JUDGMENT : [WP(C) Nos.41273/2023, 43177/2023] The petitioners in these two writ petitions are stated to be members of an Association of residents of an Apartment Complex by name ‘Willingdon Enclave’, which they say has been registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act,1955 (‘Act’ for short). 2. Both the writ petitioners assail the order of the District Registrar (General), Ernakulam, refusing to record certain amendments -which they assert have been carried by the General Body of the Association validly -citing reasons that are beyond the statutory scheme and hence untenable and illegal. They thus pray that Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No.41273/2023 -which is the same as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.43177/2023 -be set aside; and the District Registrar be directed to record the amendments, certified to be true and produced before him by the members of the Governing Council of the Society, in terms of Section 22 of the ‘Act’; and to record the same, as is mandatorily required. 3. Smt. M. Uma Devi – learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that, even an ex facie glance through Section 22 of the ‘Act’ would render it luculent that, all which is necessary under it, is for the Society to produce the amendments to its Memorandum, or to its Rules and Regulations, along with a certificate of it being a true copy, by at least three members of its Governing Body, before the District Registrar, which shall then be accepted by the said Authority, without any further enquiry. She argued that, however, contrary to this, what has been done by the said Authority in this case, is to enter into an untenable investigation into the manner in which the Resolutions were passed by the General Body; to then hold that its meeting do not satisfy the necessary credentials; that the same were not properly adopted by the General Body; thus to issue the impugned order, with a solicitous advice to all the parties that they conduct a proper General Body meeting and adopt the amendments in terms of the Bye-Laws. 4. Smt. M. Uma Devi argued that this procedure by the District Registrar is peremptorily illegal and unlawful; and that, based on the impugned order, the Association then went forward and conducted elections and recorded that certain persons were elected; consequently, constraining the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.43177/2023, to approach this Court assailing such processes also. 4. Smt. M. Uma Devi argued that this procedure by the District Registrar is peremptorily illegal and unlawful; and that, based on the impugned order, the Association then went forward and conducted elections and recorded that certain persons were elected; consequently, constraining the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.43177/2023, to approach this Court assailing such processes also. She pointed out that the individuals who are stated to have been elected subsequent to the issue of the impugned order by the District Registrar have been arrayed as respondents 2 to 8 in the said writ petition; and thus adscititiously prayed that their elections be also declared to be contrary to law. 5. Sri. K. Jaju Babu – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. Lal K. Jose – learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent in W.P(C) No.43177/2023, as also for the 2nd respondent in W.P(C) No.41273/2023, argued that the District Registrar was without error in having issued the impugned order because, inter alia, it was stated before him by the person who is stated to have recorded the Resolution, which led to the alleged amendments to the Bye-Laws, that she had not done so. He then pointed out that, the alleged meeting of the General Body – in which the alleged amendments to the Bye-Laws is stated to have been adopted – was found by the District Registrar to have been convened in violation of its own Bye-Laws; and hence that he was fully justified in not having accepted the same. The learned Senior Counsel then argued that the advice offered by the District Registrar to the Association, to present amendments again after convening a fresh meeting of its General Body, was unsolicitous and impermissible because, his jurisdiction is only to either accept the amendments presented before him, or to reject them. 6. Sri. T.M. Sunil – learned counsel for respondent No.9 and Sri. P.K. Aboobacker – learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6 in W.P(C) No.43177/2023, adopted the afore submissions of the learned Senior Counsel; adding that, when the District Registrar did not accept the alleged amendments made to the Bye-Laws of the Association, through the impugned order, it was justified for them to have conducted elections, which has been done validly and based on the original Memorandum, which remain unamended consequent to the said order. 7. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties, on the touchstone of the documents on record, as also the statutory mandate under the ‘Act’. 8. As rightly argued by Smt. M. Uma Devi – learned counsel for the petitioners, Section 22 of the ‘Act’ apodictically says that, when any amendment is made to the provisions of the Memorandum or the Rules and Regulations of a Society, a copy of the Resolution affecting such amendment -certified to be a correct copy, by not less than three members of its Governing Body -shall be filed before the District Registrar within fourteen days from the date of the General Meeting at which the said Resolution was passed. 9. At first blush, no doubt, Section 22 of the ‘Act’ concedes no power or jurisdiction to the District Registrar to conduct any inquiry into the validity of the resolution presented before him, since it only mandates that the amendments to the Memorandum of the Society be filed and nothing more. 10. However, the afore provision cannot be read in isolation because, when it comes to the Memorandum of Association even prior to the registration of the Society, Section 4 of ‘Act’ provides that it shall contain certain specific particulars; and that a copy of the Rules and Regulations, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three members of the Governing Body, shall be filed along with it. When this provision is then read in conjunction with Section 5 of the ‘Act’ -which provides for registration of the Society -the position becomes irrefutable that it is only when such Memorandum and copy is filed, can the District Registrar certify under his hand, that the Society is registered under its purlieus. 11. Obviously, therefore, when the registration of the Society is dependant upon the Memorandum and copies of Rules and Regulations, under Section 4 of the 'Act', being filed, any amendment to the same can obtain any effect only if it is certified by the Registrar, through the processes under Section 5 of the 'Act', though not specifically stated in Section 22 thereof. If it is to be held otherwise, then the amendment to the Memorandum or the Rules and Regulations would merely remain “filed” with the Registrar, without any action on it; and axiomatically therefore, would not bind any members of the Society, because the original Memorandum continues to have been certified by him, under the provisions of Section 5 of the 'Act'. 12. It thus becomes ineluctable that the true purport of Section 22 is that, if the proposed amendments are to operate, it will have to be certified by the said District Registrar, in the same manner as had been to the initial Memorandum and the Rules/Regulations thereunder, under Section 4 of the 'Act'. 13. In fact, the counsel on both sides are virtually without dispute on this proposition; though the controversy subsists as to whether the District Registrar would obtain competence to go behind the resolution, or the amendments; and find it to be credible or otherwise. 14. In this regard, I must say that there is some force in the submissions of Smt. M. Uma Devi because, the statutory jurisdiction of the Registrar is, at best, either to certify the amendments, or refuse to do so, for reasons that are tenable and valid. He cannot cause an investigation into the manner in which the resolution was adopted, or to offer advice to the parties as to how it should be done; but certainly, if he finds a tenable reason, he can refuse to act upon the said amendments, notifying the parties appropriately. For this, surely, he obtains a limited right of enquiry, which is basically to verify whether the amendments are valid in law, or whether there are any vitiating circumstances acting against it; which would then not compel him to act upon it, in terms of law. 15. Viewed from the afore perspective and when one examines the impugned order, edified on the factual circumstances presented herein, I must say that it cannot find forensic favour because, as again rightly argued by Smt. M. Uma Devi, the District Registrar literally went into the manner in which the resolution was passed by the General Body of the Society; and then declared them to be contrary to the provisions of its By-laws, thus being without force in law. Such a process was never contemplated at the hands of the District Registrar because, as I have already said above, his role was only to verify whether the amendments brought before him were capable and deserving of being certified at in his hand -no more and no less. As also said above, he could have only done a limited inquiry for this purpose. 16. When the impugned order has, therefore, travelled beyond the legally conceded jurisdiction to the District Registrar, I cannot find favour with it; and am certain that the said Authority must be directed to reconsider the matter, after giving necessary opportunities to all sides; but within the limited mandate that he obtains under the statutory scheme. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed and the order impugned therein is set aside; with a consequential direction to the District Registrar to act in terms of my observations above, thus culminating in an appropriate decision, on whether the amendments produced before him under the certificate of authenticity by the members of the Governing Body of the Society, should be accepted or otherwise. This shall be done by the said Authority as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I, however, deem it necessary to reiterately clarify that the observations of this Court is not intended to trammel or fetter the rights of the District Registrar, as inherently available in the 'Act', particularly to verify whether the documents produced before him are genuine and not vitiated by factors which are unacceptable in law.