The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 229 of 2024 Anjuman Islamia Medical and Social Service Society, through its Secretary- Anwar Alam, aged about 41 years, son of Md. Alam, resident of Konka Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi … Petitioner -Versus- 1. 2. Indian Bank, a Government of India Undertaking having its Corporate office at 66 Rajajee Salai, 5th Floor, Main Building, P.O. & P.S. Chennai, Chennai-600001 through its Managing Director Branch Manager, Ranchi Branch of Indian Bank, Sainik Market, P.O. … Respondents G.P.O., P.S. Hindpiri, District- Ranchi CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- ----- For the Petitioner For the Bank : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Syed Saif Ahmed, Advocate Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate ----- 10/03.09.2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Bank. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for quashing of the communication dated 08.11.2023, contained in Annexure-5 issued by respondent no.2 directing the petitioner to provide No Objection from the previous signatory. The further prayer is made for direction upon the respondent-Bank to permit newly elected office bearers namely the Secretary and Treasurer to operate Bank Accounts of the petitioner bearing Account No.6210982631, Account No.6444845860 and Account No.6955956400. 3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -1- W.P. (C) No. 229 of 2024 submits that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and the said Society has its own Bye laws and it is governed by the provisions of such Bye laws. He submits that the petitioner- Society is a Unit of Anjuman Islamia, Ranchi and the petitioner-Society has three said bank accounts and for running the same, change was sought to be made of the signatory for operation of the said accounts. He further submits that Clause-4(1) of the Bye laws provides formation of Governing Body. According to him, the affairs of the Society shall be maintained by the Governing Body which shall consist of 14 Members comprising a President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and 9 Executive Members and all such members are duly elected by General Body through secret voting. He then submits that Clause-4(11) of the Bye laws further provides that the tenure of the Governing Body shall be for a period of three years. Clause 11 further deals with Fund Management and Operation of Bank Accounts. By way of inviting attention of the Court to page 9 of the petition, he submits that Clause 11(1) of the Bye laws provides that the fund received from different sources will be deposited in the Accounts of the Society in a Nationalised Bank or Post Office, whereas, Clause 11(2) provides that the Treasurer and Secretary will jointly operate the Accounts of the Society. He further submits that on 23.11.2022, the Ad-hoc Committee was constituted to run the Society till formation of new Governing Body after holding election in terms of Article- 4(1) of the Bye laws. In the said Adhoc Committee, Md. Tarik Hassan was nominated as Secretary, whereas, Md. Sahid was Treasurer and under the joint signature -2- W.P. (C) No. 229 of 2024 of the above named two office bearers, the Accounts of the Society were operated on behalf of the Society. He submits that on 08.10.2023, election was held in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 4(1) of the Bye laws, wherein, amongst other, Anwar Alam Annu was selected as Secretary and Master Md. Sahid was elected as Treasurer. In view of the notification dated 08.10.2023, the management of the petitioner-Society declared the names of the office bearers of newly elected Governing Body and information was sent to the office of the Inspector General of Registration, which was duly received on 20.12.2023. On 03.11.2023, the Bank was requested to change the previous signatories by way of inducting newly elected Secretary and Treasurer. He submits that in this background, newly elected Secretary and Treasurer moved before the Indian Bank, where three accounts of the Society has been operated, to change the name of signatories, however, the Bank by letter dated 08.11.2023 further demanded final resolution in minutes of Jelly Committee and to provide No Objection from earlier signatory authority, namely, Dr. Tarique Hussain and Mr. Ayub Raja Khan. He submits that so far as No Objection is concerned, that is arbitrary and in view of that, the petitioner-Society is not able to provide No Objection certificate to the Bank. On these grounds, he submits that the said communication dated 08.11.2023 may kindly be quashed. 4. Per contra, Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Indian Bank submits that the petitioner-Society got opened three bank accounts with the Indian Bank, Sainik Market Branch being Accounts No. 6210982631, 6955956400 and 6444845860 and said bank accounts are -3- W.P. (C) No. 229 of 2024 being managed jointly by the Secretary and Treasurer of the petitioner- Society as per the Bye laws of the petitioner-Society. She further submits that two bank account out of the said three bank accounts, belongs to Anjuman Islamiya Hospital. She submits that the Bank received a letter dated 29.09.2023 on the letter head of the Anjuman Islamia Hospital, under the signature of the Secretary of the petitioner-Society, namely, Dr. Tarique Hussain informing that there has been recent developments and there is an apprehension of mishandling of accounts through cheques and, accordingly, Board meeting was held on 16.09.2023, wherein, a resolution was passed that no one can sign in his place and without his information, no cheques will be issued and cleared. She submits that pursuant to that letter, the dispute is evident with regard to operation of the said bank accounts. She further submits that another letter dated 10.10.2023 was received by the Bank under the seal and signature of the Secretary Dr. Tarique Hussain and Convener cum Joint Secretary, namely, Ayub Raja Khan, who informed the Bank that illegal Committee has been constituted for mishandling the bank account of the Society and they are trying to change the signatory for handling of the bank accounts as maintained in the respondent-Bank and further request was made not to change the signatories of the aforesaid bank accounts. Another two letters were received by the Bank on 03.11.2023 and 05.11.2023 with regard to change of authorised signatories, whereby, it was informed that the election of the Managing Committee was held on 08.10.2023, wherein, new office bearers have been elected and henceforth new elected Secretary, namely, Anwar Alam and Treasurer Md. -4- W.P. (C) No. 229 of 2024 Shahid will be the authorised signatories to operate the bank accounts of
Decision
the petitioner-Society. She submits that in view of the above, the dispute is there with regard to the newly elected office bearer and earlier office bearer of the petitioner-Society on 07.11.2023 further communicated the Bank that some unauthorised and illegal Committee has been formulated and they are trying to misguide the Bank with ulterior motive. By way of drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-F of the counter affidavit, she submits that the dispute with regard to the Committee was also the subject matter in the media and those media reports have been annexed with the counter affidavit at Annexure-F. She submits that in these backgrounds, the communication was made on 08.11.2023 by the Bank to freeze three bank accounts of the petitioner-Society and communicated the same to the petitioner-Society by letter dated 08.11.2023 and requested the Anjuman Islamia Hospital to provide final resolution in minutes of Jelly Committee and provide No Objection from earlier signatory authority, namely, Dr. Tarique Hussain and Mr. Ayub Raja Khan. She submits that there are procedures of changing the name of any signatory of any Corporate or Society and that was followed by the Bank. She submits that the Bank has not passed any adverse order against the petitioner-Society and the dispute in question can be decided by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. She submits that one intervenor application was earlier filed on behalf of Anjuman Islamia, Ranchi through its authorised committee members and Anjuman Islamia Hospital through its Secretary to intervene in this matter, which was rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated -5- W.P. (C) No. 229 of 2024 10.05.2024. She submits that in paragraph 11 of that I.A., it is disclosed that the complaint has also been brought in the knowledge of the Jharkhand State Sunni Waqf Board, Ranchi on 12.10.2023 and Central Waqf Council on 23.10.2023 and in paragraph 17 of that I.A., it is disclosed that under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995, Waqf Board has the only jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in question. On these grounds, she submits that the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. In reply, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Bank has got no authority to ask the petitioner-Society to bring No Objection from earlier two Members. 6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the annexures annexed with the writ petition as well as counter affidavit of the Bank. From page 41 of the petition, which is the minutes with regard to Board meeting, it transpires that some of the Members were not happy and the meeting of the Governing Body was called in haste and that has come in the resolution itself. The letters received by the Bank, which have been noted in the arguments of the learned counsel for the Bank clearly suggest that there is dispute between two groups with regard to operation of three bank accounts of the said Society. If such dispute is there, which can be the subject matter before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. The Court further finds that the said Society is registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 and if this type of dispute is there, the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies is competent to decide the issue in -6- W.P. (C) No. 229 of 2024 question and for that, the petitioner is required to move before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 7. The earlier Committee has made objection and pursuant to that the Bank has got no option and rightly freeze the account as there are procedures of change of the signatory of any corporate body. This disputed question of fact cannot be subject matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Any dispute, question or other matters whatsoever and whatever manner which arises relating to a waqf property can be decided by the Waqf Tribunal. No doubt, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for filing of the writ petition, but at the same time, it is well settled that writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction, and when there is an efficacious alternative remedy, ordinarily, a party must resort to that remedy first before approaching this Court. Entertaining a writ petition straightway without insisting that a party should avail alternative remedy is an over- liberal approach that is causing immense difficulties to the High Court, adding to the huge arrears. Thus, this Court does not find any reason at all for entertaining this writ petition, more so when nothing is pleaded or shown as to why the alternative remedy available is not efficacious. 9. Had it been admitted, the fact would have been otherwise. Further, two persons on whose objection, the Bank has acted, they have not been made party in this writ petition. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. -7- W.P. (C) No. 229 of 2024 11. It is open to the petitioner to move before the competent Court for deciding such dispute. 12. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. Ajay/ A.F.R. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) -8- W.P. (C) No. 229 of 2024