NECHIPPADAPPU MUHIYUDHEEN MASJID COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Heard Smt.M.Shajna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sagi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the 3rd respondent will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent District Registrar to accept Ext.P2 Annual List of the Managing body for 2018-2019 in respect of the petitioner Society, which was submitted by the Secretary of the said petitioner Society. According to the petitioner, the impugned rejection decision has been endorsed on Ext.P3 petition itself by the 2nd respondent, without showing any reasons and without granting any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner Society is said to be registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act . According to the petitioner, list of new committee members was duly submitted to the 2nd respondent Registrar as per Section 4 of the Act and it has resulted in the impugned rejection decision as endorsed in Ext.P3 petition. Further, it is stated that the 3rd respondent had earlier submitted a list claiming that the said list would show the actually elected committee members of the Society for the year 2018-2019. According to the petitioner, the said list submitted by the 3rd respondent is a bogus and false list; whereas the list submitted by the petitioner contains not only the names of the newly elected committee members for the year 2018- 2019, but also the Minutes of the general body meeting in which the election had taken place, as well as the earlier list of committee members for the previous three years, in order to fortify the claim that the list furnished by the petitioner is the list of the duly elected committee members of the Society, etc. According to the petitioner, the list of the 3rd respondent which the 2nd respondent has acted upon, is a bogus and false list and that the 2nd respondent is duly obliged to conduct a summary enquiry to ascertain as to whether the said list furnished by the 3rd respondent is bogus and false and that as the 2nd respondent has failed to discharge that vital obligation, he has to consider the matter afresh. In that regard, the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case in Narayanan K.K. and Others v. District Registrar, Kasaragod and Others reported in [2015 (4) KLT 1028] wherein it has been held that the notified Registrar of the Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act , 1860 will have the limited jurisdiction of examining whether the list furnished is false or bogus, even though the said enquiry cannot be directed against the election or selection; but only to find out the genuineness of the list. Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the said decision reported in Narayanan's case (supra) reads as follows: