GULABCHAND GUPTA Vs. HITKARINI SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 409 of 1962. Equivalent Citation:

(2.) THESE two petitions are by persons who claim to be Life Members of the hitkarini Sabha, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the Sabha), which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has as its aims and objects, inter alia, the promotion of "moral, social, and intellectual interests and well-being of the people" and the extension and promotion of "literary, technical and other useful knowledge amongst the people ordinarily by maintaining a High School, an Arts College, a Law College. " the petitioner Gulabchand in Misc. Petition No. 360 of 1962 challenges the validity of the Ordinary General Meeting of the Sabha held on 29th September 1962 at which 32 persons were enrolled as members of the Sabha and Manmohandas, respondent No. 2 to the petition, was elected as the Chairman of the Sabha. He prays for the issue of a writ of certierari for quashing the proceedings of the meeting and the decisions taken thereat. In the other case, the petitioners' complaint is that though they are life members of the Sabha and have been recognized as such and have enjoyed the rights and privileges of life members for years, the respondents through the Secretary of the sabha issued notices to them on 26th October 1962 informing them that their recognition as me members had been declared to be illegal, void and inoperative. These petitioners allege that the action of the respondents 1 to 4 to their petition was mala fide, illegal and ultra vires the rules of the Sabha. Their prayer is that the respondents be commanded by the issue of a direction or order in the nature of mandamus to treat them as life members of the Sabha and to desist from interfering with their rights, privileges and duties as life members of the Sabha.

(3.) THE common preliminary question that arises for consideration in both these petitions is whether the writs of directions which the petitioners desire to be issued can at all be issued to the Sabha. Shri Dube, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Gulabchand, argued that the Sabha was a corporate body, that it had framed bye-laws, rules and regulations for the management of its business; that the Sabha was discharging a public function by running, a school and a college; that the Sabha was required to conduct its business in accordance with rules, byelaws etc. , and being a public body discharging public duties, its decisions "affected the rights, of the subject"; and that consequently if the Sabha took a decision contrary to its rules or in excess of its powers, then that decision could always be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari. Shri Choubey, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners in the other case, while supporting Shri Dube's argument with regard to the status, position and nature of the duties of the Sabha, added that as life members of the Sabha the petitioners in Misc. Petition No. 409 of 1962 were holding offices of public nature and, therefore, if the respondents had unlawfully deprived them of those offices then a writ in the nature of mandamus could be issued to the respondents to admit the said petitioners to the offices of life members.