Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3656 (ALL)

Prof. S. B. Nimse v. Union of India

2016-11-08

A.P.SAHI, ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II

body2016
JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Anil Kumar Srivastava-II,JJ. Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the Union of India. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Certiorari to quash the order dated 17.2.2016 in relation to the membership of the petitioner from the Indian Science Congress Association. 3. Admittedly, this association is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with it's Head Office at Kolkata. A Division Bench of this Court entertained the writ petition on 31.5.2016 and passed the following order: - "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of Union of India. Issue notice to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 returnable at an early date. The petitioner's life membership has been cancelled by the Executive Council. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner happens to be the life member then unless bye-laws of the Association provide for removal of life member on given grounds, the petitioner's life membership cannot be cancelled. Learned counsel further submitted that the Executive Council of the Association acted beyond its jurisdiction in canceling the life membership of the petitioner. Till the next date of listing, the operation of the order dated 17.2.2016 (Annexure 1) shall remain stayed. List in the third week of July, 2016." 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Association is clearly in violation of the Rules governing the Association and is without authority in law. 5. A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainability of the writ petition and Sri Anurag Verma appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the writ petition against removal of the membership of the petitioner from a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would not be directly maintainable and the issue has to be raised before the appropriate forum. Secondly, the cause of action if any has arisen at Kolkata and no part of the cause of action has arisen at Lucknow to maintain this writ petition. As such, there is a complete lack of territorial jurisdiction as well. 6. Secondly, the cause of action if any has arisen at Kolkata and no part of the cause of action has arisen at Lucknow to maintain this writ petition. As such, there is a complete lack of territorial jurisdiction as well. 6. Since the Society is registered at Kolkata, the affairs of the Society would be under the jurisdiction of the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits at Kolkata and no part of action is available so as to maintain the writ petition at Lucknow. A counter affidavit has been filed bringing on record various resolutions passed contending that the resolution with regard to the membership whether within the authority of the Association or not is an internal dispute in the affairs of the Society and cannot be subjected to the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the manner in which it has been done in the present case. It is urged by Sri Anurag Verma that merely because budgetary support is provided by the Central Government, the Society does not become an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.10035 (MB) of 2016 decided on 10.5.2016 to contend that in view of the ratio of the said decision, the writ petition would neither be entertainable nor maintainable at Lucknow. 8. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit to which a rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner answering the issues on the merits of the resolution passed and also contending that in view of the recent judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar and others [ 2015 (3) SCC 251 ]. Since the Science Congress is performing a public function, it would fall within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 9. Sri S. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner answering the aforesaid submissions has urged that the writ petition is very much maintainable and against the interim order passed in this petition, the respondents had approached the Apex Court and their S.L.P. was dismissed. 9. Sri S. P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner answering the aforesaid submissions has urged that the writ petition is very much maintainable and against the interim order passed in this petition, the respondents had approached the Apex Court and their S.L.P. was dismissed. He further submits that the cause of action does arise at Lucknow because the petitioner being the Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University and being a Member of the Association could not have been ousted in the manner in which it is alleged. He submits that various mala fides have been alleged and as such the writ petition would be maintainable. Sri Singh has gone to the extent of saying that it is the prestige of the petitioner which is involved and consequently, this Court should not decline to entertain the writ petition on the issue of maintainability. 10. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that this is purely a dispute relating to the individual membership of the petitioner in the Society which is situated at Kolkata. We do not find any such cause relating to the life membership of the petitioner that may allow us to invoke the jurisdiction at Lucknow. Consequently, this is an internal dispute of an individual membership that would be governed by the provisions of the bye-laws of the Society and the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In matters of membership, it is the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits that may have an authority in the dispute or otherwise, the petitioner may have to avail the remedy of seeking a declaration from a Court of competent jurisdiction. The writ petition for the cause shown or even otherwise on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction would therefore not be maintainable. A petition to protect an individual prestige as urged would also not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters. 11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Apex Court had dismissed the S.L.P. against the interim order also does not come to his aid for the reason that the S.L.P. was against an interim order that was dismissed on 5.9.2016 with a request to the High Court to hear the matter out. The Apex Court has not made any observation on the merits of the claim. The Apex Court has not made any observation on the merits of the claim. To the contrary, the Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.11035 (MB) of 2016, a copy whereof is Annexure - CA15 to the counter affidavit, supports the cause of the respondents and therefore for all these reasons, we do not find this writ petition to be either entertainable or maintainable at Lucknow. 12. The writ petition is therefore dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek his remedy either under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as may be permissible in law or by approaching the appropriate forum within whose jurisdiction and authority such a claim would be maintainable.