The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 820 of 2024 Dr. Minarani Bhuyan …. Appellant Mr. S.N. Biswal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others Respondents Mr. D.K. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate (State) Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate (R/5) ….
Decision
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 09.05.2024 Order No. 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. We have heard Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents and Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. The appellant in the present intra-Court appeal has put to challenge an order dated 28.03.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.37883 of 2023. It appears from the records and the impugned order that an order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional Registrar of Societies, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short „Act of 1860‟) in Misc. Case No.1 of 2022 was under challenge in the writ proceeding. Page 1 of 6 4. The dispute related to the Management of Lutheran Mahila Samiti, admittedly a Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act. The order passed by respondent No.3-Addl. District Magistrate, Kendrapara was challenged on the ground that respondent No.3 had wrongly opined that he did not have the jurisdiction for approval of the Managing Committee of the Society. Learned Single Judge after having heard the parties and examined the pleadings on record has held in paragraph 5 as under:- “5. Since the proceeding in Misc. Case No.01 of 2022 was disposed of with an order under Annexure- 10 and with a direction that opposite party No.3 lacked jurisdiction for approval of the Managing Committee of the petitioner which has been clarified by the State in its counter affidavit, the subject matter in dispute needs a fresh adjudication by opposite party No.3. In other words, since opposite party No.3 being Additional Registrar of the Societies, in view of the reply of the State with the counter affidavit on record that he has jurisdiction instead, the Court is of the conclusion that it should be looked into with an order on merit with the participation of both the sides as the same would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.” 5. After having held so, learned Single Judge, upon setting aside the said order dated 12.07.2023 has directed the opposite party/respondent No.3 to consider the matter after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner of the said case as well as the intervener. Page 2 of 6 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the Act of 1860 does not contemplate approval of a Managing Committee by any authority under the Act of 1860. He has submitted that specific stand to this effect was also taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf respondent No.3 in the writ proceeding. He has argued that the Act of 1860 provides remedy for disputes under Section 6 of the Act of 1860 and Section 11-A thereof, in case of any dispute as regards the affairs and management of the Society. He has further argued that Section 4 or Section 4-A of the Act of 1860 does not give any power to the Registrar or the Additional Registrars to approve a Managing Committee. The said provisions require an intimation to the Registrar/Asst. Registrar of the Society in case of change in personnel or alteration made in the rules and regulations of the Society. 7. Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, who was the writ petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pravat Kumar Manadhata v. Addl. District Magistrate, Khurda and Others reported in 2006 (Supp.II) OLR 529 to submit that the Addl. Registrar has such powers. She has referred to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said decision, which read thus: “8. From the above provisions as amended by the State, we find that it is clearly provided that changes in the list mentioned in Section 4 which relates to the members of the committee of a Society are to be Page 3 of 6 in there was a change intimated to the Registrar of the Society within two months of such changes. Thus, in the present case, since the Executive Committee of the Society, law required that such change was to be filed before the Registrar of Societies within two months thereof. Therefore, no fault can be found with the opp.parties in filing the list of persons elected to form a new Executive Committee, bringing a change to the previous committee. therefore them by 9. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that by the Societies Registration (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1979, an amendment was brought to Section 1 of the Act and a provision was made for the State Government to appoint one or more Additional to issuing notification Registrars by exercise jurisdiction over an area as may be assigned to the State Government and such Additional Registrar, subject to the approval of the Registrar of Societies, shall exercise such of the powers and perform such of the functions of the Registrar of the Societies as the State Government may authorize in that behalf. By notification dated 1.9.1981 made by the Government of Orissa in its Commerce the Government appointed the Addl. District Magistrate in each district of the State as Additional Registrars of the Societies and authorized them to exercise the powers and perform all the functions of the Registrar of Societies within the limits of their respective districts subject to control of the Registrar of Societies.” and Transport Department, 8. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has also submitted that the Act of 1860 does not make any provision for approval of the Managing Committee of a Society under the Act of 1860. Page 4 of 6 9. Upon careful examination of the provisions of the Act of 1860 we find force in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant no provision contemplates approval by the Registrar/Addl. Registrars of the constitution of a Managing Committee or any changes made therein. The subsequent changes made, if any, are to be intimated to the Registrar under the Act of 1860 as stipulated under Sections 4 and 4-A of the Act of 1860. 10. It has emerged, based on the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties that there is some dispute between two groups of the members of the society. Section 11-A of the Act of 1860 as inserted by Orissa Act 10 of 2021 lays down the procedure for resolution of such disputes. 11. The Division Bench decision in the case of Pravat Kumar Manadhata v. Addl. District Magistrate, Khurda and Others cited by learned counsel for respondent No.5 has no application in relation to the present controversy. The said decision does not lay down a law that the Registrar or the Additional Registrar shall be required to approve the constitution of a Managing Committee of a society. The said decision, after having taken note of the Societies Registration (Orissa Amendment) Act 1979 and the notification issued on 01.09.1981 has held that the Additional Registrar of the Societies is authorized to exercise all powers and perform all functions of the Registrar of the Societies within the limits of their respective jurisdiction subject to the control of the Registrar of the Societies. Page 5 of 6 12. We are, accordingly, of the view that since the Additional Registrar does not have the jurisdiction under the Act of 1860 to approve a Managing Committee, such power could not be conferred upon him, by an order passed in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13.Situated thus, the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.37883 of 2023requires interference. The said order is, accordingly, set aside. 14. This appeal is allowed. The writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.37883 stands dismissed. It goes without saying that the parties shall be at liberty to invoke dispute resolution provision under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in case any dispute exists, relating to affairs of the society. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Judge (M.S. Raman) SK Jena/Secy. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 13-May-2024 12:47:11 Page 6 of 6