Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 316 (CAL)

SUDIP SAKHA MIDYA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-04-27

GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA

body2007
( 1 ) DERIACHAK Vidyasagar Social Welfare Organisation, a registered society, is admittedly possessed of the following units:- (i) Vidyasagar Gramin Library. (ii) Vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution. (iii) Iswar Chandra Primary Teachers Training Institution. (iv) Vidyasagar Swaymbhar Gosth. (v) Vidyasagar Farmers Club. (vi) Vidyasagar Shishu Siksha Niketan. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid society is also registered under sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 52 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995. It is also not in dispute that by a resolution dated 12th April, 2005 a sub-committee was constituted for better administration of Vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution. One of the responsibilities bestowed upon the sub-committee was to pursue the proposal for sponsorship submitted by the aforesaid society to the Mass Education Extension Department of the Government of West bengal. ( 3 ) THE sub-committee constituted for the purpose of better administration of the Vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution appears to have found an excuse to disintegrate from the parent institution and to become independent on the ground that acceptance of the proposal for sponsorship by the Mass Education Extension Department of government of West Bengal cannot be obtained unless the institution is itself a registered society. With the aforesaid excuse the sub-committee held a meeting on 22nd, May, 2005 for the purposes of enlisting new members and Constitution of a Managing Committee amongst others. Both the aforesaid objects were achieved in the meeting dated 22nd May, 2005 and thereafter the sub-committee succeeded in obtaining registration under the West Bengal Societies Act, 1961 on 5th August, 2005. Separate registration under sub-sections 2 and 4 of Section 52 of the Persons with disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) act, 1995 was also obtained on 9th November, 2005. ( 4 ) IN furtherance of its aforesaid objective the sub-committee had already got an audited balance sheet prepared as at 31st March, 2005. Significantly the sub-committee was constituted by the resolution dated 12th April, 2005. ( 5 ) THE parent society soon realised that the sub-committee constituted, for the purpose of better management of Vidyasagar Blind vocational Training Institution by the resolution dated 12th April, 2005 had been an act of indiscretion and therefore by a resolution dated 27th june, 2005 most of the powers of the sub-committee were revoked. ( 5 ) THE parent society soon realised that the sub-committee constituted, for the purpose of better management of Vidyasagar Blind vocational Training Institution by the resolution dated 12th April, 2005 had been an act of indiscretion and therefore by a resolution dated 27th june, 2005 most of the powers of the sub-committee were revoked. ( 6 ) NOTWITHSTANDING revocation of powers the management of vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution, was not restored to the managing Committee of Deriachak Vidyasagar Social Welfare organisation. The respondent No. 19 as the Secretary of the Vidyasagar blind Vocational Training Institution continued to run the aforesaid unit as an independent society armed by the certificates of registration dated 5th august, 2005 and 19th November, 2005 referred to hereinabove. The respondent No. 19 also continued to apply for grants separately in the name of the Vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution. The petitioner/parent society by its letter dated 17th November, 2005 informed the authorities about the facts and circumstances of the case which failed to yield the desired result. In the circumstances the present writ petition was filed seeking various relief including a mandamus commanding the authorities not to release financial assistance or subsidy in favour of the Vidyasagar blind Vocational Training Institution registered as a separate entity under the leadership of the respondent No. 19. An ex parte to interim order was passed restraining the Block Development Officer from giving effect to the recommendation for sponsorship made by his letter dated 8th december, 2005. The respondent No. 19 applied for vacating the ad interim order which was ultimately treated as the affidavit-in-opposition and thereafter the matter has finally been heard. ( 7 ) MR. Sanyal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 19 submitted that the resolution dated 12th April, 2005 was preceded by a resolution dated 6th October, 2002 and a resolution dated 28th december/ 2003. He submitted that based on the resolutions dated 6th october, 2002 and 28th December, 2003 the resolution dated 12th April, 2005 was irrevocable. The case of the respondent No. 19 in this regard is to be found in Paragraph 'h' of Paragraph 16 of the application for vacating the ex parte interim order which reads as follows:- "that the present respondent specifically controvert the statements of Paragraph 11 by saying that there was no scope of making any resolution as made vide resolution dated 27. 6. 6. 05, to revoke or withdraw the power of the alleged committee as it is barred by the resolutions made by principal committee being Annexure XI to X4 including Annexure P5. Such resolution is liable to be declared void. " ( 8 ) SECOND submission of Mr. Sanyal was that the unit was registered, under the Societies Registration Act, as a separate entity, because in the absence of such registration sponsorship under the Mass Education extension Department of the State of West Bengal could not be obtained. ( 9 ) HIS third submission was that Shri Midda, the Secretary of deriachak Vidyasagar Social Welfare Organisation and also an instructor of the Vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution was expelled from the post of instructor because of his indecent behaviour with the female students of the institution. Enraged by the aforesaid act of the Managing committee of the Institution he has retaliated by making the present writ petition. ( 10 ) LASTLY, he submitted that it is after all an organization for public service and the interest of the public is well protected. There is, therefore, no reason why should this Court interfere. He accordingly invited this Court to dismiss the writ petition. ( 11 ) MR. De learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition submitted that the alleged resolution alleged copies whereof have been disclosed by the respondent No. 19 in his application for vacating the interim order particularly the alleged resolution dated 6th October, 2002 and the alleged resolution dated 28th December, 2003 are forged and fabricated. He produced the original resolution book of Deriachak vidyasagar Social Welfare Organisation for inspection by the Court which did not contain any such resolution. ( 12 ) MR. Sanyal however disputed that these resolutions dated 6th october, 2002 and 28th December, 2003 were forged or fabricated. ( 13 ) SECONDLY, Mr. Dey submitted that the resolution dated 12th April, 2005 did not authorise the sub-committee to disintegrate from the parent body or to become independent or to obtain independent registration as was done by the sub-committee under the leadership of the respondent no. 19. ( 13 ) SECONDLY, Mr. Dey submitted that the resolution dated 12th April, 2005 did not authorise the sub-committee to disintegrate from the parent body or to become independent or to obtain independent registration as was done by the sub-committee under the leadership of the respondent no. 19. He added that in any event it is not within the competence of the managing Committee of the Deriachak Vidyasagar Social Welfare organisation to allow any of its units to become independent or to allow partition or division of its assets for the purpose of creation of a separate entity. He in this regard drew my attention to the relevant provisions contained in the memorandum which reads as follows:- "the income and properties of the Society whatsoever derived or obtained shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the objects of the society and no portion thereof shall be paid to or amongst any of its members by way of profits. " ( 14 ) HE added that it is not open to any member of the Managing committee or any office bearer to allow any of the units of Deriachak vidyasagar Social Welfare Organisation to be registered as an independent body and therefore the alleged permission allegedly granted by the president of the Organisation on 1 st May, 2005 a copy whereof is Annexure 'x4' to the Application for vacating the ad interim order is invalid, illegal and inoperative. ( 15 ) MR. Sanyal has disputed the submissions made by Mr. Dey. ( 16 ) I have considered the rival submission made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The questions for determination in my view are as follows:- (a) Whether the application for registration of the Vidyasagar blind Vocational Training Institution as a separate society under the Societies Registration Act was legally made? (b) Whether Vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution can be allowed to be run as an independent entity? ( 17 ) IT is not in dispute that the sub-committee constituted by the resolution dated 12th April, 2005 took steps for the purpose of registration of the Vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution under the Societies registration Act. It is also not in dispute that the sub-committee enlisted new members and formed a fresh Managing Committee. Neither of the aforesaid acts was authorised by the resolution dated 12th April, 2005. It is also not in dispute that the sub-committee enlisted new members and formed a fresh Managing Committee. Neither of the aforesaid acts was authorised by the resolution dated 12th April, 2005. The fact that separate accounts in the name of the Vidyasagar Blind vocational Training Institution were prepared as at 31st March, 2005 goes to show unmistakably that the entire movement was inspired with a sinister motive. In the absence of authorisation from the parent body the resolution adopted on 22nd May,2005, a copy whereof is Annexure 'x5' to the application for vacating the interim order, is anything but legal. The permission allegedly obtained from Sri Nabendu Ghora the President of the Deriachak Vidyasagar Social Welfare Organisation cannot cure the defect. The alleged resolutions dated 6th October, 2002 and 28th december, 2003 veracity whereof is seriously disputed by the writ petitioners do not in my view lend any assistance to the respondent No. 19. The alleged resolution dated 6th October, 2002 at the highest is expression of a desire which again is dependent upon various circumstances indicated therein. The alleged resolution dated 28th December, 2003 does not reflect that the circumstances contemplated in the alleged resolution dated 6th october, 2002 existed for giving effect to the desire expressed in the resolution dated 6th October, 2002. The resolution dated 12th April, 2005 does not even refer either to the resolution dated 6th October, 2002 or the resolution dated 28th December, 2003. Therefore, the resolution adopted on 12th April, 2005 cannot be construed in the light of the alleged resolutions dated 6th October, 2002 and 28th December, 2003. The fact that the original resolution book of the parent society does not contain the resolutions dated 6th October, 2002 and 28th December, 2003 cannot also be lost sight of. ( 18 ) MOREOVER, the memorandum of the Society provides that the assets and properties of the Deriachak Vidyasagar Social Welfare organisation cannot be utilised except for any of the purposes mentioned in the objects. The objects of the society do not include division of the units as separate legal entities. ( 19 ) FINALLY, the Society was registered long after the resolution dated 12th April, 2005 had been revoked by a resolution dated 27th June, 2005. The objects of the society do not include division of the units as separate legal entities. ( 19 ) FINALLY, the Society was registered long after the resolution dated 12th April, 2005 had been revoked by a resolution dated 27th June, 2005. I, therefore, am of the view that the application for registration of the vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution as a society under the societies Registration Act was made illegally. ( 20 ) IN view of the opinion expressed in answer to the first issue the second issue must be answered in the negative because steps taken pursuant to illegal application are also illegal. The illegally registered society cannot be allowed to function as a separate entity. The unit continues to be a part of the parent society namely Deriachak Vidyasagar social Welfare Organisation. ( 21 ) THE only question now remains to be considered is as to what relief should be granted to the writ petitioner. I already have found that vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training Institution is a unit belonging to the parent organisation Deriachak Vidyasagar Social Welfare Organisation. Any act or attempt calculated to interfere with the right of the Deriachak vidyasagar Social Welfare Organisation to manage its units including the one in question is undoubtedly an invasion of their right. Such act would also be in aid of the wrongful activities undertaken by the sub-committee which has more fully been discussed hereinbefore. ( 22 ) IN the circumstances the concerned respondent authorities are restrained from disbursing or releasing any financial assistance or aid or subsidy in favour of the Vidyasaqar Blind Vocational Training Institution situate at village and post-Deriachak, P. S. Kolaghat, District-Midnapore. It would be open to the writ petitioners to apply for cancellation of the registration granted in favour of the Vidyasagar Blind Vocational Training institution under the Societies Registration Act and under Sections 52 (2) (4) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of rights and Full Participation Act, 1995. The respondent No. 19 shall pay cost assessed at 200 G. Ms. to the petitioners. .