Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1869 (ALL)

Resident Welfare Association v. State of U. P.

2016-05-13

UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT V.K. Shukla, J. Ref: Delay Condonation Application For the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of Delay Condonation Application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing Special Appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. 2. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal 3. Resident Welfare Association, Four Storey HIG/MIG Flat, Sector 99, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar through its Secretary Anil C. Joshi and another are before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 11.5.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26943 of 2015 ( Resident Welfare Association and another Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others) wherein the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition in question, affirming the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits dated 21.4.2015 declaring the registration of petitioner appellants' association namely Resident Welfare Association, Four Storey HIG/MIG Flat, Sector 99, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar being contrary to law and proceeding to register Apartment Owners Association, Four Storey HIG/MIG Flat, Sector 99, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. 4. Writ Petition No. 4320 of 2016 has been filed assailing the validity of the registration certificate dated 21.4.2015 of Apartment Owners Association, Four Storey HIG/MIG Flat, Sector 99, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. On 31.3.2016 in Writ Petition No. 4320 of 2016 following order has been passed; "The petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of the society respondent No.4. The submission of Sri C.L. Pandey, Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Ananya Pandey, appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner society is having its prior registration and that for the same purpose and object another society cannot be registered in view of Section 3(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4 and filed counter affidavit. His submission is that the registration of the petitioner has already been cancelled and as such the argument raised on its behalf has no legs to stand. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition No.26943 of 2015 challenging the order dated 25.04.2015 by which the Deputy Registrar has held that the petitioner has acted illegally in getting the society registered under the Act instead of U.P. Apartment Act, 2010. It appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition No.26943 of 2015 challenging the order dated 25.04.2015 by which the Deputy Registrar has held that the petitioner has acted illegally in getting the society registered under the Act instead of U.P. Apartment Act, 2010. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed and the order dated 21.04.2015 was maintained. The petitioner has filed a Special Appeal Defective No.35 of 2016 against it. The further submission of Sri Pandey is that in the earlier writ petition the order dated 21.04.2015 was challenged. The said order was not an order cancelling the registration of the petitioner but the judgement and order of this court dated 11.04.2015 dismissing the above referred writ petition incorrectly records that it was the order cancelling the registration of the petitioner. In view of above, it is considered appropriate that this writ petition may be tagged with the Special Appeal and list along with it if possible in the week commencing 11.04.2016. In the meantime, counsel for the petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. " 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 31.3.2016 both the special appeal as well as writ petition has been taken up to together for final hearing and disposal. 6. Brief background of the case as is reflected from the record in question is that the provisions of the U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 (in short the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010) was enacted by the State Legislature to provide for the ownership of an individual apartment in a building, of an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment; to make such apartment and interest heritable and transferable, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 7. The U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 provides for an association of apartment owners and by-laws for the registration of the affairs of such association, for administration of the affairs in relation to the apartments and the property appertaining thereto and for the management of common areas and facilities. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 enjoins joint responsibility of the promoter and apartment owners to form an association. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 enjoins joint responsibility of the promoter and apartment owners to form an association. The responsibility of getting the association registered has been given to the promoter to get the association registered, when such number of apartments have been handed over to the owners, which is necessary to form an association or 33% of the apartments, whichever is more by way of sale, transfer or possession provided the building has been completed along with all infrastructure services and completion certificate obtained from the local authorities. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 places an obligation upon a prospective apartment owner to become member of the association within four weeks of receipt of the written intimation about the formation of such association. On formation of the association of the apartment owners under sub-section (2), sub-section (5) provides that the management of the affairs of the apartment regarding their common areas and facilities shall be deemed to be transferred from the promoter to the Association which shall thereupon maintain them; provided that till all the apartments are sold or transferred, the promoter shall proportionately share the maintenance cost of common areas and facilities. The model by-laws made by the State Government and notified in the gazette under sub-section (6) of Section 14, which provide for (a) the manner in which the Association of Apartment Owners is to be formed; (b) the election, from among apartment owners, of a Board of Management by the members of the Association of Apartment Owners; (c) the number of apartment owners constituting the Board, the composition of the Board and that one-third of members of the Board shall retire annually etc. include in (j) election of a President of the Association of Apartment Owners from amongst the apartment owners, who shall preside over the meeting of the Board and of the Association of Apartment Owners and of Secretary under (i) to be the ex-officio member of the Board to be keeper of the minute books, provided in sub-section (7) and other provisions of by-laws under sub-section (8) provide for a uniform and standard by-laws, which have been notified as model by-laws under sub-section (6) of Section 14 vide Notification No.3977/8-1-11-115 D.A./02-TC-1 dated 16.11.2011. The amendment to the by-laws can be made by the association as per Bye-Law no. The amendment to the by-laws can be made by the association as per Bye-Law no. 58 in a duly constituted meeting for such purpose and no amendment is to take effect unless approved by the owners representing at least 2/3rd of the total number of units in the building with the prior approval of the competent authority. 8. The U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and the U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 (The Rules of 2011) notified on 16.11.2011 provide for a complete code for regulating the rights, duties and liabilities of the promoters and apartment owners. The formation of an association, resolution of disputes, offences and penalties with the ultimate control vested in the State Government under Section 27 of the Act. The Act has been given overriding effect under Section 31 notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being enforced. Section 29 provides for removal of doubts that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act apply to the transfer of any apartment, together with its undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appertaining thereto made by the owner of such apartment, whether such transfer is made by sale, lease, mortgage, exchange, gift or otherwise as they apply to the transfer of any immovable property. Section 28 exempts the application of Section 25 and 26 of the Act relating to offences and offences of companies, if the promoter is local authority, or any other statutory body constituted for the development of land or housing or a company or a body wholly owned or controlled by the Government created for the development of land or housing or promotion of industry and in such case no suit, prosecution or legal proceedings shall lie against government or any officer or other employee of the government in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done by or under the Act, with further power under Section 32 to exempt if the government is of the opinion that the operation of any provisions of the Act cause any undue hardship, by a general or special order, any class of person or areas from the provisions of the Act. 9. 9. The U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and the Rules of 2011 have taken care of every detail for providing ownership of an individual apartment, undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, the delineation of common areas and facilities to be provided in the declaration, formation of association and the rights, duties and liabilities of the promoter and apartment owners. Rule 3 of the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011 provides for formation of declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 12. The declaration shall be submitted by the promoter under sub-section (1) of Section 12 in Form-A appended to the Rules within a period of 12 months from the date of approval of the plans. Where the building has been constructed or is under construction prior to the commencement of these Rules declaration shall be submitted within 90 days. 10. The 'competent authority' under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 2011 means Vice Chairman of the Development Authority in whose development area the building is situated or Collector of the district, where no such development authority exists. Though we find that no specific power has been given to the competent authority to decide any dispute between the apartment owners and promoters or the apartment owners inter-se, the provisions of the Act namely the prior permission of the competent authority under sub-section (4) of Section 25 in case of any complaint for any offences for the Court to take cognizance, the obligation of the competent authority under sub-section (1) of Section 27 to carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time; the lodgment of the declaration with the competent authority under Section 12 (1) and any amendment and the resolution of disputes on such amendment under rule 4 (4) of the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011, clearly enjoins that if a dispute or disputes is not resolved between the disputants in the meeting of the association of apartment owners of which promoter is necessary member under sub-section (2) of Section 14, the dispute has to be first raised before the competent authority and thereafter to be raised before the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Act, which has control and is accountable for the efficient implementation of the Act and the powers of removal of doubts and removal of difficulties under Section 29 and 33 of the Act. 11. 11. The Act has thought it proper to provide for a compulsory formation of an association of apartment owners, by way of a society for administering affairs in relation to the apartment and properties appertaining thereto and for the management of common areas and facilities. 12. The Act and the Rules do not provide for the authority with whom the association of apartment owners will be registered. The model by-laws notified by the State Government on 16.11.2011, however, provide in the definition clause that the Registrar means the Registrar under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. On the formation of the association of which obligation has been entrusted on the promoter under sub-section (2) of Section 14, the association shall make its by-laws at its first meeting, which is also obligatory for every society under the Societies Registration Act. The Model by-laws made in sub-section (6) of Section 14 provide that every association of apartment owners shall make its by-laws at its first meeting for the administration of the affairs in relation to apartment and properties appertaining thereto. By its own name, the Model by-laws means that these by-laws has to be adopted by every association of apartment owners, which can be amended under Bye-Law 58 of the Model by-laws by the association in a duly constituted meeting for such purpose and that no amendment shall take effect unless approved by owners representing at least 2/3 of the total number of units in the building with the prior approval of the competent authority, which has been defined under Rule 2 (c) of the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011. By such approval being granted to a valid resolution for amendment of by-laws by the owners representing at least 2/3rd of the total number of units in the building in the special meeting constituted for such purpose the amendment shall be carried out by the Registrar of Societies. It goes without saying that such amendment has to be in consonance with the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011. 13. It goes without saying that such amendment has to be in consonance with the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011. 13. Though the apartment owner has been defined to mean; 'a person or persons owning an apartment or promoter or his nominee in case of unsold apartment', since there is no restriction on the occupation of the apartment by members of any joint family, which has been defined under Section 2 (q) and by the family members of the apartment owner as well as lawful tenant or lawful occupant, who may be authorized by the society/ firm / company or any validly recognized association of persons, such lawful occupation will also be included within the meaning of the apartment owner both for the purposes of enjoying rights and obligations and corresponding general liabilities of the promoter, but also for the purposes of becoming members of the association of apartment owners. In case of any dispute on the validity of his membership, it has to be first resolved by the members of the association in an annual meeting or special meeting of the association and in case of any further dispute by the Competent Authority under Rule 2 (c) of the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011 and thereafter before the State Government before it is raised before any Court of law. 14. After the enforcement of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 no builder, promoter can resist/ or delay the formation of association of apartment owners under Section 14 of the Act. If the promoter does not get the association registered, the apartment owners can get such association registered after a notice giving reasonable period to the promoter, say a month, and to adopting model by-laws, if they have not adopted earlier. In such case the Registrar of Societies shall not refuse the registration of the association of the apartment owners. The promoter, however, has to be made a member as he is jointly responsible with the apartment owners to form an association. Even if he does not get the association registered and does not join or his authorised agents and subscribe to be a member of the association, he will be deemed to be member of the association for the purposes of enforcement of the Act as the promoter being the member of the association has duties and liabilities under the Act to be enforced. 15. 15. In spite of the fact that the provisions of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 has been enforced, the petitioner appellants proceeded to get the society in question registered known as Resident Welfare Association, Four Storey HIG/MIG Flat, Sector 99, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar under the Societies Registration Act 1860 with its registration no. 1155 of 2011-12 dated 12.1.2012 valid for a period of five years i.e. upto 11.1.2017. The said society in question was registered on 12.1.2012 and the factual situation on which there is no dispute that in spite of the fact that the provisions of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 has been made applicable, the registration in question was not at all based on the model by-laws framed in the said regard. 16. It appears that thereafter, on the spot, there has been some bicuring qua the way and manner of functioning of petitioners' society and there has been groupism and in this direction complaint has been made before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and on the said complaint being made Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits on 16.7.2014 asked for reply from petitioners and reply was submitted on 22.7.2014. After receiving the said reply, Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits on 22.8.2014 forwarded copy of reply submitted by the petitioners to Sri Rajveer Singh Chauhan and asked for his comments. Simultaneously as another complaint has also been made by Sri Rajveer Singh Chauhan and others, copy of said compliant was forwarded to petitioners to have their say by 5.9.2014. On 5.9.2014 reply has been given by respondent no. 4 for desolving the management committee constituted contrary to the by-laws. It appears that respondent no. 4 being dissatisfied with the functioning of the petitioners took resolve to constitute association according to the provisions of U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and Rules 2011 on 13.7.2014 and in this direction requested Chief Executive Officer, Noida, that for the purposes of getting registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, 'No Objection Certificate' be issued. Noida authorities in their turn on 17.11.2014 issued 'No Objection Certificate' for getting registration of Apartment Owners. After obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' respondent no. 4, accordingly, proceeded to apply before the Deputy Registrar for registration of an association. Noida authorities in their turn on 17.11.2014 issued 'No Objection Certificate' for getting registration of Apartment Owners. After obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' respondent no. 4, accordingly, proceeded to apply before the Deputy Registrar for registration of an association. On such a situation being created before the Deputy Registrar a letter was sent on 10.12.2014 clearly asking the petitioners to bring their by-laws of the society in question in tune with the provisions as contained under the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010. To the same reply has been submitted but at no point of time any positive response in the direction of bringing the by-laws in tune with the model by-laws, had ever been taken rather petitioners had been trying to buy time up-till June 2015, but the Deputy Registrar asked the petitioners to submit their point of view by 15.4.2015 and in the said backdrop the order dated 21.4.2015 has been passed by the Deputy Registrar and same has been subjected to challenge before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge in her wisdom has proceeded to pass the following order; "Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava,learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Deputy registrar dated 21.4.2015 cancelling the registration of the petitioner's Association namely Resident Welfare Association, Four Storey, HIG/MIGFlat Sector- 99 Nodia district Gautambudh Nagar/ Ghaziabad. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's association was registered on 12.1.2012 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on the affidavit filed by Tejveer Rana, President of the Resident Welfare Association as per the Rules. It was found by the Deputy Registrar that assertion in the affidavit of Tejveer Rana was found incorrect as the association has not been constituted in accordance with the provisions of by Model Bye-laws framed under sub-section (6) of section 14 of the U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2010). Under the Model Bye-laws framed under the Act, 2010, all the persons who had purchased apartment shall comply strictly with the byelaws and with the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in the deed of Apartment. It is admitted by the petitioner that all the flat owners of the apartment are not the members of the association. Under the Model Bye-laws framed under the Act, 2010, all the persons who had purchased apartment shall comply strictly with the byelaws and with the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in the deed of Apartment. It is admitted by the petitioner that all the flat owners of the apartment are not the members of the association. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed as to whether all the apartment owners were member of the association registered on 12.1.2012 and whether the association has been formed strictly in accordance with Models byelaws notified on 16.11.201. It is reflected from the order of the Deputy Registrar that the association registered on 12.1.2012 has not been formed as per the provisions of Models byelaws. Further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the show cause notice dated 2.1.2015 the petitioner has submitted reply on 9.1.2015 informing therein that the executive members of the association have decided in a meeting of General body that all the formalities would be completed for forming association as per Models byelaws . Time was sought to complete the formalities by June 2015. The submission is that the Deputy Registrar was under obligation to grant time to the petitioner's association to complete the formalities and registration done on 12.1.2012 ought not to have been cancelled in exercise of power under section 12(D) of the Societies Registration Act. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. The Model byelaws have been framed on 16.11.2011 whereas the registration was done on 12.1.2012. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the association has been formed as per Model byelaws. It is evident from the affidavit submitted on 2.12.2012 that while constituting the association, the models bylaws dated 16.1.2011 have not been taken care of. This court is of the opinion that the association registered on 12.1.2012 cannot be allowed to continue. It is open for the petitioner to apply before the Deputy Registrar for registration of the association formed in accordance with the Act 2010 and Model bye laws. No infirmity is found in the order. The writ petition is dismissed." 17. This court is of the opinion that the association registered on 12.1.2012 cannot be allowed to continue. It is open for the petitioner to apply before the Deputy Registrar for registration of the association formed in accordance with the Act 2010 and Model bye laws. No infirmity is found in the order. The writ petition is dismissed." 17. Thereafter, aggrieved against the said order, special appeal has been filed and as registration certificate in question, that has been so issued, has also been subjected to challenge, both the matters have been directed to be taken up together and this is how the matter is before this Court. 18. Sri C.L. Pandey, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Dubey/Ananya Pandey, Advocate, submitted before this Court that learned Single Judge has totally misdirected herself at the point of time when she has proceeded to pass the order as at no point of time registration of the society has been cancelled and under the provisions of Societies Registration Act once the registration of society has not at all been cancelled, then the society in question subsists and, accordingly, such an order could not have been passed, as it has been done and a second society for the same purpose could not have been registered as per Section 3 (2) of Societies Registration Act, 1860, and, in view of this, special appeal deserves to be allowed and alongwith the same after allowing the special appeal, writ petition be also allowed as grant of second registration is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 19. 19. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner appellants have been countered by Sri Ramesh Rai, Advocate supported by the similar arguments of learned Standing Counsel, by submitting that the registration that has been there in favour of petitioner appellants after the enforcement of U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and the Rules 2011, as same has not at all been in consonance with the model by-laws, then the said registration was of no consequence and, in view of this, once the said registration is of no consequence and the majority of apartment owners have taken a resolve to constitute association strictly in consonance with the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 read with Rules 2011, then there was no prohibition in registering the said society and issuing fresh registration number and that too after taking due 'No Objection Certificate' from Noida authorities, as such, Deputy Registrar is right at the point of time when he proceeds to make a mention that the registration in favour of petitioner appellants is not at all in consonance with the law and in effect the purport of such observation is that the constitution/registration/continuance is illegal, in view of this, no interference be made by this Court. 20. On the parameters of the provisions of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and the rules framed thereunder and as the model by-laws have been notified by the State Government on 16.11.2011, then an association has to be formed of which obligation has been entrusted upon the promoter under sub-section (2) of Section 14 and association has been enjoined to make its bye-laws at its first meeting, which is also obligatory for every society to be registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Model bye-laws made in sub-section (6) of Section 14 provide that every association of apartment owners shall make its bye-laws at its first meeting for the administration of the affairs in relation to apartment and properties appertaining thereto. The Model bye-laws made in sub-section (6) of Section 14 provide that every association of apartment owners shall make its bye-laws at its first meeting for the administration of the affairs in relation to apartment and properties appertaining thereto. By its own name, the Model Bye-laws means that these bye-laws has to be adopted by every association of apartment owners, which can be amended under Bye-Law 58 of the Model bye-laws by the association in a duly constituted meeting for such purpose and that no amendment shall take effect unless approved by owners representing at least 2/3 of the total number of units in the building with the prior approval of the competent authority, which has been defined under Rule 2 (c) of the U.P. Apartment Rules, 2011. 21. After the enforcement of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, the formation of association is a mandatory requirement and after all the pre-requisite formalities are completed then the association in question has to be registered. Before this Court, in bunch of writ petition, M/s Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vice Chairman, GDA, 2013 (9) ADJ 594 (DB), the provisions of U.P. Apartment Act 2010 and Rules 2011 have been considered in extenso and conclusions have been drawn that they provide for complete code for regulating the right, duties and liabilities of the promoters and apartment owners. The formation of association, resolution of disputes, offences and penalties with the ultimate control vested in the State Government under Section 27 of the Act. The Act has been given overriding effect under Section 31. Specific mention has been made that after enforcement of U.P. Act 2010 no builder, promoter can resist or delay the formation of association under Section 14 of the Act. At item No. 13 of the directive finally insistence has been made for adoption of Model By-laws. 22. A Division Bench of this Court once again in the case of Grand Omaxe Apartment Owners Association Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Writ Petition No. 39150 of 2015, decided on 5.8.2015, has dealt with the provisions that has been noted by us also on the same lines as earlier Division Bench has did, and in the said Division Bench judgment categorical mention has been made to the effect that registration certificate issued by Deputy Registrar without registering the by-laws is of no consequence, and thus there is no registered society. 23. 23. Here the factual situation that is so emerging that Resident Welfare Association on 12.1.2012 got itself registered for protecting the interest of apartment owners without the model by-laws in question. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Grand Omaxe Apartment Owners Association (supra) has clearly taken the view that the registration certificate issued by Deputy Registrar without registering the by-laws is of no consequence, and thus there is no registered society. The judgment of this Court is thus clear and categorical that under the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 read with Rules 2011 only such societies have to be accepted as duly recognised and valid, who have got themselves registered in consonance with the provisions as contained under the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and Rules 2011 strictly in consonance with the model by-laws, that has been so framed, and in case such a situation is not emerging, then the registration of the said society in question has to be accepted as there is no registered society. The judgment in the case of Grand Omaxe Apartment Owners Association (supra) has been subject matter of consideration in the case of Resident Welfare Association (Regd.) Through its Secretary Vs. State of U.P. & 5 others, Special Appeal No. 815 of 2015, and therein this Court has taken the view that as far as society in question is concerned, the society in question cannot be said to be a defunct body and at the best when amendment dated 8.9.2014 has been cancelled on 28.4.2015, the net effect of the same would be that the society would be there with old By-laws that were in existence prior to 16.11.2011, the date when model by-laws have been framed by the Governor in exercise of powers under Sub-section 6 of Section 14 of U.P. Apartment Act 2010 and keeping in view the provisions of U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 specially Sub-section (1) of Section 31 that mandates save as expressly provided in Sub-section (1) the provisions of this Act, shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Once Model By-laws have been enforced w.e.f. 16.11.2011, then the societies that are registered under 1860 Act prior to it their By-laws will have to fall in line, in consonance with the provisions of 2010 Act, Rules and the Model By-laws on account of overriding effect of the provisions of 2010 Act and the mandate that after enforcement of Model By-laws, in the first meeting it has to be acted upon. 24. Thus the society in question is mandated to proceed in consonance with the model by-laws, in view of this, as far as the case in hand is concerned, once in spite of the repeated opportunities given to the Resident Welfare Association to bring its by-laws in tune with the model by-laws and in the said direction no such exercise has been undertaken, then as per the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Grand Omaxe Apartment Owners Association (supra), the presumption is that there is no registered society under the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and Rules 2011 and, in view of this, once such is the legal position that is so prevailing under the aforementioned Act and Rules, then Deputy Registrar is not at all wrong when he proceeds to make a mention that the registration of the society of petitioner appellants is contrary to law. The said sentence clearly implicits in itself that it is illegal. Once the Deputy Registrar has clearly proceeded to make such an observation, then it has to be seen in what context such an observation has been made. The said sentence clearly implicits in itself that it is illegal. Once the Deputy Registrar has clearly proceeded to make such an observation, then it has to be seen in what context such an observation has been made. Here, in the present case, what we find from the record that accepted position is that petitioner appellants have got registered themselves under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the by-laws of the society in question has not at all been in tune with the model by-laws and in such a situation in spite of time being provided for no such exercise has been undertaken and there was a claim by the resident owners forming the association strictly in consonance with the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and Rules 2011 after taking 'No Objection Certificate' from Noida authorities, then in this background the declaration made to the effect that the constitution of petitioner appellants' society was illegal and there was a claim of the resident owners to form an association strictly in consonance with the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and Rules 2011, in view of this, the registration of society of respondent no. 4 cannot be termed to be bad or contrary to law on any score. 25. Much capital has been sought to be made of the provisions as contained under Section 3 (2) of Societies Registration Act, 1860, by mentioning that second society for the same purpose/object could not have been registered. Under Societies Registration Act, 1860, Registrar is obligated to refuse to register society, provided the terms and conditions mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) are available. Here none of the contingencies as enumerated under clause (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Societies Registration Act, 1860 are available. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, has held existence of petitioner appellant as illegal and then has proceeded to accord registration after Deputy Registrar has fully satisfied himself that society be registered. Societies Registration Act, 1860, is self contained Act, wherein Section 3-B clearly provides that if any question arises whether any society is entitled to get itself registered in accordance with Section 3 or get its certificate renewed, the matter be referred to the State Government and the same shall be final. 26. Societies Registration Act, 1860, is self contained Act, wherein Section 3-B clearly provides that if any question arises whether any society is entitled to get itself registered in accordance with Section 3 or get its certificate renewed, the matter be referred to the State Government and the same shall be final. 26. As far as the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860, the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and Rules 2011 are concerned, suffice is to mention that once model by-laws have been enforced on 16.11.2011 and registration is sought for registration of society of Apartment Owners under Societies Registration Act, 1860, thereafter, the registration should be considered by the Registrar only when it is in consonance with model by-laws, otherwise registration in question should not at all be accorded. 27. Coupled with this, it has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit that after such an order has been passed the petitioner appellant has returned the entire amount in question to each of its members and apartment owners have proceeded to recognise the opposite party and entire affairs are being managed by respondent no. 4, accordingly. Such factual situation is not disputed before us. Even otherwise writ jurisdiction is to be exercised for correcting obvious injustice, and here in the facts of case apparently no injustice appears to have been done for the reason that opportunity had been provided to amend the by-laws but same had not been done and obvious reason for the same appears to be that on ground petitioners' have no support of the apartment owners/members, as such, we cannot accord any relief and even otherwise issuance of writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy and once substantial justice is done, this Court can always refuse to intervene and the case in hand falls in the said category, in view of this, the special appeal as well as writ petition are dismissed, accordingly. 28. No order as to costs.