Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 682 (GAU)

State of Nagaland v. Merang Jamir

2019-05-30

MANISH CHOUDHURY, MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Sema, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State Government in W.A. No. 29(K)/2017. Also heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/Nagaland State Rifle Association, in W.A No. 13(K)/2018. Mr. Imti Longjem appears for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in both the Writ Appeals. Respondent No. 1 is the President of the Nagaland Rifle Association while respondent No. 2 is the Nagaland Rifle Association. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment & Order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 155 (K)/2016, by which the learned Single Judge set aside the Order dated 03.08.2016, which cancelled the respondent No. 2's registration with the Registrar of Societies, Government of Nagaland. 2. The case of the appellants is that the Nagaland State Rifle Association (in short NSRA) was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 under the Government of Nagaland in the year 2013. The respondent No. 2, i.e., the Nagaland Rifle Association (in short NRA), registered itself under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, under the Government of Nagaland in the year 2015. The NSRA being aggrieved by the registration of the NRA submitted a Complaint dated 15.06.2016 to the Registrar of Societies, Kohima, requesting that the registration of the NRA should be cancelled in view of the fact that the registration of the NRA had been done by concealing/withholding facts during the time of registration. Further, as the NRA had a similar name with the NSRA and as the aims and objects of the NRA were identical to the aims and objects of NSRA, the registration of NRA should be cancelled, as the same was not permissible as per Section 3(2) of the Societies Registration (Nagaland Third Amendment) Act, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the 2009 Amendment Act. 3. In pursuance to the Complaint dated 15.6.2016 submitted by the NSRA, the Registrar of Societies, Nagaland, issued a show-cause Notice dated 05.07.2016 to the President of the NRA, asking him to show cause as to why the registration of NRA should not be cancelled, as the NRA had allegedly submitted wrong information while seeking registration, which was to the effect that the President of NRA did not disclose the fact that he was a member of the NSRA and the Kohima Rifle Club, which was also affiliated to the NSRA. Further, NRA had fraudulently inducted the Director General of Police, Nagaland as Ex-officio member in their Constitution, without the consent of the concerned DGP. Also the NRA was having a similar name, with similar aims and objects as the NSRA, which was not permissible under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the State Amendments. 4. The NRA replied to the show cause Notice vide Letter dated 18.07.2016. Thereafter, the Ex-officio Registrar of Societies issued a Letter dated 03.08.2016 stating that, as the registration of the NRA had been wrongly obtained, the NRA certificate of registration was cancelled. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being aggrieved by the same, approached the Singe Bench of this Court vide WP (C) No. 155(K)/2016. 6. The learned Single Judge, on considering the issues held that the cancellation of the registration of the NRA was not in consonance with Section 23 of the Societies Registration (Nagaland Second Amendment) Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as 1984 Amendment Act The Single Judge also held that the activities of the NRA was not subversive to the objects of the NSRA and that none of the grounds that had been projected in the show-cause Notice dated 05.07.2016 had been violated by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Accordingly, the Order dated 3.8.2016, by which registration of the NRA had been cancelled, was set aside. 7. Mr. K. Sema, learned senior Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Nagaland submits that as there has been concealment of facts by the NRA while applying for registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the State Amendments, especially Section 23(1) of the 1984 Amendment Act. He submits that the respondent No. 1 failed to mention in the application form, at the time of seeking registration, that the respondent No. 1 was a member of the NSRA and also a member of the Kohima Rifle Club and the Dimapur Rifle Association, which are affiliated to the NSRA. Further, the name, aims and objects of the NRA being identical to NSRA, the same being in violation of Section 3(2) of Societies Registration (Nagaland Third Amendment) Act, 2008, hereinafter called the 2008 Act, there was no infirmity with the cancellation of the registration of the respondent No. 2. Further, the name, aims and objects of the NRA being identical to NSRA, the same being in violation of Section 3(2) of Societies Registration (Nagaland Third Amendment) Act, 2008, hereinafter called the 2008 Act, there was no infirmity with the cancellation of the registration of the respondent No. 2. He also submits that at the time the NRA had sought registration under the Societies Registration Act, they had shown the DGP as an Ex-officio member in their Constitution, without taking consent of the DGP, Nagaland. This was in violation of Section 3(1) of the 2009 Amendment Act. He also submits that as the learned Single Bench did not decide the issue of concealment of facts which had been raised by the appellants, the present case should be remanded back to the learned Single Bench, so that all questions/issues of concealment of facts can be decided by the learned Single Judge, point by point. 8. Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/NSRA in W.A. No. 13(K)/2017 reiterates the submission made by the learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General for the State of Nagaland. He also submits that the inclusion of the DGP as an Ex-officio member in the Constitution of the NRA must have definitely influenced the authorities while deciding whether to grant registration to the NRA under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He also submits that there can only be one apex society/Association for the sport of shooting in the State of Nagaland. He further submits that the NSRA has been prejudiced, in view of no notice being issued to it as per Section 3(1) of the Amendment Act by the Registrar of Societies, prior to registering the NRA under the Societies Registration Act. 9. He also submits that there being an Appellate Authority to consider cancellation of the registration of NRA, the present issue should be decided by the Appellate Authority, which is the Home Commissioner to the Government of Nagaland. 10. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. For easy guidance to decide the issues raised, it would be expedient to reproduce Section 1 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, Section 23 of the Societies Registration (Nagaland Second Amendment) Act, 1984, and Section 3 of the Societies Registration (Nagaland Third Amendment) Act, 2009. "Societies Registration Act, 1860 1. Societies formed by memorandum of association and registration. 11. For easy guidance to decide the issues raised, it would be expedient to reproduce Section 1 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, Section 23 of the Societies Registration (Nagaland Second Amendment) Act, 1984, and Section 3 of the Societies Registration (Nagaland Third Amendment) Act, 2009. "Societies Registration Act, 1860 1. Societies formed by memorandum of association and registration. Any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scientific, or charitable purpose, or for any literary, scientific, or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in Section 20 of this Act, may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association, and filling the same with Registrar of Joint-stock companies from themselves into a society under this Act. Section 23 of The Societies Registration (Nagaland Second Amendment) Act, 1984 (1984 Amendment Act) states as follows:- '23. Cancellation of registration in certain cases; (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Registrar of societies may, by order in writing cancel the registration of any society registered under this Act, whose office has ceased to be in the State of Nagaland whose activities are subversive to the objects of the society, or registration had been wrongly obtained and/or granted in violation of the provision of the Act-Provided that the Registrar of Societies shall before passing an order made such inquiry as he considers necessary: Provided further that no order of cancellation of registration of any society on the ground of the activities of the society being subversive to the objects, of the society shall be passed until the society is given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against action proposed to be taken in regard to it. (ii) An appeal against an order made under sub-section (1) may be preferred in such manner, within such time and to such authority as may be prescribed and such authority shall consider and dispose of such appeals in the prescribed manner. (iii) The decisions of the appellate authority under sub-section (ii) shall be final:- (iv) In the event of cancellation of registration of any society under this section, any property left by such society after meeting all debts and liabilities shall be dealt with according to Rules of the Society, if any, and if not, as the Governing Body of such society shall find expedient. Section 3 of The Societies Registration (Nagaland Third Amendment) Act, 2009 (2009 Amendment Act) states as follows:- "3(1) Upon such memorandum and certified copy being filed along with particulars of the address of the Society's office which shall be its registered address by the Secretary of the Society on behalf of the persons subscribing to the memorandum, the Registrar shall certify under his hand that the Society is registered under this Act and there shall be paid to the Registrar for every such registration a fee of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) which may be varied, from time to time, by the State Government by notification in the official gazette: Provided that the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue public notice or specific notices to such persons as he thinks fit for inviting objects, or effect necessary verifications through the Deputy Commissioners concerned, in regard to the proposed registration and also consider all objections that may be received by him before registering a society. (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the registrar may refuse to register a society, if, after giving an opportunity to show cause against such refusal, he is satisfied that- (a) The name of the society is identical with that of any other society previously registered under the Act: (b) The name of the society sought to be registered uses any of the words, namely, Union, State, Land Mortgage, Land Development, Cooperative or any words expressing or implying the sanction, word which suggests or calculates to suggests any connection with any local authority or corporation or body constituted by or under any law for the time being in force, or as such, is other society previously sought to be registered under this Act. A perusal of Section 1 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 clearly shows that there is no bar for registration of more than one Association under the Societies Registration Act, so long as they fulfill the provisions of Section 1 and Section 20 of the Act." 12. With regard to the contention of the appellants counsels that the registration of the NRA had been done by concealing facts, we are of the view that just because the respondent Nos. With regard to the contention of the appellants counsels that the registration of the NRA had been done by concealing facts, we are of the view that just because the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 did not mention the fact that the respondent No. 1 was also a member of the NSRA and a member of the Kohima Rifle Club and the Dimapur Rifle Association, at the time the NRA sought registration, does not amount to concealment of fact. Even assuming that there was concealment of fact, we are unable to understand as to how the silence of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 with regard to the above facts could have caused any prejudice to the appellants. Also, it is not the case of the appellants that there was an application format, which required the respondent No. 1 to disclose the above facts. Further, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, at the time of seeking registration under the Societies Registration Act had submitted their Constitution, which showed the DGP, Nagaland as an Ex-officio member. The application of the NRA was placed for consideration before the Dimapur District and Planning Development Board, headed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Board recommended the same for registration in their meeting on 06.07.2015. The Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, thereafter forwarded the recommendation of the Dimapur District and Development Board to the Registrar of Societies, Nagaland. The above facts do not show that there has been any concealment or withholding of facts. Even if the consent of the DGP, Nagaland had not been taken to be an Ex-officio member of the NRA, before insertion of the said provision in the Constitution of the NRA, the same does not constitute concealment of facts. Further, the submission of the appellants counsel that the inclusion of the DGP, Nagaland as an Ex-officio member would have definitely influenced the authorities in granting registration to the NRA under Societies Registration Act, does not in our view, amount to wrongly obtaining registration in violation of the provision of the Societies Registration Act. We would also like to add that the NRA has the right to amend and change its constitution, with regard to deletion of the DGP, Nagaland as an Ex-officio member, so long as it does not violate the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the State amendments. 13. We would also like to add that the NRA has the right to amend and change its constitution, with regard to deletion of the DGP, Nagaland as an Ex-officio member, so long as it does not violate the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the State amendments. 13. Section 3 of the 2009 Amendment Act states that the Registrar may refuse to register a Society, after giving an opportunity to show cause notice against such refusal, if he satisfied that the name of the societies identical with that of any other Society previously registered under the Act. In the present case, we do not find the name of the respondent No. 2, i.e. NRA being identical to the name of the appellant in W.A. No. 13(K)/2018, i.e. NSRA. The word "State" is missing from the name of the respondent No. 2. In fact, the Registrar may have to issue a show cause to the appellant NSRA, as the use of the word "State" is apart of the name "NSRA", which is apparently prohibited under Section 3 (2)(b) of the 2009 Amendment Act. 14. The provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the various State amendments do not contain any provision, which suggest that two Associations/Societies cannot have the same aims and objects. There can be many charitable societies having the same aims and objects. We are unable to understand as to how the issue of having the same aims and objects of a charitable nature by two societies, would be subversive to either of the societies. In the present case, the appellant NSRA and the NRA are Rifle Associations. However, there is nothing in the pleadings to show that the activities of the NRA is subversive to the aims and objects of the NSRA. 15. We also find that the Registrar of the Societies under Section 3(1) of the 2009 Amendment Act, in his discretion, can invite objections with regard to a proposed registration of a Society. There is no mandatory requirement that the Registrar of Societies must invite objections for every proposed registration/application. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity with the Registrar of Society, not calling for any objection from the NSRA, at the time of the NRA seeking registration, regard being had to Section 3 of the 2009 Amendment Act. 16. There is no mandatory requirement that the Registrar of Societies must invite objections for every proposed registration/application. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity with the Registrar of Society, not calling for any objection from the NSRA, at the time of the NRA seeking registration, regard being had to Section 3 of the 2009 Amendment Act. 16. A perusal of the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the appellants before the learned Single Judge shows that besides the above issues, no other issues have been raised by the appellants. With regard to the stand taken by the appellants that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 should have availed of the alternative remedy by approaching the Appellate Authority when their registration was cancelled, we find that the NRA registration was cancelled on 3.8.2016. As there was no Appellate Authority constituted by the State Government, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 approached this Court by way of a writ petition i.e., WP (C) No. 155(K)/2016, on 16.08.2016. The Home Commissioner to the Government of Nagaland was appointed by the Governor of Nagaland, as the Appellate Authority to dispose of appeals against the cancellation orders of registration, in exercise by the power conferred under Section 23 Clause (ii) of the 1984 Amendment Act, vide Notification dated 6.9.2016. However, as per Section 24 (i) of the 1984 Amendment Act, the State Government was to make Rules not inconsistent with the Societies Registration Act, for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Rule 24 (ii) (c) states that: "In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the State Government may make Rules:- (c) Prescribing the authority before whom and the time within which an appeal shall be preferred under sub-section (ii) of Section 23 and the manner in which such appeals shall be considered and disposed of,". The above clearly goes to show that prior to the appointment of the Appellate Authority, the State Government was to make Rules prescribing the Appellate Authority and the time and manner in which the appeals were to be considered. However, no such Rule has been made by the State Government in terms of Section 24 (ii) (c) of the 1984 Amendment Act. The above being said, the Apex Court in the case of Jantia Hill Truck Owners Association Vs. However, no such Rule has been made by the State Government in terms of Section 24 (ii) (c) of the 1984 Amendment Act. The above being said, the Apex Court in the case of Jantia Hill Truck Owners Association Vs. Shailang Area Coal Dealer and Truck Owner Association & Ors., reported in 2009 8 SCC 492 has held that: "even in a case where the statute provides for certain things to be done, subject to rules, any action taken without framing the rules would not render that action invalid." However, as there was no alternative remedy available to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, prior to filing of the writ petition by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, this Court does not find any infirmity with the learned Single Bench deciding the matter. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2003 2 SCC 107 , has held that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for the High Court to decide a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We have also noticed that the respondent No. 1 was the President of Aries Rifle and Pistol Shooting Academy, Dimapur, which was granted provisional affiliation, without any voting right, by the National Rifle Association of India (in short, NRAI), due to the non functioning of the NSRA vide Letter dated 24.3.2014. The provisional affiliation had been given till such time the State body in Nagaland became operational. The respondent No. 2 (NRA) was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 14.7.2015. The NRAI thereafter granted affiliation to the NRA vide Letter dated 28.10.2015. We are unable to understand as to why the State Government has taken such a keen interest in the dispute that has arisen between the 2 (two) Associations, i.e., NSRA and NRA, which seems to be related to the affiliation to be given to only one Society/Association over another by the NRAI. However, the issue of the NRAI giving affiliation to the NRA is not an issue that has to be decided in the present writ petition. 17. In view of the reasons stated above, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that none of the grounds that have been projected in the show cause Notice dated 05.07.2016, have been violated by the respondent Nos. 17. In view of the reasons stated above, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that none of the grounds that have been projected in the show cause Notice dated 05.07.2016, have been violated by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the Ld. Single Judge's decision in setting aside the Order dated 03.08.2016, issued by the Registrar of Societies. 18. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.