JUDGMENT
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of both the writ petitions enlisted above, namely, WP(C) Nos. 7905/2004 and 8620/ 2004, for, both these writ petitions have been heard together on the request made by the learned Counsel for the parties and, as conceded by the learned Counsel for the parties, the decision in any of the two writ petitions would have great bearing on the out-come of the other writ petition inasmuch as both these writ petitions are closely interlinked and the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions claim to represent the same registered society.
2. The undisputed facts, Which emerge from the records, are that Sadou Asom Puthi Prakasak Aru Bikreta Sangtha, which is also popularly known as the All Assam Book Sellers and Publishers Association, is a society, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Society’), established in the year 1973, with the object of promoting culture and literature in the society and it organises and conducts activities, such as, North-East Book Fair, National Level Literary Seminar, introduction of national and international literature, donation to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund and extending financial help to people on humanitarian grounds. The said Society stands registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with effect from 19.8.1998. This registration was valid upto 19.8.2001 and had been subsequently extended upto 14.9.2007. By order, dated 27.9.2004, issued by the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Assam, (in short, ‘the Registrar’), the said registration certificate, granted in favour of the said Society, was withdrawn.
3. Having been formed with such avowed objects and having organised and carried out such laudable activities as mentioned hereinbefore, the said society has fallen into a controversy inasmuch as both the writ petitioners claim themselves to be the real representative of the said Society. For the sake of brevity, these two groups are described hereinafter as Group-‘A’ and Group-‘B’, the Group-‘A’ being the petitioners in WP(C) 7905/2004 and Group-‘B’ being petitioners in WHO 8620/2004.
4. Let me, now, turn to the case, which Group-A presents as petitioners in WP(C) 7905/2004 and as respondents in WP(C) 8620/2004.
THE CASE OF GROUP ‘A’
5. The petitioner No. 2, namely, Sri Badan Baruah of WP(C) No. 7905/ 2004 and respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 8620/2004 is the elected President of the said Society. While the said Society was conducting its business smoothly in terms of the objects with which it was formed, a small faction of the said Society, whose aim was to earn name and fame for personal gain, started acting against the interest of the Society and sought to replace the elected executive committee of the said Society and to assume control thereof. Pursuant to complaints made by this small faction of the said Society to the Registrar, a letter was, on 24.6.2003, received by the said Society from the Registrar informing the President and Secretary of the said Society, represented by Group-A, that complaints had been received against the said Society and, hence, the President and Secretary aforementioned shall submit certain documents, which were mentioned in the letter, dated 24.6.2003, aforementioned. By this letter, the Registrar further requested the President and Secretary of the said Society to hold the Annual General Meeting (in short, ‘the AGM’) as per the constitution of the said Society and as required under the said Act. In response to the said letter of the Registrar, the said Society submitted all the documents along with a letter and the same were duly received by the Registrar on 30.7-2003. The Registrar, on 26.8.2003, intimated the President and Secretary of the said Society, represented by Group ‘A’, that as per the decision of the last AGM held on 8.6.2003, the said Society was to hold the AGM immediately to form the new executive body and further requested the petitioners of WP(C) 7905/2004 not to draw any amount from the various Bank Accounts of the said Society without prior instruction of the Registrar. The General Secretary of the said Society, on 30.8.2003, replied to the letter, dated 26.8.2003, of the Registrar and in terms of the request made by the Registrar, the petitioners, who represent Group ‘A’, issued notices in various newspapers regarding the holding of the AGM on 7.9.2003. On 7.9.2003, the AGM of the said Society was held in which as many as 87 members, out of the total strength of 127 members, were present. In the said AGM, a new executive committee was elected with one Sri Giribala Dev Choudhury as the President. On 22.9.2003, the Registrar issued a letter to the then President asking him, inter alia, to surrender the original registration certificate of the said Society to the office of the Registrar immediately. In reply to the letter, dated 22.9.2003, aforementioned, the former President of the said Society stated in his letter, dated 14.10.2003, that the AGM had already been held in accordance with the provisions of the constitution of the said Society, more than two-third of the members of the said Society had attended and participated in the meeting and that there was no departure from the provisions of the constitution of the said Society. Thereafter, on 26.10.2003, Sri Bharat Chandra Das (i.e., the petitioner No. 1 in WP(C) 8620/2004) declaring himself to be the Chief Convenor of the said Society and using the name of the said Society called an Extra-ordinary General Meeting by letter, dated 20.10.2003, though Sri Bharat Chandra Das aforementioned is not a member of the said Society. An extra-ordinary general meeting was accordingly held by a small faction of the members of the said Society arid they have elected a new executive committee. When the said Society, headed by the petitioner No. 1 of WP(C) No. 7905/2004, i.e., the respondent No. 5 in WP(C) 8620/2004, started making preparations for holding the 5th North-East Book Fair, one Sri Pabitra Lakhar filed Title Suit No. 257/2003 praying, inter alia, for an ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioners (who represent Group ‘A’) from holding the 5th North-East Book fair, which was rejected by the learned Civil Judge. Thereafter, one Shri Jyotindra Dutta Baruah filed a writ petition being No. WP(C) 8909/2003 for obtaining directions to restrain the said Society from holding the 5th North-East Book Fair; but on 25.11.2003, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Registrar to ensure that the financial affairs of the Book Fair were properly handled and for that purpose, Registrar may issue such orders as may be necessary. The Book Fair was accordingly held following all the directions issued by the Registrar from time to time and the registration certificate was renewed, on 15.9.2003, and its validity was extended upto 14.9.2007. This renewal was done after due verification of all the documents and after ensuring compliance of all the formalities by the petitioners of WP(C) No. 7905/2004. On 19.9.2004, the AGM of the said Society was held and a new executive committee was constituted with the petitioner No. 2 in WP(C) No. 7905/2004 (i.e., the respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 8620/2004) as the President. The Registrar has, on 27.9.2004, issued a letter to the petitioners in WHO No. 7905/2004 stating that the Registration Certificate, which had already been renewed on 15.9.2004, has been withdrawn until further orders. This letter, dated 27.9.2004, of the Registrar and directions for withdrawal of the registration certificate stand impugned in WP(C) No. 7905/2004. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 7905/2004 have sought for, inter alia, issuance of writ(s) setting aside and quashing the impugned letter, dated 27.9.2004 aforementioned.
6. While issuing the notice of motion, on 13.10.2004, this Court suspended the operation of the impugned letter, dated 27.9.2004, aforementioned issued by the respondent No. 2 and the said interim direction has continued since then.
CASE OF GROUP ‘B’
7. The petitioners in this case are the members of the said Society since its very inception and have been taking active part in various developmental works of the said Society. The respondent No. 5 in this writ petition, namely, Sri Badan Baruah, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7905/2004 aforementioned, is a member of the present executive committee of the said Society, the said executive committee having, however, been formed, on 19.9.2004, by arbitrarily and in violation of the rules of the constitution of the said Society. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the registration of the said Society, the respondent No. 5, who is a petitioner in WP(C) 7905/2004 aforementioned, has been using the name if the said Society. The executive committee of the said Society could not hold the AGM for the session 2002-03 within the stipulated period of time prescribed under Rule 18(ka)(1) and held the AGM on 7.9.2003. For the AGM so held, members, who were from all over Assam were not invited and the invitations were tendered to some members of the choice of the respondent No. 5 and his associates. Though the members are required to be informed 20 days ahead of the holding of the AGM, notices were issued for the said AGM on 30.8.2003. Thus, instead of 20 days, the AGM was held within 7 days in the year 2003. This apart, many of the members were prevented from attending the said meeting. As a result of such illegal activities, an executive committee of the said Society was formed in the absence of requisite quorum. Aggrieved by this decision, some of the members filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 8909/2003, challenging the constitution of the said executive committee. However, the Court passed an order, on 25.11.2003, in WP(C) No. 8909/2003 directing the Registrar to ensure that the financial affairs of the Book Fair are properly handled by the organizer of the Book Fair. While passing this order, the Court also observed that since the Registrar was yet to approve the election of the members of the executive committee formed on 7.9.2004, no order was necessary to be passed in the said writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 8620/2004 (i.e., the persons, who constitute group-B) made representation on behalf of the said Society, to the Registrar, who, in turn, issued two letters, one on 26.1.2003 and the other one on 22.9.2003 addressed to the President (i.e., the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7905/2004 and respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 8620/ 2004) and Secretary of the said Society, who had been elected on 7.9.2003 a is mentioned hereinbefore. By this letter, the Registrar directed the President and Secretary of the said Society to hold the AGM after giving wide publicity/notice to all members, form a new executive committee and submit the accounts for the year 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01 duly audited by Chartered Accountant and approved by the general meeting of the said Society. By letter, dated 22.9.2003, the Registrar directed the persons aforementioned not to use the registration of the said Society and surrender the registration certificate. By letter, dated 24.2.2004, the Registrar directed both the rival groups to hold the AGM within the first week of March 2004; but no meeting could be held. Eventually, both the groups held their AGM separately on different dates and formed two executive committees and submitted the same before the Registrar for approval. The approval has, however, not been accorded by the Registrar to any of the two committees of the said Society. Notwithstanding the fact that the approval has not been given, the group-A (i.e., the group represented by the petitioners in WP(C) 7905/2004) has announced that it would hold the 6th North-East Book Fair from 3.12.2004 to 12.11.2004 under the name and style of the said Society. By letter, dated 27.9.2004, Registrar has withdrawn the registration granted in the name of the petitioner Association. As the members of the group-B failed to persuade the Authorities concerned not to allow the members of the group-A to hold the 6th North-East Book Fair. They have approached this Court. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 8620/2004, therefore, pray, inter alia, that the State respondents be directed not to let the members of the group-A, particularly, respondent No. 5 in WP(C) 8620/2004, (i.e., the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7905/2004), to take any action for holding of the 6th North-East Book Fair without obtaining approval from the Registrar and not to let the members of the group-B or the executive committee headed by the petitioner No. 2 of WP(C) 7905/2004 to operate the bank accounts standing in the name of the said Society till an Executive Committee is formed in accordance with law.
8. While issuing notice of motion, on 29.11.2004, in WP(C) No. 8620/ 2004, the Court passed an interim direction freezing the bank accounts standing in the name of All Assam Publishers and Book Sellers Association and also restrained the respondent No. 5, who is petitioner No. 2 in WP(C) No. 7905/2004, from holding the 6th North-East Book Fair under the name and style of the All Assam Publishers and Book Sellers Association (i.e., in the name of the said Society). However, later on, an application, which came to be registered as Misc. case No. 3383/ 2004, was made by the petitioners of WP(C) No. 7905/2004 seeking to get the interim directions passed, on 29.11.2004, vacated. By order, dated 1.12.2004, after hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, the interim directions, which were passed, on 29.11.2004, were vacated. The 6th North-East Book Fair has accordingly been held.
9. I have heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. A. Ajitsaria, learned Counsel, for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 7905/ 2004, Mr. HK Mahanta, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Ms. MD Choudhury, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. I have also heard Ms. MD Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8620/2004, Mr. HK Mahanta, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 5.
10. Upon perusal of the pleadings of the parties, the materials placed on record and on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties what, in short, appears to be the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 7905/2004 is that the petitioners along with others are the members of the said Society. The registration of the said society was extended up to 14.9.2004 by order, dated 15.9.2004, passed by the Registrar; but without giving any opportunity of Showing cause to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 7905/ 2004 or without giving them any opportunity of having their say in the matter, the registration certificate, which was renewed on 15.7.2004, as mentioned hereinbefore, has been withdrawn by the impugned order, dated 27.9.2004, passed by the Registrar. The fact that the certificate of registration of the said Society was renewed, on 15.9.2004, making the same valid upto 14.9.2007 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that this certificate of registration was withdrawn by the impugned order, dated 15.9.2004, without giving any opportunity of showing cause to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 7905/2004 and/or without giving them any opportunity of having their say in the matter.
11. There can be no doubt that the withdrawal of the certificate of registration is an act of great moment and such a momentous act, which was to adversely affect the said Society and its members, could not have been done without giving any opportunity to the petitioners in WP(C) 7905/2004 to have their say in the matter. Having not done so, the Registrar acted in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as an effective right of the petitioners of WP(C) 7905/2004 has been taken away without affording them any opportunity of showing cause or hearing. Such an order is palpably illegal and cannot be allowed to stand good on record. This position could not be disputed even by Ms. MD Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents.
12. What is also important to note is that the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which embodies the provisions for registration of societies, is the enactment under which registration of the said Society took place. This Act does not contain any provision for cancellation of registration certificate. It may, however, be pointed out that some States have, in fact, made specific provisions for cancellation of registration of a society formed, constituted or registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
13. In Assam, the State Government has not admittedly, made any provision with regard to cancellation and/or withdrawal of the registration of a society registered under the said Act. In the face of these facts there can be no escape from the conclusion that the act of the Registrar in passing the impugned order, dated 27.9.2004, is ex facie beyond his jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.
14. On turning to WP(C) No. 8620/2004, what attracts my eyes, most prominently, is that in this case, the petitioners claim that the Executive Committee of the said Society, which was formed on 19.9.2004, was not in accordance with law and the respondent No. 5, i.e., the Executive Committee which the petitioners in WP(C) No. 7905/2004 represent, is not a legally selected or elected Executive Committee. The questions as to whether the Executive Committee, which was formed on 19.9.2004, was in accordance with law or not, whether all the members had been notified or not or whether all the members were or were not allowed to take part in the proceedings of the meeting held, on 19.9.2004, to elect the Executive Committee are all questions of fact and these facts are intensely disputed inasmuch as the respondent No. 5 in WP(C) 8620/ 2004 (i.e., the petitioner No. 2 in WP(C) No. 7905/2004) claim to be the President of the legally constituted Executive Committee of the said Society. Such disputed questions of fact can be determined only by taking evidence and upon holding roving enquiry, which is neither permissible nor desirable in a proceeding, such as, the present one. The remedy for the grievances of the petitioners in WP(C) 8620/2004, therefore, does not lie in a writ proceeding. Viewed from this angle, the writ petition, which has been registered as WP(C) No. 8620/2004, is not maintainable.
15. I may pause here to point out that the question as to whether a writ petition is or is not maintainable on the ground that it requires determination of disputed question of fact is a question, which can be determined and answered even after the writ petition has been admitted. Reference, in this regard, may be made to UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd and Ors. v. UP Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karmachari Sangh, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 3149, wherein the Apex Court has laid down as follows : –
17. The only reason given by the High Court to finally dispose of the issues in its writ jurisdiction which appears to be sustainable is the factor or… part of the High Court in disposing of the dispute. Doubtless the issue of alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the earliest opportunity so that a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the Court since the objection is one in the nature of demurer. Nevertheless even when there has been such a delay where the issue raised requires the resolution of factual controversies, the High Court should not, even when there is a delay, short-circuit the process for effectively determining the facts. Indeed the factual controversies which have arisen in this case remain unresolved. They must be resolved in a fanner in which is just and fair to both the parties. The High Court was not the appropriate forum for the enforcement of the right and the learned single Judge in Anand Prakash’s case had correctly refused to entertain the writ petition for such relief.
16. What crystallises from the above discussion is that the impugned order, dated 27.9.2004, aforementioned cannot survive and must, therefore, be interfered with. At the same time, as far as the WP(C) No. 8620/2004 is concerned, the same is not maintainable and must, therefore, be dismissed.
17. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the order, 27.9.2004, aforementioned, impugned in WP(C) No. 7905/2004, is hereby set aside and quashed. The writ petition, which has given rise to WP(C) No. 8620/2004, is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
18. Before parting with the present two writ petitions, it is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the WP(C) No. 8620/2004 and/or setting aside and quashing of the order, dated 27.9.2004, aforementioned shall not debar the State respondents from taking such action in the working and in the affairs of the said Society as may be permissible under the law. Similarly, nothing observed hereinabove shall, in any way, adversely affect the right(s), if any, of the petitioners of WP(C) No. 8620/2004 to take recourse to appropriate provisions of law, for, all discussions held above are for the purpose of answering the questions, which were considered relevant in order to dispose of the two writ petitions.
19. With the above observations and directions both these writ petitions shall stand disposed of.
20. No order as to costs.