PULLICHIRA PARISH PROTECTION COUNCIL Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Exhibit P1 is the Registration Certificate and Ext.P2 is the Byelaws of the society, registered with the 1st respondent.

(2.) The 2nd respondent along with some other persons submitted a complaint before the 1st respondent seeking to cancel Ext.P1 registration on the premise that the registration granted is illegal and unsustainable. Allegations in Ext.P4 complaint was that, Ext.P1 registration was obtained by forging a memorandum (Byelaws) containing an objective to protect and maintain the assets of a christian congregation, namely 'Pullichira Edavaka'. It is stated that, "Pullichira Immaculate Conception Church" is a public religious trust coming within the Diocese concerned, and it is administered for benefit of the believers in accordance with the Constitution, Rules and Regulations of the Diocese. Nobody else other than the church has got any right to protect or administer the assets of the Church. Hence it is complained that the registration was obtained by total misrepresentation. In Ext.P4 it is specifically alleged that the registration was happened to be issued without verifying as to whether the petitioner society is one coming within the purview of the Act. Further complaint is that, on the basis of Ext.P1 registration, the petitioner society is unnecessarily interfering in administration of the church and they are utilising the registration for the purpose of instituting suits against the trustees of the church. It is also alleged that, on the basis of the registration the petitioner society and its members are unnecessarily interfering with religious rites and ceremonies conducted in the church.

(3.) On the basis of Ext.P4 complaint the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, who in turn had submitted Ext.P5 objections. The 1st respondent, after taking into consideration of the complaint and objections, issued Ext.P6. It is stated in Ext.P6 that a detailed enquiry was conducted in which it is revealed that the objectives mentioned in Byelaws of the petitioner society to the extent it aims at protection and maintenance of assets of the 'Pullichira Edavaka' is illegal for the reason that, for protection of such assets a legally authorised institution is available. Therefore the petitioner was directed to amend its Byelaws by deleting the 2nd objective mentioned therein, which relates to protection and maintenance of assets of the 'Pullichira Edavaka'. The petitioner society is challenging Ext.P6 in this writ petition.