Judav Vs. The State of Jharkhand Through the Principal Secretary Department of Registration and Ors - Court Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 6155 of 2013   ­­­­­­ JUDAV,   A   NON­GOVERNMENT   ORGANIZATION   AND  SOCIETY   THROUGH   ITS   SECRETARY   SHEKHAR   SON   OF  SRI   NAVIN   PRASAD   SINGH   AT   52   BIGHA   PO   AND   PS  MADHUPUR, DEOGHAR, JHARKHAND  ... ... PETITIONER  VERSUS1  THE   STATE   OF   JHARKHAND   THROUGH   THE   PRINCIPAL  SECRETARY   DEPARTMENT   OF   REGISTRATION,   GOVT   OF  JHARKHAND PROJECT BUILDING HEC TOWNSHIP PO AND  PS DHURWA ,RANCHI2 THE   PRINCIPAL   SECRETARY,   DEPARTMENT   OF  REGISTRATION,   GOVT   OF   JHARKHAND,   PROJECT  BUILDING   HEC   TOWNSHIP   PO   AND   PS   DHURWA   DIST  RANCHI JHARKHAND3 THE   INSPECTOR   GENERAL,   REGISTRATION   (I.G.  REGISTRATION), DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, GOVT  OF JHARKHAND PROJECT BUILDING PO AND PS DHURWA  RANCHI JHARKHAND4 THE   ASSISTANT   INSPECTOR   GENERAL   REGISTRATION,  DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION, GOVT OF JHARKHAND  PROJECT   BUILDING   PO   AND   PS   DHURWA   RANCHI  JHARKHAND5 THE   DEPUTY   COMMISSIONER,   DUMKA   COLLECTORIATE  PO AND PS DIST DUMKA JHARKHAND6 THE   SUPERINTENDENT   OF   POLICE,   DUMKA  COLLECTORIATE PO AND PS DIST DUMKA JHARKHAND  ... ...    RESPONDENTS ­­­­­­ CORAM :   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, Sr. Advocate    Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate  For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P.­V   Mr. Anil Kumar, J.C. to A.G. ­­­­­    5/ 20.03.2015 Aggrieved by order dated 20.09.2010 and order dated  12.07.2013,   the   petitioner­Judav,   has   approached   this   Court   by  filing the present writ petition. 2 2. Briefly  stated,   the   facts   of   the   case   are   that,   the  petitioner­NGO is registered under the Societies Registration Act,  1860.     The   petitioner   claims   that   it   has   worked   in   the   field   of  education, health, flood relief, organic farming and it is engaged in  training   and   empowerment   programme.     The   General   Body  members of the petitioner­Society are pioneers in social work.  The  petitioner­Society has been granted permission under the Foreign  Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 and its accounts are audited  regularly.  In connection with the land acquisition for establishing a  thermal power plant at Kathikund, the local people started protests  and agitations.   In one of such incidents, an FIR being Kathikund  P.S. Case No.68 of 2008 was lodged in which one of the members  of   the   General   Body   of   the   petitioner­Society   namely,  Mr.   Ghanshyamjee   was   also   named   as   an   accused   in   the  charge­sheet filed on 25.02.2009 for offence under Sections 147,  148, 149, 341, 323, 188, 353, 333, 307, 379 and 120B IPC and  under Sections 25(1­b)1/27 of the Arms Act and under Section 17  of   the   C.L.A.   Act.     The   petitioner­Society   which   is   a   legal   and  juristic person is not made an accused.  The petitioner­Society has  no   concern   with   the   personal   life   and   activities   of   its   member  namely, Mr. Ghanshyamjee and it has issued a show­cause notice  dated 14.05.2009 to him seeking his explanation about the above  criminal case lodged against him.  The Assistant Inspector General  of Registration­respondent no.4 issued letter dated 19.10.2009 to  3 the  petitioner  directing the Secretary  of the  petitioner­Society to  appear   before   the   Inspector   General   of   Registration.     Though,  notice dated 19.10.2009 indicates that the said letter was issued in  response to a letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka however,  a copy of the letter written by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka  was not furnished to the petitioner.  On 30.10.2009, the authorized  representative   of   the   petitioner   appeared   before   the   respondent  no.3.  The Registration of the petitioner­Society was cancelled by a  non­speaking order by the respondent no.3 vide order contained in  letter   dated   16.11.2009.     Challenging   the   order   of   cancellation  dated   31.10.2009,   the   petitioner   approached   this   Court   in  W.P.(C) No.5538 of 2009 which was disposed of on 06.08.2010,  permitting   the   petitioner   to   file   its   show­cause   reply   and   the  respondent   no.3   was   directed   to   pass   a   speaking   order   after  affording opportunity to the petitioner for explaining its case.  The  respondent no.3 vide order dated 20.09.2010, instead of deciding  the   matter,   remitted   the   matter   to   the   Deputy   Commissioner,  Deoghar   for   enquiry.     The   petitioner   was   again   constrained   to  approach this Court by filing writ petition being, W.P.(C) No.5687  of 2010 which was dismissed on 20.06.2011 however, a liberty was  given to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of Appeal.  Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Registration Appeal Case No.24  of   2011   before   the   Member,   Board   of   Revenue.     The   Appeal  preferred   by   the   petitioner   was   dismissed   in   a   mechanical   and  4 casual   manner,   vide   order   dated   12.07.2013.     Constrained,   the  petitioner has approached this Court again.     3.   In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a  plea   that   in   compliance   of   order   dated   06.08.2010   in  W.P.(C) No.5538 of 2009 passed by this Court, after hearing the  petitioner the Inspector General of Registration passed order dated  20.09.2010 whereby, the earlier order dated 31.10.2009 was not  recalled.     A   decision   to   cancel   the   registration   of   the  petitioner­Society   was   taken   after   examining   letter   dated  03.07.2009 of the Superintendent of Police, Dumka, letter dated  10.07.2009 of Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and other materials  on record.  The Home Department, the Government of Jharkhand  has also found office bearers of the petitioner­Society having close  connection with extremists organization and in this connection the  Principal Secretary, Department of Home has written letter dated  17.08.2010.  It is stated that the main object of registration under  the Societies Registration Act is to promote charitable and welfare  activities and not to promote subversive and criminal activities.  It  is   stated   that   the   order   passed   by   the   Inspector   General   of  Registration   on   20.09.2010   is   a   speaking   order   and   it   has   been  passed in the interest of public and in the interest of the State.  4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the  documents on record. 5 5. Mr.   Anil   Kumar   Sinha,   the   learned   senior   counsel  appearing   for   the   petitioner­Judav   contends   that  Rule   13   of   the  Bihar Societies Registration Rules, 1965 (adopted by the State of  Jharkhand)   provides   that   a   show­cause   notice   can   be   issued   for  cancellation   of   registration   when   the   Inspector   General   of  Registration is satisfied that there is a prima­facie case against the  Society   and   only   when   the   Inspector   General   of   Registration   is  satisfied that the charge is proved, the registration of the Society  under   Section   23   of  the   Societies  Registration   Act,  1860  can  be  cancelled,   however,   without   recording   a   satisfaction   that   the  charge   against   the   petitioner­Society   is   proved,   the   Inspector  General   of   Registration   has   passed   order   dated   20.09.2010  whereby,   the   matter   has   been   remitted   to   the   Deputy  Commissioner for further enquiry.  It is stated that the order passed  by the Inspector General of Registration is contrary to the direction  issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5538 of 2009 in as much as,  instead   of   passing   a   fresh   order,   the   Inspector   General   of  Registration   has   transferred   the   matter   to   the   Deputy  Commissioner for further enquiry.  It is further submitted that for  the criminal act of one of its members, the petitioner­Society which  is a juristic person  cannot be penalized.   The registration of the  petitioner­Society cannot be cancelled because the Society has no  concern with the personal activities of its members of the General  Body.    It is contended that the reports of the Superintendent of  6 Police   and   the   Deputy   Commissioner   are   contrary   to   the   report  submitted   by   the   Executive   Magistrate,   Madhupur   which   was  submitted during the proceeding of Registration Appeal No.24 of  2011 and therefore, the Member, Board of Revenue should have  considered   the   same   before   taking   a   decision   in   the   Appeal  preferred by the petitioner   6.  As  against  the above, Mr.  Rajesh Kumar, the  learned  G.P.­V appearing for the respondents submits that even the initial  order   of   cancellation   which   was   passed   on   31.10.2009   was   a  speaking   order   in   as   much   as,   the   letters   written   by   the  Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner were made  part   of  the   said   order.    Defending  order  dated 20.09.2010, it  is  submitted that the said order is in consonance with the direction of  this Court in W.P.(C) No.5538 of 2009.  The Inspector General of  Registration   has   passed   a   fresh   order   whereby   order   dated  31.10.2009 has been affirmed once again.   It is further submitted  that a perusal of the charge­sheet submitted in Kathikund P.S. Case  No.68 of 2008 reveals that the members of Ulgulan Manch and the  villagers had formed an unlawful assembly and they had proceeded  for armed demonstration.  In the said demonstration, the extremist  activists were also active and the complicity of one of the members  of the General Body of the petitioner­NGO has also been found in  the   crime.     It   is  further submitted that  there  is no allegation  of  mala­fide   against   the   Superintendent   of   Police   or   Deputy  7 Commissioner or the Principal Secretary, Department of Home and  therefore, there is no reason to dis­believe the reports submitted by  the aforesaid officers.     7. Having carefully considered the rival submissions and  after perusing the documents on record, I find that insofar as, the  report   submitted  by the Superintendent of Police  on 03.07.2009  and the report of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10.07.2009 are  concerned,   at   no   stage   after   the   issuance   of   show­cause   notice  dated   19.10.2009,   the   petitioner­Society   has   alleged   mala­fide  against the respondent­authorities.  In the present proceeding also  there   is   no   allegation   of   mala­fide   against   the  respondent­Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Commissioner.  In fact, the Principal Secretary, Department of Home has not even  be made a party in the writ petition.   The learned senior counsel  for   the   petitioner   has   contended   that   the   reports   of   the  Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner are liable  to be rejected for the simple reason that, though it is alleged that  the   petitioner­NGO   has   close   connections   with   the   extremist  groups, no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner.  This   contention   at   the   first   instance   appears   to   be   attractive  however, after closer scrutiny of the reports of the Superintendent  of Police and the Deputy Commissioner, I find no force in the said  contention.  The allegation against the petitioner­NGO is of having  connections   with   the   extremists   groups   and   unless   sufficient  8 material   is   gathered   and   the   involvement   the   members   of   the  petitioner is found in an incident, a criminal case could not have  been registered against the petitioner or its members.   The case  registered   against   one   of   the   members   of   the   petitioner­Society  reveals association of extremist activists in the said incident.   The  learned counsel for the respondent­State of Jharkhand has rightly  pointed  out that  one of the members of the petitioner has been  found involved in Kathikund P.S. Case No.68 of 2009 which was  registered   into   an   incident   of   armed   and   riotous   protest.     The  incident   occurred   when   the   accused   were   protesting   against   the  alleged   beating  of   the   arrested  accused  in   connection   with  Case  No.64 of 2008 and it was not a protest against the land acquisition  notification issued by the Government.   8. Section   23   of   the   Societies   Registration   Act,   1860  contemplates an enquiry by the Inspector General of Registration  and it provides that before order of cancellation of registration is  passed a reasonable opportunity of showing cause should be given  to   the   Socieity.     As   noticed   above,   the   order   of   cancellation   of  registration   has   been   passed   by   the   Inspector   General   of  Registration after considering the reports of the Superintendent of  Police   and   the   Deputy   Commissioner   and   after   affording  opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.  The petitioner­Society has  admitted in the writ petition that before the order of cancellation  dated 20.09.2010 was passed, it was directed to produce certain  9 documents which, it is stated that the Society produced before the  Inspector General of Registration.   Rule 12 of the Bihar Societies  Registration   Rules,   1965   gives   power   and   jurisdiction   to   the  Inspector   General   of   Registration   to   institute   enquiry   or  investigation when there is a suspicion that the Society is engaging  itself in activities which are subversive of the objects of the Society.  Thus,   the   Inspector   General   of   Registration   is   competent   to  examine   the   affairs   of   the   Society.     Rule   13   of   the   1965   Rules  speaks of satisfaction of the Inspector General of Registration that  the charges have been proved against the Society.  The reports of  the   Superintendent   of   Police   and   the   Deputy   Commissioner,  affirmed   by   letter   dated   17.08.2010   of   the   Principal   Secretary,  Department of Home were relevant materials based on which the  Inspector General of Registration has taken a decision to cancel the  registration of the petitioner­Society.   In the earlier report dated  18.12.2008,   the   Deputy   Collector   Land   Reforms,   Madhupur   had  also recommended for enquiry by the Special Branch and CID into  the   internal   affairs   of   the   petitioner­Society.     From   a   perusal   of  order   dated   20.09.2010,   it   appears   that   before   the   Inspector  General   of   Registration,   the   only   plea   taken   by   the  petitioner­Society was that on the basis of criminal activity of one  of its members, no action can be taken against the Society which is  a juristic person.  The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner  that order  dated 20.09.2010 is not a fresh   order whereas, vide  10 order dated 06.08.2010 in W.P.(C) No.5538 of 2009 the Inspector  General of Registration was required to pass a fresh order, is liable  to be rejected.   I find that it has been made amply clear in order  dated   20.09.2010   that   by   the   said   order   earlier   order   of  cancellation   dated   31.10.2009   has   been   affirmed.     It   further  appears   that   the   reports   of   the   Superintendent   of   Police   and  Deputy  Commissioner  were  considered   relevant   for   not  recalling  earlier order dated 31.10.2009.   The submission that order dated  20.09.2010 contains no order rather, by the said order the matter  has   been   remitted   to   the   Deputy   Commissioner,   Dumka   is   also  liable to be rejected.  I find that vide order dated 20.09.2010, the  Inspector   General   of   Registration   has   affirmed   the   order   of  cancellation dated 31.10.2009 and the matter has been referred to  the   Deputy   Commissioner   for   in­depth   enquiry.     In   order   dated  20.09.2010, it has been made clear to the petitioner that against  the said order, the petitioner may avail of the remedy of Appeal.   9. In  view of Section  23 of the Act  and Rule 13 of the  Bihar Societies Registration Rules, 1965, primarily, the satisfaction  has to be of the   authority passing the order.   If the satisfaction  recorded by the authority is objective and is based on the materials  on record then the court would not interfere with the order passed  by the authority only because another view possibly can be taken.  In  “State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjeev”, reported in  (2005) 5 SCC   181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, “the satisfaction of  11 the authority can be interfered with if the satisfaction recorded is  demonstratively   perverse   based   on   no   evidence,   misreading   of  evidence or which a reasonable man could not form and that the  person   concerned   was   not   given   due   opportunity   resulting   in  prejudice”.  In the present case, this is not the case pleaded by the  petitioner that the procedure laid down under the Act  or the Rules  was not followed.   As noticed above, opportunity of hearing was  granted to the petitioner­Society.  The contention raised on behalf  of the petitioner that the report of Superintendent of Police or the  Deputy Commissioner does not provide any evidence of complicity  or   association   of   the   petitioner­Society   with   the   extremist   group  and therefore, the order of   cancellation is not sustainable, is not  tenable.     The   proceeding   before   the   Inspector   General   of  Registration is a quasi­judicial proceeding and therefore, it is not  necessary that the materials collected against the petitioner must  prove the allegation to its guilt.  In my opinion, it is sufficient if on  the   materials   produced   before   the   Inspector   General   of  Registration,   the   said   authority   is   satisfied   that   the   Society   has  engaged itself in activities, which are subversive of the objects of  the Society.

10. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ  petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.          (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R.K./A.F.R.