THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1043 OF 2011
05-07-2011
Chirlamacherla Chinna Venkata Subbaiah
Vasavi Kanyaka Parameswari Arts
Counsel for the petitioner:Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana
Counsel for respondents:--
:ORDER:
The 1st respondent-society was registered way back in the year 1966. It
appears that respondent No.2 and his brother, by name Balaratnam, gave a
considerable amount of Rs.25,000/- to the society. As a measure of gratitude,
the members have resolved to appoint the 2nd respondent and his brother as
Presidents in alternative terms of three years with hereditary rights. The
election of the other office bearers was being held from time to time. The
affairs of the society were being administered with that arrangement.
The petitioner filed S.R.O.P.No.2 of 2006 in the Court of I Additional
District Judge, Ongole against the respondents under Section 23 of the A.P.
Societies Registration Act, 2011 (for short 'the new Act') with a prayer to
declare bye-law 9(b) of the society as illegal, void and contrary to Section 14
of the new Act, for mandatory injunction directing respondents 2 to 4 to conduct
elections to all the posts in the executive committee and to direct the society
to amend the bye-laws suitably. He pleaded that whatever may have been the
justification or legality of bye-law 9(b) before the new Act came to be enacted,
once Section 14 of the new Act mandates that election shall be held to the
committee periodically, it becomes impermissible for respondents 2 and 3 to act
as Presidents on nomination basis.
The application was opposed by the respondents. It was urged that the
arrangement was in existence almost for half a century and that the same cannot
be altered at this length of time. They further pleaded that Section 14 of the
new Act does not prohibit the nomination of any office bearers and on the other
hand, Section 5(v) permits of such an arrangement. It was also pleaded that the
new Act does not have effect on the bye-laws, that were framed by the society
registered under the A.P. Public Societies Registration Act. The trial Court
dismissed the O.P, through judgment, dated 28.09.2010. Hence, this revision
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there is a clear conflict between bye-law 9(b) of the society on the one
hand and Section 14 of the new Act on the other. He contends that bye-law 7(a)
of the society also mandates that election shall be held and bye-law 9(b)
virtually makes it nugatory to the extent it concerns the post of office
President.
The society was registered about half a century ago. Its affairs were
being administered by the managing committee, comprising of various office
bearers, including President Treasurer and Secretary. The record discloses that
the 2nd respondent and the father of the 3rd respondent contributed a sum of
Rs.25,000/-, which was quite a considerable amount at that time and that the
same was used in acquiring properties for the establishment of a Degree College
at Markapur. As a measure of recognition of their generosity, the members
resolved to appoint them as Presidents in terms of three years each with
hereditary rights. This arrangement was incorporated in bye-law 9(b). The
petitioner or for that matter, anyone did not raise objection for the past five
decades.
The A.P. Legislature enacted the new Act in the year 2001. Section 31 of
the new Act repeals the Societies Registration Act 1960. However, sub-section
(2) thereof makes it clear that any steps taken under the old Act shall be
deemed to have been taken under the new enactment. It means that if any
inconsistency is noticed between the state of affairs that came into existence
under the old enactment and the scheme of things under the new Act, the steps so
found shall be deemed to have been taken under the new Act and nowhere in the
Act, much less under Section 32, it is suggested that any steps taken under the
old enactment shall be deemed to be invalid or inoperative. Further, Section 14
of the New Act does not mandate that every office bearer of the managing
committee must be elected. The provision reads as under:
14. Committee of the society:- (1) Every society shall elect a Committee,
consisting of not less than three members of the society, by a resolution passed
by a majority of the members present and entitled to vote at an annual general
body meeting of the society held under Sec.20.
(2) The term of the Committee or of its members soc elected shall be a period
not exceeding six years as may be specified in the bye-laws:
Provided that a member who has completed a term of an elected member is eligible
for re-election as a member of Committee, if the bye-laws so permit.
(3) Every society shall maintain a register showing the names, addresses and
occupations of the persons, who are members of the Committee and shall file with
the Registrar:-
(i) a copy of the register within a period of fourteen days from the date of
election of the members of the first committee; and
(ii) a notice of every change in the members of the Committee within a period of
fourteen days from the date of such change.
A distinction is maintained between the committee and office bearers as is
evident from Section 5 of the new Act. The relevant provision reads as under:
5. Contents of bye-laws of societies:- The bye-laws of a society shall
contain provisions in respect of following matters:
(i) identity of the society which includes name and address particulars of the
society;
(ii) activities of the society;
(iii) membership of the society i.e., eligibility, admission, withdrawal and
termination etc.,
(iv) General body which contains the manner of meetings to be held or convened,
quorum, functions and responsibilities etc.,
(v) Office bearers and their appointment/election/removal/recall and their
responsibilities etc.,
(vi) Finances which includes types of funds to be raised, appointment of
auditors, liability of members for discharge of debts etc., and
(vii) Other matters which cover the internal matters of settlement of internal
disputes, dissolution of the society etc.
It is therefore evident that in a given case, it is impermissible for an
office bearer to be appointed/elected. What Section 14 mandates is an election
to the committee comprising of not less than three members. At any rate, the
arrangement that was in existence under the old enactment is saved under sub-
section (2) of Section 32. The trial Court has taken note of these developments
and dismissed the S.R.O.P. This Court is not inclined to take any different
view.
Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
