 others ...Respondents Mr. M.S. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. M. Srikanth Chintala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr. D. Madhan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. I. Mr. Muralidhar Reddy, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The writ Appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this court on 06. LL.2o2s in writ petition No.3432 -)J 3 of 2021 filed by the respondent No.1 herein. The appellant was the respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed for a Writ of Certiorari calling for

2. records teading to issuance of Certificate bearing Registration No.3I212009 dated 25.O2.2OO9 issued in the name and style as Welfare Association of Rain Tree Park/appellant. The said Certificate was issued by the respondent No.4 herein/Registrar of Societies (respondent No.3 therein) in favour of the appellant. The writ Petitioner prayed for quashing of the said certificate.

3. The appellant claims to be a society registered under The Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2OOL and is an official society of a Township, popularly known as the Malaysian Township, consisting of 1776 Flats and one Villa. A total of 1776 Flat owners are deemed members who enjoy maintenance and other common facilities provided by the appellant. The Writ Petitioner is one of the residents in the Township.

4. The appellant has assailed the impugned order dated

06.11 .2025 passed in w.P.No.3432 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ Petition was allowed by \ :> a I 5t] iL 1 4 holding that the Registration granted in favour of the appellant under the provisions of the 2001 Act cannot be sustained and the Certilicate of Registration issued by the Registrar of Societies dated

25.O2.2OO9 was accordingly set aside.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Association obtained the Registration on 2s.o2.2oo9 upon the satisfaction of the Registrar of Societies that the Association performed a 'public purpose'as required under the Act. counsel submits that the writ Petitioner and her husband have a long standing feud with the appellant-Association and approached the court after l2 years for cancellation of the Registration. Counsel places the objectives and functions of the Association to urge that the appellant provides facilities which would qualify within the context of public purpose as defined under section 3 (1) of the 2001 Act. It is further submitted that ,n. ,."..red Single Judge failed to consider a later Memo issued by the Revenue (Registration.ll) Department, Government of rerangana, on

21.O8.2O23 in arriving at the impugned decision. 5 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner

6. relies on the objectives of the appellant to argue that the said objectives cannot qualify as 'public purpose' since the functions are restricted to the residents of the Township. Senior counsel submits that the Association is a private Society which is different from a public society for the public at large. Senior Counsel relies on an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, as his Lordship then was, in M/ s. Nugget Estates Priuate Limited u. Gouernment of Andhra Pradesht, where the Court dealt with a similar dispute concerning the Bye-laws of the Association and held that public purpose which necessarily involves the interests of the community at large.

7. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 is represented.

8. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. L 2Ol3 SCC Online AP 74 \ \ 1 6

9. The controversy in the present Appeal centres whether the certilicate of Registration granted in favour of the appellant-Association on 2s.o2.2oog can be sustained under section 3(1) The Telangana societies Registration Act, 2ool.

10. Section 3(1) of the said Act is set out below "Any seven or more persons forming a society which has for its object the promotion of art, fine art, charity, 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." ".i.ft", I 1. [t would be clear from the above provision that the object of the Society formed by the requisite number of persons for the promotion of certain activities or for any public purpose or for any public purpose may be registered under the 2001 Act. Therefore, the enquiry with regard to the present controversy is whether the objectives and functions of the appellant-Association would satisfy the requirement of 'public purpose'. The Bye-laws of the welfare Association of Rain Tree park/appellant delineates its objectives and Functions in clause 2.o/2.L. clause 2.2 outlines the other Functions of the appeflant. clause 2.0 (objectives and Functions of the Association) includes several functions including security I ! 7 and caretaking, electricity and street lighting, distribution of water supply, operation and maintenance of sewerage treatment plant, garbage collections and disposal, etc.

12. Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to rely on Clauses 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.12 of the 'Other Functions'. These Clauses are set out below: "2.2.1 Promote and maintain clean and hygienic environment.

2.2.2 To Promote social, economic, civic and cultural development within the township.

2.2.12 To provide and maintain on its own account or jointly with individuals or institutions, educational, social, cultural, recreational and public health facilities for the benef-rt of the members of the Association. Help and guide residents to promote community life of the torvnship in organizing cultural, sports, library, literary activities and other activities and organize events which are of common interest."

13. However, a bare perusal of the appellant's Bye-laws, 2015 would make it clear that the objectives and Functions are conlined to the residents of Rain Tree Park consisting of lzz6 Flats. clause L.4 of the Bye-laws specifies the jurisdiction of the Association and is set out below: "JURISDICTION: The activities/services of the Association shall be confined to the residents of Raintree park consisting of 1776 apartments." \ \ 11 I t" L4. Clause 2.1 also states that; Objectives of the Association is to be and to act as the Association of the owners of the residential apartments including the other segments of the residential colony called Raintree Park, Phase L4, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad (hereinafter called the said building, buildings complex or township and to provide the following services to the residents in Raintree Park namely-Security and caretaking, Electricity and street lighting, Distribution of water supply, Operation and Maintenance of Sewerage Treatment Plant, etc. Hence, indubitably, the objectives and functions of the Association are restricted solely to the residents of the Rain Tree Park.

15. Clause 2.0 further makes it clear that the functions are to be provided within the physical confines of the Township; for instance, security and caretaking to endeavor all that is feasible for safety and sepurity of the Township (Clause 2.1a), distribution of water supply to all the apartments, common areas, clubhouses, gardens etc. (Clause 2.1c). Protection, repairs and maintenance of roads, open spaces, tot lots, parks, electric transformers, street lights, water tanks and sumps, drainage, pumps and motors and common areas provided or to be provided for the common use in / I 'Rain Tree Park'bearing general Municipal No.15-31/RTPl (Clause

2.1k)

16. Clause 2-2 - Other Functions - specifies that promoting social, economic, civic and cultura-l development is only \rithin the Township' (clause 2.2.2]1. To undertake the periodical painting of the exterior and common areas of the premises, repairs and replacement of any general, electricity, water and other equipment, lifts, machinery, gadgets, etc. of the Township (clause 2.2.8]'. clause 2.2.12, relied upon by the appellant, is for providing and maintaining on its own account or jointly with individual or institutions, educational, social, cultural, recreational and public health facilities, 'for the of the of the tion'.

17. There cannot be any doubt that the Bye-laws of the appellant cgvering its Objectives and Functions are restricted exclusively to the residents of the Rain Tree Park Township. Words such as providing educational, social, cultural, recreational and public health facilities, 'cannot expand the width of the Association's functions beyond Rain Tree Park to the public at large. t\ /l 10

18. Section 3(1) of rhe Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2oor, requires the Society to have promotion of art, fine art, charity, crafts and other such activities as its ,object,. The objects may also be for any public purpose. The second limb of section 3(\l-"...ang pubtic purposd'must be in sync with the first part where the objective is for the promotion of certain kinds of activities. The words 'public purpose, necessarily entails within section 3(1) of the 2001 Act, denotes activities or functions which are for the larger public good and are meant to impact and affect the interests of the public in general. The purpose of the activity must benefit an indeterminate number of persons. similarly an act done under the justification of 'public person, presumes that the act would positively impact the public and would thus validate the act. Any activity, even if, superficially. arigned with a category specified in thp first limb of section 3(1) such as providing cultural and educational activities, cannot constitute public purpose if those activities are restricted to a defined and specified number of persons I 11 L9. In the present case, the appellant describes itself as the official Society of a Township which consists of l 116 flats and one villa, wherein the flat owners and deemed members receive maintenance and other common facilities. This is the description provided in the grounds of the writ Appeal. Hence, even by its own description, the Association operates exclusively within a specific territorial limit and caters solely to a limited number of individuals, i.e., residents of that particular Township.

20. The learned Single Judge relied on M/s. Nuggest Estates Priuate Limited (supra) for expraining the term ,public purpose, in the context of section 3(1) of the Act which necessarily involves the interests and well-being of the community at large. The said order had in turn relied on state of Bihar u. Kameshutar singt7 where public purpose can only be defined' by a process of judicial inclusion and exclusion. In other word.s, as taking its colour from the statute in which it occurs the concept varying with the time and state of the Society and its needs. \ t

27. It is nobody's case that the functions and facilities provided by the appellant-Association are for the public at large, i.e., for 21tosz1 I scc 528: ArR tgs2 sc 2s2 12 individuals who live outside the boundaries of the Rain Tree Park Township. It would indeed be absurd to suggest that persons living outside the Township/non-residents of Rain Tree Park would be eligible for the functions and facilities which are being provided by the appellant-Association.

22. We are therefore of the firm view that the Bye-laws of the appellant-Association, together read with its Objectives and Functions, do not indicate any 'public purpose' in relation to the said Objects.

23. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was correct in his conclusion that the Registration granted to the appellant cannot be sustained under section 3(1) of the 2OOl Act and should accordingly be cancelled.

24. We do. not find any substance in the argument that the learned Single Judge failed to take into account the Memo dated

27.08.2023, which was in supersession of earlier instructions issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Telangana, since paragraph No.9 of the said Memo reiterates the mandate of section 3(1) of the 2OOl Act for allowing 13 Resident Welfare Associations of Apartments/Buildings/Plots for obtaining Registration under the 2001 Act. In essence, the Memo dated 21.O8.2O23 reinforces that a Society formed under section 3(1) of the 2001 Act must have a public purpose in its Objects. The certificate of Registration granted to the appellant on

25.O2.2OO9 was under The Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which pre-supposes that the appellant must satisfy thc requirement of section 3(1) of the said Act (now The Telangana Societies Registration Act, 200 1).

25. We also do not f-rnd substance in the contention of Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the impugned order was passed without hearing the appellant/its Counsel on the relevant date. Paragraph No.21 of the impugned order records the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 (appellant herein) in relation to the freezing of the appellant's Bank Accounts. Hence, it cannot be accepted that the impugned order was passed ex parte.

26. It is also relevant that although the learned single Judge cancelled the Certificate issued to the appellant, the Court made it \ \ 14 clear that the cancellation would not preclude the appellant-Association from getting registered under any other Act. In this context, we note the argument of Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner that The Telangana Co=operative Societies Act, 1964, is one such Act under which the appellant-Society can be registered. In fact, section 4 of the 1964 Act is relevant in this context.

27. State of Punjab u. Suraj Parkash Kapurs, held that the existence of a right and the infringement thereof are the foundation o[ the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of t!;re Constitution. This decision does not assist the case of the appellant, since the Writ Petitioner, as a resident of the Township, was entitled to question the appellant's Registration on the ground of section 3(1) of the 2001 Act at any point of time.

28. We do not wish to go into the arena of the strained relations between the appellant and the Writ Petitioner or freezing of the \ appellant's Bank Accounts, since that is not the subject matter of \ \ the adjudication before us. tatR tgos sc so7 15

29. The above reasons persuade us to agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge of this court in hotding that the appellant's certil-rcate of Registration dated 2s.o2.2oo9 should be set aside/cancelled. 30' To ensure smooth transition in the interregnum, the appellant is granted two months time, from the date of Registration of the appellant-society under the Act applied for, to conduct elections and hand over charge to the newry-elected body. Tiil the elections are held, the outgoing body of the Association is permitted to carry on the day-to-day affairs of the Association. 31. These directions are issued on the prayer of learned Senior counsel appearing for the appelrant and in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench on 23.09.2024 in w.A.No.1113 of 2024.

32. w.A.No. 1372 of 2025, along with all connected apprications, i9 accoldingly dismissed. There shalr be no order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The President, R. Sai Chowda on of Rain Tree Park, S/o Late Veerraju, Age. 62 yea 15-31/RTP1, Club House 1, rS, First Floor, Raintree Park-1, Phase 14,Ku katpally Housing Board, Hyderabad - 500072. 2. 11 LR Copies elfare Pvt. ry,w Occ. 3 The under secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company Affairs, New Delhi. I I r':l: I *; ' ;l 7 /

4. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, HYderabad. / s

5. One CC to SRI SRIKANTH CHINTALA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI DASARI PHANI RANI, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTI

8. Two CD CoPies BSR BS i i I I I I i : i I i .-, .,.:t{''-,,i i=r:::u*#:*i::'r.:**.,::..?:!#'t:'1iet"i,,;., .i:;'i*te6;r, HIGH COURT MBJ GPKJ DATED: 1011212025 \ \ \ \ \ -_.===::-\- .E 5 rki- \z\ /. .f:k' .J. l'r.j l, ':i 19 0 ru[ !)t5pirc\4 E{r * ,.t. o \ )- JUDGMENT WA.No.1372 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS