2012 (5) TMI 818 - HC - Indian Laws

Court reinstates society registration after finding cancellation unjustified. Guidelines on member relations deemed unconstitutional.

The court set aside the Registrar's order canceling the society's registration, deeming it unjustified due to a false affidavit regarding members' ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the Registrar's order canceling the registration of the society.2. Validity of guidelines framed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.3. Applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.4. Consequences of furnishing a false affidavit.Summary:1. Legality of the Registrar's Order:The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.02.2011 by the Registrar of Societies canceling the society's registration. The Registrar canceled the registration based on a false affidavit stating that the society's members were not related by blood, whereas two members were father and son.2. Validity of Guidelines:The petitioner argued that there is no statutory bar against members being related by blood. The guidelines requiring non-related members are non-statutory and non-binding. The court found the guidelines to lack statutory force and rational basis, deeming them arbitrary and violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.3. Applicability of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act:The Registrar invoked Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to cancel the registration. The court held that Section 21 does not apply to quasi-judicial orders, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and Others, AIR 2002 SC 1258. The court emphasized that the Registrar's order is quasi-judicial and cannot be undone by Section 21.4. Consequences of Furnishing a False Affidavit:The court distinguished between the consequences of a false affidavit and the legality of the society's registration. It noted that while the false affidavit might have legal repercussions for the deponent, it does not justify canceling the society's registration. The court referenced Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555, stating that non-disclosure of facts not required by statute does not constitute fraud.Conclusion:The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the petition and restoring the society's registration. The inter se disputes between the parties regarding management and control of the society were left open for resolution in appropriate civil proceedings.