Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 615 (GAU)

Church of God v. State of Meghalaya

2008-08-22

H.BARUAH

body2008
JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. The order dated 6.11.2003 passed by Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya, ERTC Department under the provision of Section 11 of Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred as MSR Act, 1983) following an application made by Church of God Business Association, Assam and Meghalaya dated 13.6.2003 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The brief facts may be summarized as under: The Church of God, Business Association of Assam and Meghalaya having its headquarters and offices at Shillong came into existence on 8.7.1907 registered under the Sub-Registrar at Shillong as a trust and the said association through public contribution acquired properties etc. and carried out the aims and objectives for which it was formed. 3. Some dispute having been arisen among some of the members of Church of God, Business Association Meghalaya and Assam, a group had broken away on 17.4.1909 and formed an association under the name and style Church of God. Khasi Jaintia, Meghalaya, which was later registered under the Meghalaya Society Registration Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to MSR Act, 1983) under the name and style, "Administrative Body, Church of God, Khasi Jaintia", Nongthymmai, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya on the basis of Memorandum of Association and its area of operation within the State of Meghalaya, Rev. N.S. Rangrai, the then President of the Church of God, Business Association submitted a representation before the Registrar of Societies, Meghalaya on 23.3.2000 for conversion of name of the Petitioner's society which was however, rejected holding that the name of the Church of God Upliftment Society is not similar to the Petitioner's society. Being aggrieved thereby, the Church of God, Business Association, Assam and Meghalaya on 5.2.2003 filed an application for review of the order dated 17.5.2002 against which the objection was filed by the Petitioner's society. The Registrar of Societies, Meghalaya, Shillong, summarily rejected the same by an order dated 13.5.2003 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order. Again on 13.6.2003, Church of God, Business Association, Meghalaya and Assam submitted an application before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Excise and Taxes Department opposing the registration of the Petitioner's society. Again on 13.6.2003, Church of God, Business Association, Meghalaya and Assam submitted an application before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Excise and Taxes Department opposing the registration of the Petitioner's society. Pursuant to filing of such application, the President of Petitioner's society was directed to appear on 23.9.2003 and to show cause as to why the registration of the Petitioner's society should not be cancelled/altered in accordance with the provision of Sections 10 and 11 of the MSR Act, 1983. Objection was filed and the learned Commissioner and Secretary vide impugned order directed the Petitioner's society (Administrative Society, Church of God, Khasi Jaintia) to change its name to another suitable name within a period of three months from the date of the order. 4. Argument at length was heard from the counsel of both parties. 5. Mr. K. Khan, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner contended that the Respondent No. 3, the Church of God, Business Association, Assam and Meghalaya was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Shillong as a trust while the Petitioner's society was registered under the provisions of MSR Act, 1983 which admittedly bifurcated from due to some differences that arose amongst the members of the society (Church of God, Business Association, Assam and Meghalaya). An attempt was made by the Respondent No. 3 for conversion of the name of the writ Petitioner by filing an application before the Registrar of Societies, Meghalaya which after due consideration was rejected upholding that, the name of the Church of God Upliftment Society is not similar to the Petitioner's society. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and Secretary is basically illegal and erroneous which cannot legally sustain. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner that the writ Petitioner's society was registered per Articles of Association and its area defined within the State of Meghalaya. The functions and activities of the Petitioner's association being not akin to the function and activities of Church of God, Business Association, Assam and Meghalaya, the objection raised by the Respondent No. 3 in continuation of the name of the Petitioner's society is apparently and legally not sustainable since its name is not identical and similar to the name "Church of God Upliftment Society". It was further argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the Church of God, Business Association was registered under the provisions of trust Act before the Sub-Registrar, Shillong, it has got no locus standi to object in the continuation of the name of the Petitioner's society which was admittedly registered under the MSR Act, 1893. Further no objection was ever raised by the "Church of God Upliftment Society" registered under the provision of the MSR Act, 1983 in the continuation of the Petitioner's name. It was also argued by the counsel for the writ Petitioner that there exists many churches in the name of Church of God in the Northeastern States as well as West Bengal, Orissa, Andaman Nicobar Island and Nepal which are functioning independently. The Petitioner's society registered as "Administrative Body, Church of God, Khasi Jaintia" is also functioning as an independent body in the upliftment of the society and since there are existence of several churches carrying the name of "Church of God" there could be no reason whatsoever for any confusion or complication. The Petitioner's society has no nexus whatsoever with the "Church of God, Business Association, Assam and Meghalaya", Shillong or with the "Church of God Upliftment Society, Shillong". Therefore, no occasion could be arosed on the part of the "Church of God, Business Association" to file objection in the registration and continuation of Petitioner's association under the name and style "Administrative Body, Church of God, Khasi Jaintia." 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Commissioner and Secretary committed error and illegality in ordering the Petitioner association to change its name from "Administrative Body, Church of God Khasi Jaintia" to any other suitable name acting under the provisions of Section11 of the MSR Act, 1983. Learned Counsel accordingly urged this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, ERTS Department. 7. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate in support of the case of the Respondents submitted that no error or illegality has been committed by the Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya, ERTC Department directing the Petitioner to change its name "Administrative Body Church of God, Khasi Jaintia" to another suitable name. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner and Secretary taking resort to the provisions of Section 11 of the MSR Act, 1983. 8. of Meghalaya, ERTC Department directing the Petitioner to change its name "Administrative Body Church of God, Khasi Jaintia" to another suitable name. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner and Secretary taking resort to the provisions of Section 11 of the MSR Act, 1983. 8. Respondent No. 3, the "Church of God, Business Association" in its affidavit-in-opposition contended that Church of God, Assam and Meghalaya was founded in the year 1902, while Church of God, Business Association was set up to look after the properties of the Church on 8.7.1907. Church of God, Business Association was founded for the purpose of upliftment and all round development in literary, cultural, scientific, educational, economic fields and for that purpose set up the society known as "Church of God Upliftment Society" with its headquarters at Chapel Road, Shillong, which was duly registered under the provisions of MSR Act, 1983. In paragraph -7 of the affidavit-in-opposition of Respondent No. 3, it is contended that on 17.1.1999 some of the members of the "Church of God, Meghalaya and Assam" under the leadership of Pastor J. Laitim as President established a Church under the name and style the "Church of God, Khasi Jaintia" with its headquarters at Nongthymmai, Shillong which was also registered under MSR Act, 1983 surreptitiously without serving any notice on the parent body the "Church of God, Business Association'". 9. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondent No. 3, it is also contended that the name and style of the Petitioner's association registered under MSR Act. 1983 is identical with and too nearly resemble to that of the Respondent No. 3, Church of God, Meghalaya and Assam, which is likely to cause and create confusion in the mind of the people who are following the faith. Therefore, in order to remove confusion in the mind of the people. Section 11 has been incorporated in MSR Act 1983. The Commissioner and Secretary by virtue of the provisions and Section 11 of the Act and after taking into consideration of all the matters in its entirety directed the Petitioner association to change its name to another suitable name. According to Mr. N.D. Chullai learned Sr. Govt. Adv., the Commissioner and Secretary acting under this provision did not commit any error of illegality in passing the impugned order. 10. Section 11 of the MSR Act, 1983 reads as follows: 11. According to Mr. N.D. Chullai learned Sr. Govt. Adv., the Commissioner and Secretary acting under this provision did not commit any error of illegality in passing the impugned order. 10. Section 11 of the MSR Act, 1983 reads as follows: 11. State Government may direct change of name. (1) If a society is registered under a name of alters its name to another which, in the opinion of the State Government, is identical with or too nearly resembles that of any other society or body corporate which having been previously registered or deemed to have been registered under this Act or incorporated under any other law for the time being in force, continues to exist, the State Government may, by an order direct such society to change its name within three months from the date of the order or such longer period as it may allow. (2) The change of name shall not affect the rights and liabilities of a society or any legal proceedings by or against the society. (3) In case of non-compliance with an order under Sub-section (1), every officer in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty rupees for each day until the order is complied with. This provision has been made in the Act by the State Legislature in order to avoid confusion in the minds of the people when two identical names or two nearly resembling names of any society or body registered or deemed to have been registered under the Act or incorporated under any other law for the time being in force continue to exist, the State Government may by an order direct such society to change its name within a period of three months from the date of the order or such longer period as it may allow. "The Church of God, Meghalaya and Assam" was registered under the provisions of Trust Act, Shilling, while "Church of God Upliftment Society", an ancillary body of the Respondent No. 3 and Petitioner's society (Administrative Body, Church of God, Khasi Jaintia) were registered under the MSR Act, 1983. All the associations seen to have carried a common wordings "Church of God". Therefore, the name of the Petitioner's association, which formed subsequently appears to be identical with or too resembles with the Respondent No. 3 society/body. All the associations seen to have carried a common wordings "Church of God". Therefore, the name of the Petitioner's association, which formed subsequently appears to be identical with or too resembles with the Respondent No. 3 society/body. The Commissioner and Secretary while passing the impugned order had considered the question of identicalness or too nearly resembleness of the Petitioner's society and Respondent No. 3 society and offered acceptable reasons for such direction. 11. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate while arguing the case submitted that by the impugned order, the aims and the objectives of the Petitioner's Society will not be jeopardize nor there would be any violation of fundamental rights to profess religion of choice enshrined in Part-III of the Constitution. The Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya, ERTC Department did not commit any error or illegality in passing the impugned order, Sri N.D. Chullai argued. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case appearing in the face of the record and the substantive law provided in the MSR Act, 1893 and its aim and object, this Court is of view that the impugned order is not illegal and arbitrary. This Court does not see any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed, however with no cost. 13. Before parting, the writ Petitioner is directed to change its name to another suitable name not identical with the name of the Respondent No. 3 or any other society/body within a period of three months from this date and register accordingly.