LI Network
Published on: 17 September 2023 at 13:15 IST
The Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, which held that the Registrar of Society can cancel the registration of a society under the West Bengal Registration Act, 1961, only through a process of procedural review.
The High Court had distinguished between substantive and procedural reviews, emphasizing that the Registrar does not possess the authority for a substantive review while deciding an application for registration cancellation.
The High Court found that the Registrar had exceeded his authority by conducting a substantive review without considering the application for registration that had been approved when issuing the cancellation order.
The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia, upheld the High Court’s decision and remanded the matter to the Registrar for a fresh evaluation of the registration cancellation application submitted by the opposing party.
The case revolved around a dispute between two factions of Chinese tannery owners in Kolkata concerning control over a school.
The Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association was registered as a society in 1967 under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The society contended that the ‘Pei May Chinese School,’ established in 1929, was an affiliated organization operated by the Association.
Conflict arose when, in response to an application by the respondents, the Registrar, under the 1961 Act, granted a certificate of registration in the name of ‘Pei May Chinese High School’ as an independent society.
The Association argued that the respondents had no affiliation with the Pei May Chinese High School.
Subsequently, the Association sent a letter to the Registrar, requesting the cancellation of ‘Pei May Chinese High School’s’ society registration, alleging that the registration application submitted by the respondents contained forged signatures. However, the Registrar did not find any evidence of forgery.
In 2016, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, in an order dated January 14, 2016, noted that a criminal case involving allegations of forgery against the respondents was still pending. The Division Bench found the Registrar’s determination that the signatures were not forged to be premature.
The Division Bench ruled that even though the 1961 Act did not explicitly provide for substantive review, the power of procedural review was inherent in the authority that issues orders under the Act. Consequently, the court upheld the Single Judge’s decision to remand the matter to the Registrar of Societies for a fresh assessment of the application.
Subsequently, the Registrar canceled the registration of the ‘Pei May Chinese High School’ society. The Registrar’s order stated that, according to the Memorandum of Association (MoU) of the appellant-Association, the school was supposed to operate under its auspices.
Therefore, if a new society were to be registered for the school, it would necessitate an amendment to the MoU. Since the appellant-Association had not applied for such an amendment, the Registrar concluded that the registration had been obtained by concealing facts and was, therefore, subject to cancellation.
The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld the Registrar’s order. However, there was a divergence of opinions among the judges of the Division Bench in the appeal. As a result, the matter was referred to a third/Referee Judge.
The Judge noted that the 1961 Act expressly prohibited the registration of a society under a name identical to or closely resembling the name of any previously registered society. However, in this case, the Judge observed that the names of the two societies were different, although the appellant-Association had been registered with the disclosure that the school was its sister organization.
In the appeal before the Supreme Court against the Judge’s decision, the Court stated:
“We find that the impugned judgment is not flawed from a legal standpoint, and we therefore see no reason to interfere.”
The Supreme Court upheld the calcutta single Judge’s decision, adding:
“It has also been argued before us that the Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association owns the land where the subject school is situated. On this point, we would like to add that if the respondents are unable to demonstrate their right to operate the school on the land owned by the Association without their consent, the Registrar may consider this factor as a ground for canceling the registration. However, any decision on this matter will be subject to final adjudication by the civil court if a case on this matter is pending before it.”
Case Title: CHEN KHOI KUI vs LIANG MIAO SHENG & ORS