ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “…to issue a Writ, Order of Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ calling for the records pertaining to Certificate of Registration of Respondent No. 4 bearing No. 682 of 2013 dt. 27.09.2013 issued by Respondent No. 3 and consequently quash the Certificate of Registration of Respondent No. 4 herein bearing No. 682 dt. 27.09.2013 registered by Respondent No. 3 as being arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of inter alia, Article, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further being contrary to Circular Memo No. Soc/7124/2018 dt. 28-01-2019, Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and pass…” 2. Heard Mr. D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. D.Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. Tanushree Bose, learned counsel representing Mr. T.S.Anirudh Reddy for respondent No.4. 3. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No.3 registered respondent No.4 as a society on 27.09.2013 under Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (presently Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001) (Certificate of Registration Pg.14 P1). It is further the case that Certificate of Registration bearing No.682, dated 27.09.2013 issued, is violative of provisions of the Act and contrary to Circular Memo bearing No. Soc/7124/2018, dated 28.01.2019 under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short, the Act, 2001). It is also the case of petitioner that owners of residential flats in Janapriya Metropolis Apartments have formed themselves into an Association and got registration done and the same is not valid under law as the definition of ‘public purpose’ is not made out. 4. It is submitted that Section 3 of the Act, 2001 mandates registration of a Society, which promotes certain activities enumerated in the Section and also for any public purpose. Laying stress on the contents of Section 3 of the Act, 2001, it is contended that respondent No.4-Society does not promote, profess, propagate or undertake any activities which fall under the ambit of ‘public purpose’. It is further contended that the phrase ‘public purpose’, embedded in Section 3 of the Act, 2001, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to cover the activities undertaken by the Association comprising of owners of residential flats of Janapriya Metropolis Apartments. It is further contended that the phrase ‘public purpose’, embedded in Section 3 of the Act, 2001, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to cover the activities undertaken by the Association comprising of owners of residential flats of Janapriya Metropolis Apartments. It is also submitted that Writ Petition bearing No.21592 of 2021 pending before the Hon’ble High Court (in which an interim order came to be passed on 08.09.2021), does not have any bearing on the present facts of the case. It is submitted that registration of Association and issuance of certificate is not in accordance with law. 5. It is contended that the purport of the phrase ‘public purpose’ has to be viewed in a larger perspective, the same cannot be interpreted in a narrow manner and be made applicable to the activities undertaken by respondent No.4-Association. 6. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.8856 of 2022. It is pointed out that the learned Single Judge dealing with a similar issue had held that members of an Association (of flats) are individuals who come together to promote the maintenance of apartments purchased by them. That even if the term ‘any public purpose’ is stretched, the objects of respondent No.4-Association would not fall under the category of ‘public purpose’. That, the learned Single Judge’s order is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the by-laws of the Janapriya Metropolis Flat Owners Association and it is submitted that in view of the contents of the by-laws read with Section 3 of the Act, 2001 and the order of the learned Single Judge, the Writ Petition has to be allowed and the Registration Certificate issued by the Registering Authorities to respondent No.4 not being in accordance with law has to be set aside. It is further pointed out that the activities undertaken by respondent No.4 viewed from any angle do not fall within the ambit of ‘any public purpose’. 8. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the order of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1372 of 2025, dated 10.12.2025. It is further pointed out that the activities undertaken by respondent No.4 viewed from any angle do not fall within the ambit of ‘any public purpose’. 8. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the order of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1372 of 2025, dated 10.12.2025. Relying upon the Judgment of the Division Bench, it is contended that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in respect of the interpretation of phrase ‘public purpose’, that the facts in present case being similar to that which fell for consideration before the Division Bench, the Writ Petition needs to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that by-laws of respondent No.4- Association not only speak of activities undertaken for the purposes of residents of Association but also for public in general. It is further submitted that by-laws cannot be given a restrictive meaning and the activities of Association do fall under the ambit of ‘any public purpose’. That the activities cannot be said to be only for the purposes of owners or residents of Association. That the respondent Authorities have rightly interpreted the by-laws and issued Registration Certificate and the said Registration Certificate cannot be set aside by giving a restricted interpretation to Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001. 10. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the aims and objectives of Association, to the definitions at clause 7, the powers and duties of the Association and other relevant by-laws. Placing reliance on these contents, it is submitted that the by-laws have to be viewed in entirety and not in piece meal. That if the by-laws are read in entirety, aims and objectives of the Association would encompass of ‘any public purpose’ as defined under Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001. That the activities enumerated under Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001 are being undertaken with a larger perspective by involving the general public and the activities cannot be said to be restricted to the owners/residents of Association. 11. Learned counsel submitted that a Writ Petition bearing No.21592 of 2021 is preferred before this Court, that a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 08.09.2021, granted interim directions. 11. Learned counsel submitted that a Writ Petition bearing No.21592 of 2021 is preferred before this Court, that a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 08.09.2021, granted interim directions. That it is the very same Association which preferred the Writ Petition, with the following prayers: I.A.No.1 of 2021: Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent Nos.6-8 not to register sale deeds with respect to the Amenities Block forming a part of Residential Housing Complex titled “Janapriya Metropolis” in Sy.No.74 & 75, Mothi Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 500018, pending disposal of WP No.21592 of 2021, on the file of the High Court. I.A.No.2 of 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct Respondent Nos.2-5 not to give permission to the Respondent Nos.9-11 to induct any third party shop, restaurant or establishment in the Amenities Block forming a part of Residential Housing Complex titled “Janapriya Metropolis” in Sy.No.74P & 75P, Ward No. 8, Block No.4, Mothi Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 500018, pending disposal of WP No.21592 of 2021, on the file of the High Court. 12. Placing reliance upon the contents of the prayers in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021, it is submitted that the matter pertains to amenities block forming a part of Residential Housing Complex (Janapriya Metropolis) and that the petitioner herein is respondent No.9 and that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are binding on respondent No.9. 13. Reliance is also placed on the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.27149 of 2022 and the Apex Court Judgments reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286 , (1976) 1 SCC 671 and further on 2022 (1) ALD 134 (TS). Placing reliance on these judgments, it is contended that respondent No.4- Residents Association’s activities undertaken cannot be said to be falling out of the purview of ‘any public purpose’. Inviting the attention of this Court to the (1976) 1 SCC 671 Judgment of the Apex Court, it is submitted that the petitioner does not have locus to maintain the Writ Petition and he is not an aggrieved party nor any of his legal rights are affected. Inviting the attention of this Court to the (1976) 1 SCC 671 Judgment of the Apex Court, it is submitted that the petitioner does not have locus to maintain the Writ Petition and he is not an aggrieved party nor any of his legal rights are affected. Placing reliance on the Apex Court’s Judgment reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286 , it is submitted that Cooperative Societies Act is to ensure autonomy and independence in the manner and functioning of societies and that there cannot be any objection merely because certain activities do not fall under the ambit of the phrase of ‘any public purpose’, that the registration cannot be invalidated. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the official respondents reiterated the contentions advanced on behalf of respondent No.4 and submitted that activities of respondent No.4 fall under the ambit of phrase ‘any public purpose’ and the Registration Certificate issued, cannot be set aside. 15. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 16. Entire issue in the present Writ Petition revolves around the validity of the Certificate of Registration issued to respondent No.4 by the Registrar of Societies. Before venturing further, it is pertinent to extract the relevant Section of the Act, i.e., Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001. 17. Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001 is as follows: 3. Societies which may be registered under this Act – (1) “Any seven or more persons forming a society which has for its object the promotion of art, fine art, charity, crafts, religion, sports (excluding games of chance), literature, culture, science, political education, philosophy or diffusion of any knowledge or any public purpose may be registered under this Act”. On a perusal of Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001, it is apparent that a Society whose object is for the purpose of activities reflected in Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001 or for ‘any public purpose’, such a society can be registered under the Act, 2001. The phrase ‘any public purpose’ has a wide connotation. A learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the law laid down in Writ Petition No.3319 of 2013, (order dated 05.03.2013), in an identical matter upheld the contentions advanced by the petitioner in W.P.No.3432 of 2021 by order dated 06.11.2025. The phrase ‘any public purpose’ has a wide connotation. A learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the law laid down in Writ Petition No.3319 of 2013, (order dated 05.03.2013), in an identical matter upheld the contentions advanced by the petitioner in W.P.No.3432 of 2021 by order dated 06.11.2025. The relevant portion of the Judgment in W.P.No.3319 of 2013 of the learned Single Judge is as follows: “The members of respondent No. 4-Association are private individuals who came together for the purpose of maintenance of the apartments purchased by them. Even if the term 'any public purpose' is stretched to its widest amplitude, none of the objects with which respondent No. 4-Association has been formed, would satisfy the said term, for, 'public purpose' necessarily involves the interests of community at large and their well-being. In the context in which the phrase 'public purpose' is used in Section 3(1) of the Act, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that it intended to cover a group of residents of a residential apartment. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned registration cannot be sustained under the provisions of the Act and accordingly the same is quashed. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No. 4-Association from registering itself under any other enactment, under which such registration is permissible. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed”. 18. The order of the learned Single Judge in (W.P.No.3434 of 2021) dated 06.11.2025 was carried in appeal. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1372 of 2025 upheld the order of the learned Single Judge further analyzing the term ‘public purpose’ in the light of the by-laws of the appellant therein. 19. A perusal of aims and objectives and the by-laws of the Association in the present case becomes imperative. The following are the aims and objectives of the by-laws of the Association of respondent No.4. 3. Aims and Objects The Association is formed primarily to constitute an organization of persons who are the owners of Flats in the complex known as 'Janapriya Metropolis’ situated at, Janapriya Metropolis, Mothinagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad-500018. The aims and objects of which shall be: I. To ensure that the Builder provides all the amenities and facilities as per the contracts of sale executed by him, sale deed in conjunction with the construction agreement and brochure issued by him; II. The aims and objects of which shall be: I. To ensure that the Builder provides all the amenities and facilities as per the contracts of sale executed by him, sale deed in conjunction with the construction agreement and brochure issued by him; II. To provide for, and do all or any of the matters as laid down in these byelaws; III. To represent the Association before Government and other authorities for any common purpose, which may impact the members monetarily or otherwise and take all such steps as may be necessary in this regard; IV. To frame rules and administrative procedure with the approval of the general body of the Association. In exceptional/day-to-day cases, the Executive Committee is authorized to frame /change rules from time to time; V. To promote/encourage social activities like entertainment, sports, educational programs, etc.; VI. The income of the Association shall be utilized for the objects of the Association and shall not be distributed among its members. Clause 6 of the by-laws is as follows: 6. Application of Byelaws The provisions of these byelaws apply to METROPOLIS FLAT OWNERS' WELFARE ASSOCIATION. All present or future owners, tenants, or their employees, or any other person who is lawfully entitled to use the facilities of the said Buildings/Complex, in any manner whatsoever, shall be subject to the regulations set forth in these Bye-laws. The mere act of acquisition or rental or taking on license any property or mere occupancy of any of the Apartments in the JANAPRIYA METROPOLIS will signify that these byelaws have been read and understood, are accepted, stand ratified and will be complied with at all times. 20. On a perusal of the material on record and the aims and objectives and the by-laws, it is apparent that the Association registered is for the purposes of the Janapriya Metropolis Flat Owners Welfare Association i.e., the future owners, tenants or employees or any other person (s) who is/are entitled to use the facilities of the said building/complex in any manner permitted. It is observed that sub-clause 5 of clause 3 speaks of the Association’s activities to promote/encourage entertainment, sports, educational programs etc. It is further observed that the income of the Association is utilized for the Association and shall not be distributed among its members. 21. It is observed that sub-clause 5 of clause 3 speaks of the Association’s activities to promote/encourage entertainment, sports, educational programs etc. It is further observed that the income of the Association is utilized for the Association and shall not be distributed among its members. 21. On a perusal of all the by-laws, it is observed that all by-laws speak of activities undertaken by the Association are for the owners, tenants or their employees. It may be true that while promoting, propagating or undertaking activities like entertainment, sports and educational programs, etc., a few persons who are not residents of the flats, may take part, but that by itself would not encompass the activities undertaken under the ambit of ‘public purpose’ as under Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001. 22. This Court is bound by the law laid down by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1372 of 2025 and has to adhere to the view expressed by a Coordinate Bench of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3319 of 2013 and order passed in a similar matter by this very Bench. Having perused the aims and objectives of the Association and the by-laws, in consonance with Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001, it is aptly clear that aims and objectives of the Association and the by-laws of the Association do not in any way, come under the ambit of ‘any public purpose’. If the activities undertaken, aims and objectives of the Association read with the by-laws do not come within the perimeter of ‘any public purpose’, under such circumstances, the Registration Certificate issued cannot be said to be valid Certificate. 23. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate that liberty be granted to respondent No.4-Association to carry out registration under any other Act within a period of two months. The Certificate of Registration issued by respondent No.4 bearing No.682 dated 27.09.2013 stands quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes not to press in respect of this issue in any of the proceedings pending before the Courts for a period of two months. 24. With the observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. The Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies, annexed at page No.14, is set at naught in other words, ‘is quashed’, as it is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001. 24. With the observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. The Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar of Societies, annexed at page No.14, is set at naught in other words, ‘is quashed’, as it is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act, 2001. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.