Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:Devanshu

Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

$~9 &10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 8th December, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & CM APPL. 13290/2020
THE INDIAN VETERINARY ASSOCIATION (REGD) ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Mr.
Sarwinder Goyal & Mr. Raj Selwan,
Advocates.
versus

GOVT OF NCT DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta & Ms.
Kritika Gupta, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate for R-4
to 6 (M-9810126454).
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, Advocate.
10 AND
+ W.P.(C) 3402/2020 & CM APPL. 12082/2020
JAI PRAKASH AGGARWAL & OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate.
versus

REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta & Ms.
Kritika Gupta, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Anand Yadav, Advocate for R-4
to 6 (M-9810126454).
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is
permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.
2. The Petitioner in WP(C) 3265/2020 is a society registered under the
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 1 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Its registration dates back to
18th May, 1967 with the name - The Indian Veterinary Association. The
elections to this body were last held in 2019 wherein Dr. Chirantan Kadian,
who has filed the present petition, was appointed as the President of the
Association. The President is stated to be currently holding his position as
and the society is fully operational.
3. The Petitioners in WP(C) 3402/2020 are Trustees of Lal Bahadur
Shashtri Educational Trust, which owns the institute M/s Lal Bahadur
Shashtri Institute of Management. The allegation against the Respondent in
this petition is that a co-trustee of the said Trust has, to deceive the general
public, registered a society by the same name i.e., Lal Bahadur Shashtri
Educational Society, in accordance with the Society Registration Act, 1860.
4. The challenge in these petitions is to the registration of identically
named organisations in Delhi as Societies - i.e. ‘Indian Veterinary
Association’ in WP (C) 3265/2020, and ‘Lal Bahadur Shashri Educational
Society’ in WP (C) 3402/2020 , under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The main question is as to whether the Registrar of Societies has the power
to cancel the registration of a society, under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. This Court has heard these matters from time to time.
Submissions of Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, ld. Counsel for Petitioner in
WP(C) 3265/2020

5. In WP(C) 3265/2020, Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, ld. Counsel, appears for

the Petitioners. He submits that Dr. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Respondent
No.5 along with Dr. Umesh Chander Sharma - Respondent No.6, got a
society registered with an identical name, namely, ‘Indian Veterinary
Association’ in Delhi. He submits that to obtain the said registration, an
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 2 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

affidavit was filed by Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma dated 14th July, 2017 with
the Registrar of Societies, claiming that there is no society, which is
identical or resembling to the Respondent’s society. On the strength of this
affidavit, approval of registration was granted by the Registrar of Societies,
Delhi on 5th March, 2019.
6. Upon becoming aware of the registration of the Respondent No.4-
Association, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Registrar of
Societies with a request for cancellation of the said registration, on 16th
September, 2019. The Registrar of Societies, upon receiving the application
of the Petitioner issued a show-cause notice to the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and
6 calling upon them as to why the registration of the society ought not to be
cancelled and why a wrong affidavit was filed. The Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
filed their reply to this show cause notice, and the stand taken was that no
false affidavit had been submitted as the only statement made in the said
affidavit was that no society existed with an identical name in their locality.
A further stand was taken in the reply to the said show cause notice that the
Petitioner- Association is no longer functional. Thus, the Registrar of
Societies, Delhi sought an explanation from the Petitioner-Association in
respect of the same. Thereafter, a detailed explanation was furnished by the
Petitioner-Association explaining the same, however, the Registrar of
Societies, Delhi has rejected the request vide order dated 15th November
2019 on the ground that the matter should be raised before the Civil Court
for the purpose of redressal of grievances.
7. Accordingly, he submits that in the present petition the prayer is to
direct Respondent No. 2 and 3 to withdraw/ cancel the registration of
Respondent No. 4 association, and to take action to be taken against
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 3 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for misleading the Registrar of Society, Delhi.

8. Mr. Goyal, ld. counsel further submits that Section 3 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter, “Act”) vests the power for registration
with the Registrar of Societies. Section 13 of the Act is for the dissolution of
a society, which would be a voluntary act. However, in the absence of any
specific provision for cancellation or withdrawal of the registration, reliance
is placed upon Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to argue that if
any authority has been vested with the power to issue an order or rule or
notification, the said power would include the power to amend that very
order or rule or notification. He relies upon the judgment of the Full Bench
of the Guwahati High Court in Atowar Rahman v. State of Assam and 6
Ors., 2019 AIR (Gauhati) 3 wherein a specific issue as to the power of
Registrar of Societies, which has provisions which are similar to the
Registrar of Societies, Delhi, was considered. In the said case, he submits
that the Guwahati Court held that the cancellation of the society would be a
purely administrative act and not a quasi-judicial act, and thus, the Registrar
of Societies does have the power to cancel the certificate of registration
which it has granted to any party. He, thus, submits that due to the
misleading statements made by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the fact that
the Registrar of Societies was misled into granting registration, the
registration of the Respondent No. 4-Society is liable to be cancelled.
9. In response to the submission, that the Petitioner- Society is no longer
functional, Mr. Goyal relies upon two documents. He firstly relies upon a
document dated 31st October 2020, which were proceedings under the Tamil
Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, wherein the complaint made on
behalf of the Respondents was dealt with by the Registrar of Societies
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 4 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

Chennai and the same was dismissed. He secondly relies upon the
document dated 26th February 2021, by which the Principal Secretary to the
Government condoned the delay in filing of the returns of the Petitioner-
Society. Reliance is also finally placed upon the response received from the
Registrar of Societies in reply to the Petitioner’s request. Thus, he submits
that the Petitioner-Association is very much functional, and reliance is
finally placed on the response received from the Registrar of Society to the
RTI which is available on Page no. 28 of the Application for stay, wherein it
has been stated that no dissolution proceedings have been commenced by
the Petitioner-Society.
10. Thus, it is the submission of Mr. Goyal that on both counts, the case
of the Respondents is completely bereft of merits, and the Registrar of
Societies has power to cancel the registration of Respondent No. 4-Society.
Thus, he submits that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Submissions of Mr. Anil Goyal, ld. Counsel for Petitioner in WP(C)
3402/2020

11. Mr. Anil Goyal, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in WP(C)
3402/2020 has adopted the arguments of Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, in respect
of the legal issues raised in the present petition. He has further submitted,
relying upon the report of the Law Department of Delhi Government where
an opinion was sought as to whether the Registrar of Societies would be
empowered to cancel the Registration conferred, that the Registrar has the
said power. The said report relies upon Section 21 of the General Clauses
Act, 1977 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian National
Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and Ors. (AIR 2002 SC 2158)
and reads as under:
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 5 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

“3. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Indian National

Congress (I) vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Ors.
(AIR 2002 SC 1258), has an occasion to examine
application of Section 21 with regard to power of
Election Commission to deregister a political party. It
was, interalia, observed that Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act has no application where a statutory
authority is required to act quasi judicially. Hon'ble
Court further observed vide Para 34 and 35 of the
judgment,
"34. However, there are three exceptions
where the Commission can review its
order registering a political party. One is
wherein political party obtained its
registration by playing fraud on the
Commission, secondly it arises out of Sub-
Section (9) of Section 29A of the Act and
thirdly any like ground where no enquiry
is called for on the part of the Election
Commission, for example, where the
political party concerned is declared
unlawful by the Central Government
under the provision of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 or any
other similar law."

35. Coming to the first exception, it is

almost settled law that fraud vitiates any
act or order passed by any quasi-judicial
authority even if no power of review is
conferred upon it. In fact, fraud vitiates all
actions. In Smith v. East Ellis Rural Distt.
(1956) 1 All E.R. 855 it was stated that the
effect of fraud would normally be to vitiate
all acts and order. In Indian Bank v. AIR
1996 SC 2592, it was held that a power to
cancel/recall an order which has obtained
by forgery or fraud applies not only to

W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 6 of 20

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

courts of law but also to Statutory

Tribunals which do not have power of
review. Thus, fraud or forgery practiced
by a political party while obtaining a
registration, if comes to the notice of the
Election Commission, it is open to the
Commission to de-register such a political
party."
4. In view of above discussion, in case of obtaining
registration by fraud by submitting false information,
the authority which has the power to register the
society would be empowered to cancel the registration
by invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. If
agreed, the administrative Department may be advised
accordingly.”
Submissions on behalf of Mr. Anand Yadav, ld. Counsel appearing for
Respondents 4 to 6 in WP(C) 3265/2020
12. Mr. Anand Yadav, ld. Counsel appearing for the contesting
Respondents 4 to 6 in WP(C) 3265/2020 takes a preliminary objection that
the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted, in as much as the
Registrar of Societies, under the scheme of the Societies Registration Act,
1860 as is applicable in Delhi, does not have the power to cancel a
registration. He relies upon the judgments of the Delhi High Court in
support of his submission:
1. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Registrar of Societies (2012
SCC Online Del 6415)
2. Brij Mohan Gupta v. The Registrar of Societies (2012 SCC
Online Del 2535)
3. Maheshwari Mandal (Delhi) v. State of Delhi (2018 SCC Online
Del 6426)
4. Pritam Singh v. Registrar of Firm and Society, (2015 SCC Online
Del 8732).
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 7 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

13. On the strength of all these four judgments, he submits that under
Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, no power is conferred
upon the Registrar of Societies to perform, while performing his quasi
judicial functions, to cancel registrations. He further urges that Section 21 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897, has been interpreted in all the above four
judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court, wherein the Courts have
consistently arrived at a conclusion that Section 21 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, would not have any applicability.
14. On merits, Mr. Yadav, ld. Counsel, submits that he is not making any
submissions in view of the fact that as no power to cancel registrations are
vested with the Registrar, on merits, the Petitioners would have to be
directed to avail of their remedies in accordance with law.

Submissions of Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan

Shankar, ld. Counsels, on behalf of the Registrar of Societies

15. Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, ld.
Counsels, appearing for the Registrar of Societies, submit that the Registrar
of Societies does not have any power to cancel the registration. This has also
been specifically pleaded in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent
No. 2, Mr. Pradeep Tayal, SDM (Civil Lines)/ Registrar Of Societies,
wherein he states as under:
“B. I say that the present Petition is not maintainable
against the Answering Respondent and ought to be
dismissed for the primary reason that there is no
stipulation empowering the Registrar of Societies/
Answering Respondent to carry out
cancellation/withdrawal of Registration of any Society
once it is registered. The same can be done only

W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 8 of 20

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

through the process of a Civil Court under Section 31

of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”

16. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in Areness Foundation v.Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
AIR 2019 Del 59, to argue that the Registrar of Societies is similar to the
Sub-Registrar’s act of registering documents under the Registration Act
1908, and does not have the power to annul or cancel the said registration.

Rejoinder submissions on behalf of the Petitioners in both petitions

17. In rejoinder, both ld. counsels for the Petitioners in these petitions,
submit that Registrar of Societies is taking contradictory pleas to their stand
in these cases, in W.P.(C) 13740/2019 and W.P.(C) 8040/2020 which are
pending before the Court, and where the Registrar of Societies has cancelled
the registration which has been issued.
18. It is also submitted that the Registrar of Societies cannot be rendered a
toothless tiger by the registration sustaining on the basis of a false affidavit.
The judgment of the full bench of the Guwahati High Court in Atowar
Rahman (supra) is again pressed into service.

Analysis and Findings

19. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
20. The following reliefs are sought in these petitions:
WP(C) 3265/2020
“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
respondent no. 2 to cancel/withdraw the
registration of respondent no. 4 association in view
of the fact that the petitioner association is already
registered with registration no. 96/1967 dated
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 9 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

18.05.1967 and functioning with the same name

i.e., “THE INDIAN VETERNIARY
ASSOCIATION” and no subsequent society can be
registered with name of the society which is
identical with that by which any other existing
society has been regisetered or so nearly resembles
such name as to lbe likely to decive the public or
the members of either society.
ii. Issue necessary directions to respondent no. 3 to
cancel the approval of name granted to respondent
no. 4
iii. Issue necessary directions to respondent no. 2 to
take appropriate action against respondent no. 5
and 6 and other executive members of society those
played fraud with respondent no. 2 and succeeded
in registering society in the name of “INDIAN
VETERINARY ASSOCIATION” by submitting false
information/affidavit.
iv. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the
impugned order datd 15.11.2019 (Annexure XVII)
passed by respondent no. 2 being illegal and
arbitrary.
v. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

WP(C) 3402/2020
“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that by means
of appropriate order/direction/writ, the Respondent may
be directed to decide the Complaint dated 27.08.2019
Annexure-P-1 of the Petitioners by well speaking,
detailed and reasoned order, after hearing the
petitioners, in the interest of justice.”
21. The Registrar of Societies is an authority which is recognized under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as the statutory authority for granting
registrations to societies. The said Act has various provisions which confer
the power upon the Registrar to register societies.

W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 10 of 20

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

22. A perusal of Section 2 of the Act shows that every society ought to
have a Memorandum of Association, and the same has to be filed along with
a copy of the rules and regulations of the society, with the Registrar. Once
the said memorandum and rules, along with the stipulated fee is filed, the
society shall be certified as registered by the Registrar of Societies, under
the provision of Section 3 of the Act. There is no process of checking by the
Registrar or objections to be filed by third parties that is stipulated in the
Act.
23. Further, various forms are also prescribed and affidavits are also
sought by the Registrar, however the same are only mentioned under the
Rules that have been framed by the GNCTD in respect of the applicability of
the Act to Delhi. In most cases, allegations are raised that false affidavits are
filed and wrong information is being supplied to the Registrar of Societies.
24. Under Section 12 of the Act, there are certain provisions which have
been added by various later State amendments, specifically conferring
power upon the Registrar to cancel the registration. However, insofar as
Delhi is concerned, no such amendment permitting the Registrar to cancel
the registration of a society has been enacted. Curiously however, there is a
Delhi State Amendment adding Section 12A to the Act which reads:
“Sections 12A and 12B
Delhi — After section 12, insert following sections,
namely.
“12A. Registration of change of name.—(1) Where a
proposition for change of name has been agreed to and
confirmed in the manner prescribed by section 12, a
copy of the proposition so agreed to and confirmed
shall be forwarded to the Registrar for registering the
change of name. If the proposed name is identical with
that by which any other existing society has been
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 11 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

registered, or in the opinion of the Registrar so nearly

resembles such name as to be likely to deceive the
public or the members of either society, the Registrar
shall refuse to register the change the name.
(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), the Registrar
shall, if he is satisfied that the provisions of this Act in
respect of change of name have been complied with,
register the change of name and issue a certificate of
registration altered to meet the circumstances of the
case. On the issue of such a certificate the change of
name shall be complete.
(3) The Registrar shall charge for any copy of a
certificate issue under sub-section (2) a fee of rupee
one or such large fee and exceeding rupees five as the
State Government may, from time to time, direct; and
all fees so paid shall form part of the Consolidated
Fund of India.”

As per the above amendment applicable in Delhi, if an application for

change of name is made, then the Registrar has to examine if there is any
other society already existing which has an identical name or a nearly
resembling name which may cause deception.
25. In this statutory scheme, insofar as this Court is concerned, the
question as to whether the Registrar of Societies has the power to cancel a
registration or not in the jurisdiction of Delhi has been decided in the four
judgments by Ld. Single Judges, which are relied upon by Mr. Yadav, ld.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4-6.
26. In Supreme Court Bar Association (supra), this issue as to whether
the Registrar of Societies would have the power to cancel a registration or
not had arisen, and a ld. Single Judge of this Court had examined the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the Indian National Congress (supra)
which was rendered in context of a similar power of cancellation of
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 12 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

registration of political parties by the Election Commisison of India. The ld.

Single Judge concluded that the Registrar of Societies can only ensure
compliance and cannot cancel or annul a registration that has already been
conferred. The relevant observations of the ld. Single Judge are as under:

“17. In the present case, it would be seen that the ROS

is obliged to ensure compliance of Sections 2, 3 and 20
of the Act while granting registration to a society. The
ROS, therefore, exercises quasi judicial function while
granting registration to a society. The said ‘order’ is
neither an executive order nor a legislative order. By
resort to Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, he
cannot undo that registration.
18.There is yet another aspect which needs to be
considered. Once the Act provides a procedure for
dissolution of the society registered under the Act, it is
only that procedure which can be invoked, and no
other procedure can be adopted. If a thing is
prescribed to be done in a particular way, it can be
done in only that way, and by no other way. (See Patna
Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi, 812 SCR
[1963] Supp. and State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha,
(1980) 1 SCC 554). Therefore, the ROS cannot invent
other methods or reasons to suspend or dissolve a
society registered under the Act.”

27. A similar view has been taken by the ld. Single Judge of this Court in
Brij Mohan Gupta (supra).
28. In Pritam Singh (supra), a question arose as to whether the Registrar
of Societies could cancel the registration given in favour of one ‘Gurudwara
Singh Sabha Dera Baba Wadbhag Singh Society’. A ld. Single Judge of this
Court, in this case, has held that clearly there is no power conferred to the
Registrar of Societies to cancel the registration.
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 13 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

29. Even in Maheshwari Mandal (supra), following the judgment in Brij

Mohan Gupta (supra) another ld. Single Judge of this Court has taken an
identical view. The court observed:
“7. It is apparent from the plain reading of the sections
12, 12A, 12B and 12C of the Act read with section 3 of
the Act that the Registrar does not have any power to
adjudicate any issues with regard to the amendment of
any purpose or object of the society. However, in terms
of Section 12A of the Act, the Registrar has the power to
review registration of the change in name of a society if
in its opinion the same resembles or is identical to the
name of any existing society.
xxx
11. This Court finds much merit in the aforesaid
contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
Plainly, the Act as applicable to Delhi does not include
any provision which entitles the Registrar to cancel a
registration once the same has been granted. As stated
above, there is also no provision which empowers the
Registrar to examine and adjudicate any dispute with
regard to any alleged irregularity in the procedure
adopted by the society to amend its Rules and
Regulations.
xxx
13. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Brij Mohan
Gupta v. Registrar of Societies: (2012) 189 DLT 577
had repelled the contention that Section 21 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 could be invoked by the
Registrar of Societies to cancel the registration of the
society. The Relevant extract of the said decision reads
as under:—
“I am, therefore, of the view that section 21 of the
General Clauses Act could not have been invoked in the
facts of the present case by the Registrar to cancel the
registration of the society. The inter se disputes between
the petitioner and respondent nos. 2 to 6 with regard to
management and control of the society in question
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 14 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

cannot be decided in these proceedings. It shall be open

to the parties to raise all such issues in appropriate civil
proceedings, and in accordance with the law. As above
noted, this Court has not gone into the issue of illegality,
if any, committed by the deponent of the affidavit,
namely, the President of the society in the present case.
The said issue may be raised and decided on its own
merits, in appropriate proceedings, if and when
raised.””

30. It is noticed that in most of these cases, and specifically in Brij

Mohan Gupta (supra), allegations that were raised as grounds for
cancellation of registration were that false affidavits were submitted to the
Registrar of Societies and amendments were also made in the rules and
regulations submitted to the Registrar. Despite these allegations, the
conclusion of this Court has consistently been that the Registrar of Societies
in Delhi does not have the power to cancel the registration conferred under
the Act. Accordingly , this Court is bound by the decisions of the ld. Single
Judges of this Court in the four decisions referred above.
31. In any case, it is noticed that the Guwahati High Court in Atowar
Rahman (supra) held that the Registrar of Societies had the power to cancel
the registration of a Socity under section 3, in the peculiar statutory scheme
of Societies Registration Act 1860, as applicable to the State of Assam. Vide
the Assam Act No. 13 of 1967, sec. 2, Section 3A was entered into the
Socities Registration Act as applicable to Assam, which categorically
stipulates that no society shall be registered under a name which is identical
with, or too nearly resembles, the name of any other society or any body
corporate which has been previously registered or incorporated under the
Act or any other law being in force. The provision reads:

W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 15 of 20

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

ASSAM:
“3A. Name of Society-
(1) No society shall be registered under a name which
is identical with, or too nearly resembles, the name of
any other society or any body corporate which has
been previously registered or incorporated under this
Act or any other law for the time being in force, as the
case may be.
….
[Vide Assam Act 13 of 1967, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 18-8-
1967)]”

Such a provision does not exist in the context of the Act as applicable to
Delhi. Thus, the judgment of the Guwahati High Court in Atowar Rahman
(supra) is not applicable on facts and the statutory position as prevalent in
Delhi.
32. This Court, however, does not agree with the submission of the
Registrar of Societies, that the power exercised by it is identical to the power
exercised by the Sub-Registrar who registers documents under the
Registration Act, 1908. The said power may not be identical in terms of the
power conferred under the respective statute.
33. Further the reliance of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner on the report
of the Delhi Government, Law Depeartment, which in turn relies upon the
Indian National Congress (supra) judgment is of no use to the Petitioners.
This opinion is, in any manner, not binding on this Court, as it has
completely ignored the four precedents of the Delhi High Court which have
been noted above, clearly holding that the Registrar of Societies has no
power to cancel registrations. Further, the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Indian National Congress (supra) has also been considered by a ld. Single

W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 16 of 20

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

Judge of this Court in Brij Mohan Gupta (supra).

34. Accordingly, both the present petitions are liable to be dismissed. This
Court, however, has no doubt that the issues and objections raised in the
present petitions are important and raise essential concerns in respect of the
remedies available to persons aggrieved by a society which is registered on
the basis of incorrect facts, false and fraudulent affidavits, when proven on
merits. However, the said issues would have to be decided by a higher
Court. In any case, this Court is bound by the four decisions of the ld. Single
Judges of this Court.
35. Insofar as the various allegations that have been raised on facts in
these petitions, that false affidavits have been submitted and a fraud has
been played to obtain the registration by the Respondent-Societies, it is
made clear that these issues would have to be adjudicated or considered by
the appropriate forum and the Petitioners are free to approach the said forum
by way of a civil suit or any other proceedings, that may be appropriate in
accordance with law. It is further clarified that this Court has not examined
the merits of the allegations which have been raised by either side in these
matters.
36. The present two petitions are accordingly dismissed. All pending
applications are also disposed of. The remedies of the Petitioners are left
open to be availed of in accordance with law, and observations made in
these writ petitions would not have any bearing on any such proceedings, if
initiated.
Directions to Government of NCT of Delhi and Ministry of Law, Union of
India.

37. It is, however, important to highlight one issue that concerns this
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 17 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

Court. Societies that are registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860, are permitted by law to conduct various activities as per their own
Memorandum, rules and regulations. The broad public policy is to not allow
registration of similar or identical names which may cause deception or
confusion in the minds of those who deals with these societies. This aspect
of public policy is evident and has been recognized statutorily both under
statutory law and under common law, under various statutes like the
Trademarks Act of 1999, Section 4(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, as
also under the common law of passing off. Unfortunately, the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, as applicable to Delhi, does not have a specific
provision for non-registration of a name which is already registered. Such
provisions exists in the states of Assam, Goa, Daman and Diu, Gujarat,
Maharashtra etc., which have enacted amendments to the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 to incorporate the same. The spirit of the policy is
evident from a perusal of Section 12A of the Act as amended in Delhi,
extracted above, where the legislature clearly recognizes that in the case of
change in name, no name which is identical to an existing society is to be
registered. It is however unclear as to why such a provision has not been
introduced in Section 3, that is the stage of initial registration, in addition to
change of name. Further, in some states like Uttar Pradesh, by an
amendment to Act, the Registrar of Socities has been vested with the power
under Section 12D to cancel the registration of any society on the ground of
the registration of the name being contrary to the provisions of any law or if
the activities of the society are opposed to public policy, or
registration/renewal obtained by fraud. Such provisions need to exist in
order to make available quick and efficient remedies for persons who are
W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 18 of 20
 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

aggrieved by the registration of any Society which may be wrongly

registered with an identical or deceptively similar name. Similar provisions
for verification and cancellation/rectification exist in various other statutes
such as:

Statute: Provisions:
The Companies Act, 2013 Section 4(2)(a), Section 16, - Verification for
identical or resembling name or mark as also
for Rectification of the name of the company.
The Trademarks Act, 1999 Sections 9, 11 – Verification of an existing
mark which may conflict with the mark
applied for.
Section 57- Power to cancel or vary
registration and to rectify the register.
The Limited Liability Section 15 - No LLP to be registered which
Partnership Act, 2008 has an identical or similar name or trade
mark.
Section 75 - Power of Registrar to strike off a
limited liability partnership from the register.

Such provisions are necessary in the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and
essential in order to maintain the sanctity of the ‘Register’ of Societies,
which could be abused by obtaining wrong and deceptive registrations.
Thus, there is an imminent need to consider amendments in the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, as it applies to Delhi, for including provisions to
safeguard the rights of third parties who may have grievances with the grant
of registration to a particular society. In addition, the Registrar of Societies
also ought to be an authority which exercises the responsibility of granting
registrations to a society after at least doing a basic check as to whether a
society with an identical/similar name exists or not. For this purpose, a

W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 19 of 20

 Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:11.12.2021
21:33:50

national database of societies may have to be created and access of the same
would have to be provided to all the Registrars across the country, to check
for existing Registered Societies, while granting registrations to new ones.
Finally, it also appears that the Registrar of Societies itself, as an authority,
is under confusion as to whether it has the power to cancel registrations or
not, which is reflected in differing stands that it takes in various writ
petitions, as can be gathered from the submissions made in these petitions.
38. Accordingly, let a copy of the present judgment be sent to the
Principal Secretary (Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs), Delhi
Government- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, as also to the Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India- Mr. Anoop Kumar
Mehndiratta, for consideration of the above and for taking appropriate
measures.
39. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official
website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated
as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No
physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DECEMBER 8, 2021/Aman/dj/Ak
(corrected & released on 11th December, 2021)

W.P.(C) 3265/2020 & connected matter Page 20 of 20