Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1683 (RAJ)

Madan Gopal Rathi v. State of Rajasthan

2004-11-23

K.S.RATHORE

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. Heard rival submission of the respective parties on the application for impleadment the applicant as necessary party in the writ petition. 2. The applicant is the Managing Committee constituted by the Government vide notification dated 1st July, 2003 in exercise of power under sub - section (2) of Section 53 of the Act of 1959. Earlier to this application, one member of the Managing Committee moved an Misc. Application No.297/2004 before this Court and the same was withdrawn on 16.7.2004 with liberty to file fresh application for impleadment as a party respondent. Now this application has been filed on behalf of Managing Committee and vide resolution dated 26.7.2004, Shri Sushil Kumar Tilawat has been authorised to file the same. 3. This Court vide interim order dated 7.11.2003 has stayed the operation of the notification dated 1st July, 2003 by which the Government has constituted the alleged Managing Committee. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the interim order has been passed against the Managing Committee, therefore, the applicant is vitally interested in the writ petition and should be impleaded as party respondent through its member Shri Sushil Kumar Tilawat, who has been authorised by the committee by way of passing the resolution. 5. Mr. B.L. Sharma learned senior counsel for the petitioner has strongly objected the application filed by the Managing Committee as the resolution which has been passed is in contravention of the provisions of law. 6. In support of his submissions, he referred the judgment reported in AIR 1954 Madras 103 wherein the Full Bench of Madras High Court has held as under : "It is also well settled that a corporation can only do corporate acts at a corporate meeting, unless a different method is authorised by this constitution. Of course, a corporate meeting must be summoned and convened by the proper authority indicated under the provisions of the Act or the rules or the bye-laws." 7. Learned senior counsel submits that the resolution does not disclose that what was the agenda and when the notice for convening such meeting was issued as per the bye-laws. He further submits that he has no objection if the individual members are impleaded as party respondents and for that purpose they should apply afresh in their individual capacity. 8. Learned senior counsel submits that the resolution does not disclose that what was the agenda and when the notice for convening such meeting was issued as per the bye-laws. He further submits that he has no objection if the individual members are impleaded as party respondents and for that purpose they should apply afresh in their individual capacity. 8. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the contents of the application and reply to the application. 9. Vide order dated 7.11.2003, this Court has stayed the operation of constitution of Managing Committee constituted by the Govt. while exercising power under Section 53(5) and Section 55 of the Act of 1959. It is also not disputed that members of the Managing Committee have vital interest in the writ petition. 10. Now the question remains, whether the application which has been filed by Shri Sushil Kumar Tilawat, who has been authorised by the Managing Committee can be said to be valid or not. I have carefully perused the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of Madras High Court. The Madras High Court while dealing the matter with regard to touching the business of registered society has observed that a corporation can only do corporate acts at a corporate meeting unless a different method is authorised by its constitution. Here in the instant case, the Government while exercising power under Section 53(5) vide notification dated 1st July, 2003, has constituted the Managing Committee consisting of Chairman, Secretary and three members, therefore, the all the functions discharged by the Committee cannot be said to be a corporate function. In my considered opinion, the judgment referred by the petitioner is not applicable to the instant case. 11. The application stands allowed. The Managing Committee is herewith ordered to be impleaded as party respondent through member Shri Sushil Kumar Tilawat. The petitioner is directed to file amended cause title within a period of one week.Application allowed. *******