| Headnote |
Issue for Consideration: i) Whether the Working President could have convened the election meeting for 08.09.2002 as according to the Objectors, it was only the Secretary or in the alternative the President who could have convened the meeting under the bye laws; ii) Whether the 7 Objectors were entitled to a notice for the meeting of 08.09.2002 in view of their disqualification u/s. 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860; iii) Whether lack of notice to the said 7 Objectors would vitiate the entire election meeting of 08.09.2002; iv) Whether invalid members had signed the requisition dated 20.08.2002 and had been elected to the Executive Committee; v) Whether the private respondents had the locus to be heard before any forum or to file an appeal/petition against the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner.Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Whether the Working President could have convened the election meeting for 08.09.2002 as according to the Objectors, it was only the Secretary or in the alternative the President who could have convened the meeting under the bye laws: Held: The effective office bearers of the Society namely the President, Vice-President and the Secretary of the Society had expired – Prior to his death, the President due to his poor health, the Executive Body under his president-ship passed a resolution on 01.07.1997 empowering appellant no. 1 to be designated as the Working President – He was recognised was by almost all the members of the General Body – In the instant case, it was not only appropriate but also legal for the surviving members to request for convening a meeting – Further, as many as 16 members had requested in writing for convening the meeting – If the submission of the Objectors is to be accepted that the Working President could not convene the meeting, then no alternative has been suggested by the Objectors as to who could convene the meeting – Even the Vice-President and the Joint-Secretary had also passed away and they had also not been replaced by any fresh elections – The only person who could be said to be managing the affairs of the Society was the Working President and in particular, when all the 16 surviving and valid members had made a request for convening a meeting, no fault could be found with the decision of the Working President to convene the meeting – The other option could have been that all the 16 members could have themselves nominated any one of the members to chair the meeting of the Executive Body and thereafter they could have proceeded to take appropriate decisions – In such situation, the convening of the meeting for holding the elections on 08.09.2002 cannot be faulted with. [Paras 4, 19, 20] Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Whether the 7 Objectors were entitled to a notice for the meeting of 08.09.2002 in view of their disqualification u/s. 15 of the Registration Act: Held: It is not in dispute that all the Objectors were in arrears of their membership fee for a period of more than three months – This fact is admitted as is recorded by not only the High Court but all the three authorities – The specific language used in s. 15 of the Registration Act is that such members in default of membership fee would not be entitled to vote and would not be counted as members of the Society – If they were not entitled to vote and they were not to be counted as members, there would be no illegality or for that matter any prejudice being caused by not issuing any notice as the same would be an exercise in futility. [Para 22] Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Whether lack of notice to the said 7 Objectors would vitiate the entire election meeting of 08.09.2002: Held: It is true that in the bye-laws of the present Society or the Rules of the Society, there is no provision of automatic cessation of membership where a member goes in default of payment of membership fee for more than three months – However, the effect of the proviso to Section 15 of the Registration Act which admittedly is applicable to the Society, the Objectors have to be treated as suspended members and therefore, would not be entitled to any notice as they had no right to vote or to be counted as members – Once they are not to be counted as members, there was no occasion to give them notice as such Non-issuance of notice to the Objectors would not vitiate the proceeding of the special meeting held on 08.09.2002. [Para 26] Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Whether invalid members had signed the requisition dated 20.08.2002 and had been elected to the Executive Committee: Held: The signatories at serial nos. 12 to 16 of the requisition dated 20.08.2002, had been duly admitted in the General Body Meeting on 11.11.2001 – The said resolution of the meeting was never challenged – The same is on record as Exhibit 131 and one of the Objectors DVS was a signatory in the said proceeding – With respect to the objections relating to signatory nos. 4 to 7, the explanation is that were of the category of Employee Members – In due course they had retired from service – However, even after their retirement, they had continued to pay their subscription – As their membership(s) have continued, at this stage, objection(s) with regard to the validity thereof is not being examined in detail, given the lack of clarity and absence of material facts on this aspect. [Para 27] Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Whether the private respondents had the locus to be heard before any forum or to file an appeal/petition against the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner: Held: During the pendency of the appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner all the seven objectors had died – The Joint Charity Commissioner decided in favour of the appellants and directed for accepting the Change Report – The contesting respondent preferred a petition before the District Judge – He was neither an objector before the Assistant Charity Commissioner nor a valid member of the Society – He would have no locus to maintain the petition before the District Judge – Although the contesting respondent claimed himself to be the Vice-President of the Society but has not been able to substantiate his claim – On this ground alone the District Judge ought to have dismissed the petition. [Para 29] Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – There were four signatories (Members 4 to 7 from the category of Employee Members) to the requisition calling a General Body Meeting – From a perusal of the available record, it transpires that they had retired from service and even after that had continued to pay their subscription – Propriety: Held: In this context, the question that arises is that once the said Members were Employee Members, their categorisation as such was dependent on them being in service – On retirement, the said signatories would cease to be employees, come out of the category of Employee Members and their membership in the Society could not have continued – Upon superannuation or cessation of their employment, such four signatories could very well have been made members of the Society, but there is no indication on the record that they were made members of the Society by a specific resolution and thereafter continued as members and paid the subscription fee(s) – Thus, they could not have continued as members of the Society in the category of Employee Members even upon their superannuation by merely paying the yearly subscription fee thereby blocking the entry of the persons, who were still employees. [Para 34] Principles/Doctrines – Doctrine of Necessity – When an action is required to be taken under compelling circumstances – Applicability of the doctrine of necessity on the facts of the instant case: Held: There is a doctrine of necessity where under given circumstances an action is required to be taken under compelling circumstances – The use of the doctrine of necessity is to justify actions that would otherwise be outside the norm due to the urgent need to restore order – In the instant case, had the Working President not convened the meeting, the elections of the executive body would have been in limbo for an unreasonable amount of time – The convening of the meeting by the Working President upon the requests by the 16 surviving members was a “necessity” at the time. [Paras 15, 18] |
