Circulars/Instructions Of General Superintendence Do Not Require Gazette Notification U/S 69(1) Of Registration Act: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court Division Bench, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, observed that while hearing a Civil Miscellaneous Application (“CMA”) observed that the rule-making power of the Inspector General u/s 69(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, does not require any publication in the official gazette. Factual Matrix: The Appellant filed a Society Original Petition (“SOP”) to declare his purported resignation from the M/s St. Vincent Education Society (“Society”) non-binding on account of being fabricated. The Appellant also sought to declare the resolutions passed by Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in the Special General Body Meetings illegal. The Appellant filed an IA in the SOP under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of the CPC 1908, seeking directions to maintain the status quo ante, as prevailing before the purported resignation. The trial court dismissed the IA, observing that several disputed questions of fact have to be adjudicated. A status quo ante cannot be granted without deciding such disputed questions. Furthermore, the Appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour or show that the balance of convenience was in his favour. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.07.2025, the Appellant has filed the present CMA. Submissions: The counsel for the Petitioner made the following submissions: Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are siphoning off money from the Society; therefore, there is a grave urgency for passing interim orders in the CMA.The trial court did not take into consideration the binding force of the Circular Memo bearing Circular No.12/D&IG/Peshi dated 01.10.2010 issued by the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad (“Inspector General”) The counsel for the Respondent made the following submissions: Appellant handed over the resignation letter dated 30.04.2024 while present in India. Furthermore, the Appellant and the Respondent Nos. 8 to 10 did not protest against the acceptance of the resignation letter by the Society. The Resolution dated 23.05.2024 inducting new members in the Society was approved by 2/3rd majority. This is a testament to the adherence to the rules and regulations of the Society. Analysis of the Court: The bench at the outset observed that the impugned order does not discuss the adherence to the 'Circular Memo' dated 01.10.2010 regarding whether Respondent No. 11 abided by the instructions issued by the District Registrar on the procedure of accepting the papers filed by the new managing committee. The Circular Memo contains instructions that must be complied with when bringing changes to the managing committees of various societies. Qua the Circular Memo, the District Registrar, before giving effect to the resignation of a member of the Society, has to issue a notice to the concerned member, and take an affidavit from the member confirming that they have actually resigned. The bench observed that even without considering whether the resignation letter was fabricated, the procedure laid down in the Circular Memo concerning resignation of a member from a society was not followed. The bench observed that the argument that the Circular Memo conflicts with Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, is not sound in law. The Circulars issued by the Inspector General in exercise of powers of superintendence conferred u/s 69(1) are not required to be published in the Official Gazette. The Trial Court, not considering the admitted violation of Instruction No. 05 of the Circular Memo, goes to the crux of the matter since the core of the dispute is the Appellant's purported resignation. The bench further observed that Instruction No. 05 of the Circular Memo lays down a procedure to be followed in matters concerning the resignation of a member. It is there to pre-empt any mischief by an interested party by using fabricated letters of resignation against the resigned person. The non-compliance of the Circular Memo and how the Managing Committee of the Society passed the Resolution dated 30.05.2024 amounts to the Appellant having a strong prima facie case. The trial court did not consider the same. The bench allowed the CMA and set aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2025. In light of the Appellant not acting as the General Secretary of the Society, and a newly appointed General Secretary has been in place since 30.05.2024, the bench directed the Appellant and the newly appointed General Secretary to function together with equal say in all matters of the Society. Case Name: M. Rajendra Krishna v. M/s St. Vincent Education Society and Ors. Case Number: CMA No. 314 of 2025 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Avinash Desai, Sr. Adv. representing Mr.Mohammed Omer Farooq . Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Deepak Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv. Click Here To...

Circulars/Instructions Of General Superintendence Do Not Require Gazette Notification U/S 69(1) Of Registration Act: Telangana High Court

Mohd Talha Hasan

Tags