WB Registration Act | Registrar Cannot Exercise Power Of Substantive Review While Cancelling Society's Registration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court where it was held that the Registrar of Society can only cancel registration granted to a society under the West Bengal Registration Act, 1961, by exercising a power of procedural review. The High Court was of the view that there is a vital difference between a power of substantive review and procedural review, and the former was not available to the Registrar while deciding an application for cancellation of registration. The High Court observed that the Registrar had proceeded to exercise his power of substantive review, that too without reference to the application for registration that succeeded, while passing the cancellation order.The bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia thus upheld the order passed by the High Court, remanding the matter to the Registrar for a fresh decision on the application for cancellation of registration filed by the opposite party. The top court was dealing with a dispute between two groups of Chinese tannery owners in Kolkata over the control of a school.The Chinese Tannery Owners’ Association was registered as a society in the year 1967 under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The society claimed that the ‘Pei May Chinese School’, which had come into existence in the year 1929, was a sister organisation of the said Association and was being operated by the Association.Dispute arose between the parties when the Registrar, under the 1961 Act, granted certificate of registration in the name of ‘Pei May Chinese High School’ as an independent society, in response to an application made by the respondents. It was the case of the appellant-Association that the respondents had no connection with Pei May Chinese High School.The Association, thereafter, sent a letter to the Registrar, requesting for cancelling the registration of ‘Pei May Chinese High School’ as a society, alleging that the application for registration filed by the respondents consisted of forged signatures. The Registrar, however, was of the view that no case of forgery was made out.Thereafter, several rounds of litigation were initiated by the two groups. In 2016, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, vide order dated January 14, 2016, noted that since a criminal case was pending qua the allegation of forgery against the respondents, the Registrar’s observation that the concerned signatures were not forged, was premature. The Division Bench held that even though there is no substantive power of review provided in the Act of 1961, however, the power of procedural review is inherent within the authority who passes the order under the Act. Accordingly, the court upheld the order of the Single Judge who had remanded the matter to the Registrar of Societies for a fresh consideration of the application.Thereafter, the Registrar passed an order cancelling the registration of the ‘Pei May Chinese High School’ society. The Registerer in its order observed that, as per the Memorandum of Association (MoU) of the appellant-Association, the school would run under its control. Thus, if a new society was to be registered with respect to the school, the same would require an amendment of the MoU. Since, the appellant-Association had not applied for such amendment of their MoU, the Registrar held the registration was obtained by suppression of fact and was thus, liable to be cancelled.The Single bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld the order of the Registrar. However, there was a difference of opinion between the judges of the Division Bench, in appeal. Accordingly, the matter was referred to a third/Referee Judge.The Referee Judge observed that the 1961 Act expressly bars registration of a society under a name which is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name of any other society which has been previously registered. However, in the present case, the Referee Judge observed, the names of the two societies were different, although, the appellant-Association had been registered with a disclosure that the school was its sister organisation.The Referee Judge ruled that the issue whether registration obtained by respondents in the name of Pei May Chinese High School, was the result of any fraud or was otherwise statutorily barred, was not clearly reflected in the order of cancellation passed by the Registrar. For an allegation of suppression of material fact to succeed, the court said, the party alleging it has to prove the same by reference to documents which were on record at the time the opposite party’s application for registration was being considered.The Referee Judge concluded that the Registrar, while passing the cancellation order, did not act within the parameters of the jurisdiction laid down by the Division Bench in its order dated January 14, 2016. This was so, the court said, because the Registrar proceeded to exercise a power of substantive review, which was not available to him in terms of the Division...

WB Registration Act | Registrar Cannot Exercise Power Of Substantive Review While Cancelling Society's Registration : Supreme Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

WB Registration Act | Registrar Cannot Exercise Power Of Substantive Review While Cancelling Society's Registration : Supreme Court

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Parina Katyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers