Gegong Apang and anr Vs Sanjoy Tassar - Citation 136085 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

J.N, Sarma, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Rule 48 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 read with Rule 50 of the aforesaid Regulation. Alternatively it is also an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The matter arises out of an order dated 26.5.2000 passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner, Papumpara District, Itanagar in Misc. (J) Case No. 01 (A) of 2000. By the aforesaid order the Trial Court granted injunction against the appellant restraining them from interfering in the functioning of Donyie Polo Mission by the so-called Managing Committee constituted in the General Body Meeting held on 30.4.2000.

3. Donyie Polo Mission is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was registered on 19.6.1979 as seen from the certificate granted by the Registrar of Societies, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. That certificate is available in the memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulation of Donyie Polo Mission. That certificate is quoted below:

'This is to certify that Donyie Polo Mission (Society) with its Head Office at Itanagar. In Subansiri District in Arunachal Pradesh, has been registered under Section 3 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as modified by the Societies Registration (Extension to Arunachal Pradesh) Act, 1978).

The Society has been established for the Promotion of Social, Cultural, Economical, Educational Condition of the local people in the area.

This Certificate is valid from Eighteenth June Nineteen Seventy Nine.'

4. The main objects of the society is service oriented based on the great 'Doynie-Polo' Traditional cultural and faith. The first Managing Committee as is available frim the Memorandum of Association was constituted with 15 members and Sri G. Pang was the President of the Managing Committee and there was one Secretary and others were members. Subsequently, the Managing Committee was re-constituted in the General Body Meeting held on 15.9.1985 with 17 members. There was a subsequent re-constitution of the General Body Meeting on 23rd January, 1993. All these are available in the Memorandum of Association which was produced before this court. Rule and Regulation are framed and Rules 1 and 2 provides for membership and cessation of Membership. That is quoted below :

'1. Membership. - Indian Citizen shall be eligible to be member of the Mission provided that no person shall be so registered unless :

(a) he pays the requisite donation/subscription ; and

(b) he assures that he shall abide by the rules and directives of the 'Doriyie-Polo' Mission ;

(c) he pays to the Mission an annual subscription which may be fixed from time to time by the Managing Committee. However, such members as have dedicated themselves fully to the cause of the Mission and have been accepted as wholetime workers by the Managing Committee, will be exempted from the payment of the annual subscription.

2. Cessation of Membership. - Membership shall cease under the following condition:

(a) Failture to pay subscription for one term within the period of three months from the date on which the subscription becomes due.

(b) In case of death.

(c) Failure to conform to the rules of the Mission or if a member's conduct becomes detrimental to the aims and objects enumerated in Article 2 of this memorandum of association.

(d) There shall be maintained a register of members of this Mission which contain the name and full address of each person accepted as a member.

Rule 4 provides for Extraordinary General Body Meeting. That is quoted below:

'4. Extraordinary General Body Meeting. - An Extraordinary General Body Meeting may be called at any time by the Managing Committee, and notice of such a meeting shall be issued within 15 days from the date of receipt of the requisition made to the Chairman in writing from not less than 15 members.

Rule 5 provides for Notice and Quorum for the Meetings :

'5. Notice and Quorum for the Meetings :

(a) Clear 21 .... Notice shall be given to members for holding the Annual or Extraordinary General Body Meeting. The period of notice could be reduced to a minimum of clear 10 days, under extraordinary circumstances, if the Chairman or the Secretary deems it necessary. The reasons for reducing the period of notice shall be recorded.

(b) The quorum for the General Body Meeting shall be 1 /3 of the existing members if, within half an hour from the time fixed for the meeting, the quorum is not present, the meeting shall be adjourned to the same day and hour in the nest week and at the same place. No quorum is necessary for such an adjourned meeting.

Rule 8 is with regard to the Managing Committee. That is quoted below:

'8. Managing Committee:

There shall be a Managing Committee consisting of the following:

(a) 1. Chairman.

2. Vice-Chairman.

3. Treasurer.

4. Secretary.

5. 6-15 Members.

(b) The Managing Committee shall hold office for a term of three years.

(c) The Managing Committee will as far as practicable be constituted out of such whole time workers from among its members as have dedicated themselves fully to the cause of the Mission and have been accepted as such by the Managing Committee. Those whole time workers will not receive honorarium. Their personal expenses will however, be met by Mission.

(d) The meeting of the Managing Committee shall be convened by the Secretary or the Joint Secretary with at least clear 5 days notice to all the members of the Managing Committee who shall be informed of the Agenda of the meeting. However, the period of notice could be reduced to a minimum of clear three days under extraordinary circumstances, if the President or the Secretary deems it necessary. The reasons for reducing the period of notice shall be recorded.

(e) A decision on any resolution can be taken by circulation among all the members of the Managing Committee and the resolution shall be deemed passed on the receipts of assent by a majority of its members.

(f) The quorum for the meeting of the Managing Committee shall be seven.'

Rule 9 (iv) and 9(v) provides as follows :

'9(iv) The power to admit members to the Mission will vest in the Managing Committee.

9(v) Any vacancy arising in the Managing Committee may be filled up by co-option. The persons so co-opted can continue in office until the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee.'

Rule 11 provides for the powers and functions of the Secretary.

'The Secretary shall be responsible for the executive administration of the Mission, subject to the control of the Managing Committee. His duties among other things shall be :

(i) to attend to the correspondence of the Mission ;

(ii) to convene and attend the meeting of the Mission and

duly record the proceeding of such meeting.

(iii) To prepare the annual statement and other returns that are or may be prescribed by the Registrar of Societies and frame the programme and the budget for the ensuing year to be placed before the Managing Committee.

(iv) The Secretary shall be the officer to sue or be sued on behalf of the Mission and all bonds, leases and deeds shall be in the name of the (General) Secretary. The registers and all other records of the Mission shall be under his custody. He shall be entitled to sign all correspondence, documents, deeds or other legal instrument including issue of power of attorney and signing of Vakalat for the Mission's legal adviser, for and in the name of the Mission.

(v) The Secretary shall obtain vouchers for payment or disbursements made by and or on behalf of the Mission and shall maintain proper accounts.

(vi) It shall be his duty to see to the implementation of the resolutions passed by the Managing Committee, to organise fund-collection drives, to upper branches of the Mission, to have an overall supervision of the execution of the programmes and work at Itanagar to start with and other places and generally do all such things as may be necessary or desirable to further the objects of the Mission for and in the name of the Mission but subject to the supervision and direction of the Managing Committee.

(vii) The Secretary is also empowered to receive money from Government or semi-Government bodies and sign agreements, deeds or other documents in token of receipt of such money and for the purposes herein mentioned, in implementation and fulfilment of the Mission : the Secretary shall, on receipt of such money or execution of such documents forthwith report the same to the Managing Committee for its information.

(viii) The Secretary is further empowered to appoint on or more persons as Joint Secretaries to carry out such specific assignments as he may allot to them, subject to the ratification of the Managing Committee. All such appointees will be co-opted to the Managing Committee if they are not already its elected members and they will function as nominated office-bearers of the Mission.'

Rule 14 provides as follows :

'14. In general, all matters or general administration of the affairs of the Mission, not specifically provided for herein shall be decided by the Managing Committee and, if necessary, or so required, be placed before the General Body for its approval.'

5. Section 1 of the Society Registration Act, 1860 provides for formation of society by Memorandum of Association and getting itself registered. A bare perusal of the Society Registration Act makes it clear that when prescribed number of persons are associated for any literary, scientific, or charitable purpose, or for any such purpose as is described in Section 20 of this Act may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association and filing the same with the prescribed registering authority a Society come into existence in the eye of law. When a society is formed and duly registered the Societies Registration Act will apply to it and such bye-laws of the society as are found inconsistent with them will become in-operative. The accepted position is that the position of the society registered under the Act is more like that of a Joint Stock Company. A society registered under the Act is a corporation and as a separate existence apart from its members and can sue and be sued in its corporate capacity. Section 2 of the Societies Registration Act provides as follows :

'Section 2 : Memorandum of Association. - The Memorandum of Association shall contain the following things (that is to say) -

the name of the society ;

the objects of the society ;

the names, addresses, and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted.

A copy of the rules and regulations of the society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the members of the governing body, shall be filed with the Memorandum of Association.'

6. A member is a person who has either subscribed to the Memorandum of Association or has agreed in writing to become a member of a society and whose name is entered in the register of members. He is admitted according to rules and regulation of the society, and also according to them he may resign or retire from membership. The members of a society are a fluctuating body for carrying out the objects mentioned in the memorandum and for internal management of the society. Rules may be made by the society and these rules are known as the Rules and Regulation of the society. The Rules and Regulations of the society must also be filled along with the Memorandum with the registering authority for the purpose of registration of the society. If the rules and regulations of a society are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act they are invalid, and the fact that they are filed with the registering authority for the purpose of registration of the society cannot make them valid. (See AIR 1939 All 557 Radhaswami Satsang Sabha v. Tara Chand).

7. Once Rules are filed along with Memorandum of Association they become statutory in nature. Section 4 of the Society Registration Act provides as follows:

'4. Annual list of managing body to be filed. - Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar or Joint Stock Companies, of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society.'

In Assam there is an amendment as Section 4A and that is quoted below:

'A new Section 4A inserted in the Societies Registration Act, 1860, by the Societies Registration (Assam Third Amendment) Act XI of 1952, reads as follows :

'4-A. Changes in managing body and rules to be filed. - (1) Together with the list mentioned in Section 4, there shall be sent to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies a statement showing changes during the year to which the list relates in the personnel of the governors, council, directions, committee or other governing body to whom the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted and also a copy of the rules of the society corrected up to date and certified to be a correct copy by not less than three members of the governing body.

(2) A copy of every alteration made in the rules of the society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three members of the governing body, shall be sent to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies within fifteen days of the making of such alterations.'

8. It is not known whether this amendment made in 1952 in Assam was adopted by the State of Arunachal Pradesh but be that as it may, it is obligatory upon the society registered under this Act to file with the Registering authority all changes made annually by it in its general meeting or otherwise. Section 15 of the Act of 1860 provides as follows:

'15. Member defined. - For the purposes of this Act a member of a society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to the rules and regulations thereof, shall have paid a subscription, or shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof, and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations.

Disqualified members. - But in all proceedings under this Act no person shall be entitled to vote or be counted as a member whose subscription at the time shall have been arrear for a period exceeding three months.'

9. The society is empowered to make its own Rule and Regulation for the admission of members for its membership. The Act does not lay down any Rule making it obligatory on the governing body of the society to admit a member of the public on payment of prescribed subscription. However, this section quoted above makes it clear that the person whose subscription at the time shall have been in arrear for a period exceeding three months, such a person is not eligible to vote. Thus where a person's name is entered on the Rolls of the members but who has not paid subscription for a period more than three years, it is improper to take into consideration his vote or to count it for the determination of quorum. (See AIR 1941 Bom Page 312 A.S. Krishnan v. M. Sundram. Section 16 of the Act of 1860 gives the definition of Governing Body:

That is quoted below :

'16. Governing body defined. -The governing body of the society shall be the governor, council, directors, committee, trustees, or other body to whom by the rules and regulations of the society the management of its affairs is entrusted.'

10. In Vol 19 4th Edition Halsbury it is pointed out that the Rules of a registered society and the branch must provide for the appointment and removal of a committee of management.

11. An institution is built by crafts, dedication and sincerity of some persons and an institution attaings a particular growth and it is the common experience that because of the fighting between the members that such an institution is sought to be destroyed. That is what is the situation in the present case.

12. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

13. Earlier Title Suit No. 1/2000 was filed by the society through its Secretary, the present respondent before the Deputy Commissioner, Itanagar and that was registered as T.S. No. 1/2000. The prayers made in that plaint inter alia are as follows :

'1. Declaration that the Secretary, DPM/BKM is the sole authorised person to convene a meeting with the prior permission of Chairman in terms of rules of the Missions.

2. Declaration that the Defendant has ceased to be a Vice-Chairman following his voluntary resignation.

3. Declaration that the Defendant ceased to be a member of the Mission by virtue of Rule 2C of the Donyie-Polo Mission/ Bourn Kikar Mission for his failure to conform to the rules of the Missions and conducting himself in a manner detrimental to the Missions.

4. Declaration that the General Body meeting convened by the defendant is illegal, untenable and nonest in law and it has no legal validity.

5. Temporary/permanent injunction restraining defendant from holding an illegal General Body Meeting.'

14. In the suit the main thrust was that the defendant of that suit who is no longer as a member of the Mission has called a General Body Meeting of the Donyi-Polo Mission on 16.2.2000 in utter violation of the Mission bye-laws and the Mission bye-laws do not authorise a stranger to call a meeting. By order dated 10.3.2000 the Deputy Commissioner in that suit rejected the plaint and against that order F.A.O. No. 10/2000 was filed before this court and the appeal was admitted on 14.3.2000. In that appeal a Misc. case being Misc. case No. 86/2000 was filed and this court on 7.4.2000 passed the following order.

'Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The annual general meeting shall be held by the appellant strictly in accordance with Bye-laws of the society. The meeting may be held within a period of three weeks by issuing notices to al required to be done.

This Misc. case is disposed.'

15. Against the same order another appeal was filed being F.A.O. No. 20/2000 and that appeal was against the refusal of the prayer to grant injunction in T.S. No. 1/2000. That appeal also has been admitted by order dated 14.3.2000. On 14.2.2000 Itself in Misc. case No. 52/2000 this court passed the following order:

'In the interim the holding of the Extra-Ordinary General Body Meeting of the Donyi Polo Misssion scheduled to the held on 16.3.2000 at the State Banquet Hall, Niti Bihar, Itanagar is hereby stayed.'

16. In view of this interim order this meeting could not be held. After the order of this court the matter took a dubious turn. On 29.4.2000 the following order was passed by the Chairman of the Mission. That is quoted below. That order is available at Annexure-III of the Memorandum of Appeal and that is quoted below :

'ORDER

WHEREAS the activities of Shri Sanjay Tassar Batte Secretary Donyi Polo Mission/Bourn Kakir Mission have been found to be ultra vires and prejudicial to the interest of the Mission.

NOWTHEREFORE, the undersigned removes Shri Sanjay Tasar Batte from the post of Secretary Donyi Polo Mission/Bourn Kakir Mission with immediate effect. Further, with immediate effect, any action authorised by Shri Sanjay Tassar would be null and void, and without authority.

FURTHER, the undersigned appoints Shri Techi Necha as the Secretary of the Donyi Polo Mission/Bourn Kakir Mission with immediate effect. It shall be assumed that he has taken charge of the post from 29th April, 2000.'

17. Thereafter on 6.5.2000 in the Extra Ordinary General Meeting of the Managing Committee the following action was taken.

'EXETRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MANAGING COMMITTEE MEETING OF DONYI-POLO MISSION AND BOUM KAKIR MISSION ITANAGAR HELD ON 6.5.2000.

(b) Consequent upon the resignation of Prof. M.P. Kakar from the post of Secretary, Doni-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission on 15.11.1999 Sri Sanjoy Tessar (Batte) was appointed as Secretary as a stop-gap arrangement subject to ratification by the Managing Committee in the next meeting. But before ratification of his appointment Sri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte) started acting as in a manner which are ultra vires to the Mission' bye-laws. The meeting took a serious view on the activities of Sri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte) and found the activities prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the Mission and did not confirm appointment of Sri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte). The Committee unanimously ratified the Chairman's action in removal of Sri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte) on 29.4.2000.

on appointment of Sri Techl Necha as Secretary, Donyi-

Polo Mission and Boum Kakir Mission w.e.f. 29.4.2000.

; The Committee authorised Sri Necha to act as regular

Secretary in place of the Mission's regular Secretary, Prof.

M.P. Kakar, Sri Mecha was former is also authorised to

operate bank accounts and sign only monetary

instrument as per the provision of the Mission's bye-laws.'

18. But before this was done on 30.4.2000 the meeting of the General Body is alleged to be held and the minutes of the meeting are available at page 101 of the Memo of Appeal. That is quoted below:

'MINUTES OF THE MEETING AND RESOLUTION.

XVIII THE GENERAL BODY METING OF Donyi-Polo Mission (DPH/Boum Kakir Mission (BKM) was held on 30th April, 2000 at Donyi-Polo Vidya Bhavan School which was presided over by Smt. P. Jamoh member DPM. This meeting was conducted by the directive of Hon'ble High Court dated 7.4.2000 order No Misc. case No. 86/2000 in FAO 19 of 20/2000 by directing to conduct general body meeting within 21 days. The meeting as attended by more than 100 members. In the meeting a brief obituary with condolence for Late Sangey Ngawang active member of Danyi Polo Mission who met accident on 23rd March, 2000 on a way to Itanagar for Mission's activity. Members prayed two minutes silence in respect of departed leader for peace in heaven.

In the meeting the following vital points were discussed and placed before the house.

1. Annual Report by Secretary.

2. To consider Audited Statements of Accounts for the years 1998-99.

3. To adopt and approve the guideline for preparation of Budget for the year 2000-2001.

4. To appoint auditor for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.

5. To discuss and approve the purposed administratives and financial restructuring of the Mission.

6. To elect the office bearers of the Managing Committee MC. As per the bye-laws of the Mission - The members of the Managing Committee (MC) including Chairman-Vice Chairman, Secretary and Managing Committee members are elected posts not appointed one. The house resolved to elect their office bearers. Gegong Apang was thankful and appreciated for founding the Mission but his inefficiency to manage the Mission activity which led an immense suffering of the poor teacher-students-poor parents and other staff, obliged the present members in house to resolved to elect new office bearers for the cause of the down-trodden and for the safety and existing of the Mission. The continuity of Mr. Apang was doom for the Mission-hence the house decided to elect new Chairman with a hope that the government will share the suffering of the Mission.

Regarding new appoint of Secretary. The house said that Apang thinks that the post of Secretary DPM is his personal Loli Pop to please the child. It is elected post only the member DPM is qualified to the post. Apang is a ultra virus as has been always going against the bye-law of the Mission. The Mission has got no room for such dictatorship.

NEWLY ELECTED OFFICE BEARERS

Shri Lacta Umbrey

Chairman, Ex. M.P.

Shri Bengia Kafha

Vice Chairman

Shri Sanjoy Tassar

Secretary

Smt. Y. Ngawang

MCM

Smt. P. Tassar

Shri Gokja Ajay

Shri Khoyda Tanik

Shri Mallo Tarin

Shri Tai Nille

10.

Smt. F.F. Teli

11.

Shri Tamuk Taging

12.

Shri Charu Tapio

13.

Smt. P. Jarnoh

14.

Smt. Chijen

Rijiju

15.

Shri Tapok Zirdo

16.

Smt. Asha Tassar

RESOLUTION PASSED

(a) To elect new office bearers to save the Mission.

(b) Leasing Donyi-Polo Vidya Bhawan School to meet Rs. 20 lacks loss current year, to pay back the loan taken Rs. 50 lacks from Donyi-Polo Mission and to pay 10% for Head Office.

(d) Dissolved all the existing school management committee including Donyi-Polo Vidya Bhawan.'

19. Thereafter the present appellant under the Chairmanship of Gegong Apang held another meeting on 6.5.2000 and passed the following resolution:

MINUTES OF EXTRAORDINARY MANAGING COMMITTEE MEETING OF DONYI-POLO MISSION AND BOUM KAKIR MISSION, ITANAGAR HELD ON 6.5.2000 AT ITANAGAR.

The following were present:

(i) Shri Gegong Apang, Chairman,

(ii) Shri Dol Ado, Vice Chairman,

(iii) Shri P. Potom, Member.

(iv) Shri Lumer Dal, Member.

(v) Shri J.K. Panggang, Member.

(vi) Shri Tanya Nosing, Member,

(vii) Shri P.B. Dasgupta, Member,

(viii) Shri T.S. Boki, Special Insvitee.

(ix) Shri Taksm Tell, Special Invitee.

(x) Shri Ngurang Pinch, Special Invitee.

(xi) Shri T.G. Kiogi, Special Invitee,

(xii) Shri T. Taki, Special Invitee,

(xiii) Shri Smt. P. Koyu, Special Invitee,

(xiv) Smt. Taro Modi, Special Invitee.

(xv) Shri Techi Necha, Secretary, Donyi-Polo Mossion & Bourn Kakir Mission.

1. The Chairman welcomed the members and the special invitees to the meeting. He explained the reason for convening such an extra-ordinary Managing Committee. He invited the members to discuss the items of the agenda.

2. (a) Taking up the first agenda item, 'to ratify appointment of Shri Techi Nocha as Secretary, Donyi-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission', the Chairman gave detailed information to the meeting regarding the complaint of employees against Shri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte), convening unauthorised and unlawful General Body Meeting by Shri Tassar (Batte) which appeared in a section of press, etc. The members discussed the matter in details. The meeting noted the following :-

(b) Consequent upon the resignation of Prof. M.P. Kakar from the post of Secretary, Donyi-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission on 15.11.1999, Shri Sanjoy Tasar (Batte) was appointed as Secretary as a stop-gap arrangement subject to retification by the Managing Committee in its next meeting. But before ratification of his appointment Shri Sanjoy Tasar (Batte) started acting in a manner which are ultra-virus to the Missions' bye-laws. The meeting took a serious view on the activities of Shri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte) and found the activities pre-judicial and detrimental to the interest of the Mission and did not confirm appointment of Shri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte) unanimously rathned the Chairmen's action in removal of Shri Sanjoy Tasar (Batte) on 29.4.2000.

(c) The Committee also pleased to ratify the Chairmen's action on appointment of Shri Techi Necha as Secretary, Donyi-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission w.e.f. 29.4.2000. The Committee authorised Shri Necha to act as regular Secretary in, place of the Missions' former regular Secretary. Prof M.P. Kakar. Shri Nech was/is also authorised to operate bank accounts and sign any monetary instrument as per the provision of the Missions' bye-laws.

3.(a) Taking up the second agenda item, 'to decide course of action against the removed Secretary, Shri Sanjoy Tasar (Batte) for his indulgence in un-lawful activities', the Committee, after going through the companies made by the employees of the Mission regarding alleged irregularities committed by Shri Sanjoy Tasar (Batte) without knowledge of the Management, decided to inquire into it for proper action. Shri Techi Necha, Secretary, Donyi-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission was authorised to take stock of the total misappropriation made by Shri Tasar (Batte), if any, and initiate action as per the provision of the law.

(b) For his attempt to convene an un-lawful General Body Meeting without any knowledge of the Managing Committee which are ultra-virus to the bye-laws of the Missions, Shri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte) was declared expelled from the membership of the Managing Committee of Donyi-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission with immediate effect.

4. (a) Taking up the next agenda item 'to decide the date and agenda of the General Body Meeting of the Donyi-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission, the Committee noted that the former Secretary, Shri Sanjoy Tasser (Batte) was yet to hand over the original files related to the list of General Body members, all affairs related to the General Body. Its resolutions, etc., in absence of which it would be very difficult to hold a meeting of the General Body Meeting as per the bye-laws of the Mission in accordance with the Hon'ble Court, Guwahati's directions as soon as the required filed and documents are received from Shri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte). The meeting authorised the Chairman to finalise of date of such meeting immediately on receipt of required documents.

(b) The meeting unanimously resolved to place the question of 'Life-Chairmanship' and 'Life Membership' before the next General Body Meeting as one of its agenda items besides the normal routine agenda like consideration of annual report, audited accounts for the year, appointment of auditor, consideration of budget etc.

5. Taking up the agenda item on continuation of services of the employees beyond 21.11.1999, the members discussed in detail on the situation under which the committee was, with a heavy heart, compelled to terminate services of the employees of the Missions. Financial crisis due to stoppage of grants-in-aid by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and other receipts from donations, etc., was the main reason behind such action of the Committee. However, after assessing the circumstances, the Committee arrived at a decision to continue the services of all those employees of the Missions who were continuing with their respective duties even after 21.11.1999 till date, at lower pay. Finalization of the pay structure was referred to the General Body Meeting. The Committee decided to release lump sum amount to the employees immediately pending finalization of their pay structure.

6. With permission of the Chairman, the following points were also discussed and resolved : -

(a) The members congratulated Shri Gegong Apang, Chairman for his being appointed as Chairman of UNESCO Centre, Arunachal Pradesh, state unit of the international NGO. The meeting approached Shri Apang to pursue the UNESCO for financial assistance to the Missions' institutions. It was resolved that Secretary, Donyi-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission will submit suitable schemes to the UNCESCO Centre, Arunachal Pradesh for necessary consideration by the UNESCO.

(b) It was resolved that the schools under the Missions will function as per its existing system with collection of some higher development fees from the parents as may be decided by the respective School Managing Committees. Secretary, Donyi-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission was advised to announce re-opening of schools as per their normal schedule.

(c) While discussion on the issue of obtaining grants-in-aid from the State and Central Governments, the Committee advised the Secretary to pursue the decisions of General Body Meetings and Managing Committees since 1997.

7. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks by Shri Techi Necha, Secretary, Donyi-Polo Mission and Bourn Kakir Mission.'

20. So there is a fight between two bodies as indicated above with regard to the Mission and it is on this background that the suits and counter suits have been filed by the parties as indicated above.

21. I have heard Sri P.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. B.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate for the respondents. The written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties.

22. The Learned Trial Court broadly found as follows :

(i) Though there was some irregularities in convening the meeting on 30.4.2000 found meeting of the supreme body namely, General Body Meeting was held on 30.4.2000 and in the said meeting 114 members out of 236 attended.

(II) It has been further held that the attendance of the 114 members was disputed by the defendant. It is also been held that notices have been issued to all the members regarding meeting on 30.4.2000. The meeting was prima facie forced to be genuine and order of injunction was issued as against the appellant injuncting them from interfering in the function of the new Managing Committee constituted on 30.4.2000.

23. Mr. P.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate for the appellant makes the following submissions:

(A) On a conjoint reading of the provisions of Rules 3(b) and 8(b) of the Rules and Regulations governing the society, it is crystal clear that the Managing Committee has a life of three years and that the power of the General Body is to elect a Managing Committee once in 3 years. There is an in built restriction on the powers of the General Body regarding constitution of the Managing Committee of the society. Though an Annual General Meeting is to be held under the said Rules and Regulation every year, the power to elect a new Managing Committee can be exercised only once in three years. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the Managing Committee sought to be replaced in the meeting held on 30.4.2000 was constituted on 28th December, 1998 and is entitled to remain in office under the Rules and Regulations until 27th December, 2001. The actions of the General Body even on an assumption regarding the validity of the meeting of 30.4.2000, is ultra-virus the Rules and Regulations governing the society.

(B) The finding of the learned trial court that the authenticity of the membership of the 114 members who attended the meeting of 30.4.2000 (as per list annexed at pages 95 to 100 of the memo of appeal) is perverse in view of the contents of paragraphs 14, 16 and 17 of the written statement filed by the appellants at pages 30, 40, 41 & 42 of the memo of appeal.

(C) A list of 127 members who attended the previous General Body Meeting held on 28.12.1998 has been annexed at pages 110-119 of the Memo of Appeal. A comparison of the two lists at pages 95 to 100 and 110 to 199 would go to show that out of the 114 persons who attended the purported meeting on 30.4.2000 only 2 persons attended the previous Annual General Meeting held on December, 1998. It is the specific case of the appellants that the remaining of the 114 persons are not members of the society as per Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act read with Rule 9(iv) of the Rules and Regulations of the society. The resolution taken in the meeting dated 30.4.2000, therefore is nonest in law.

(D) Notice of the purported meeting of 30.4.2000 was not circulated to all the concerned members, but was issued to only a few selected persons. The records filed before the learned Trial Court do not show issuance and/or service of notices on all members as required in terms of the order dated 7.4.2000 of the Hon'ble High Court in Misc. Case No. 86 of 2000 arising out of FAO 19 and 20 of 2000 and the provisions of Rule 5(a) of the Rules and Regulations governing the society.

(E) In the arguments made on behalf of the respondents, the validity of the Annual General Meeting held on December, 1998 had been sought to be assailed particularly by referring to the minutes of the said meeting (on record in Mics. Case No. 53/2000 arising out of FAO 19/2000). It has been argued that only ten members as mentioned in the Minutes, attended the said Annual General Meeting.

The point regarding validity of the said meeting has not been raised in the pleadings. The validity of the Annual General Meeting held in December, 1998, in fact, has not been disputed inasmuch as Sanjoy Tassar himself was elected a member of the Managing Committee in the said meeting as evident from the Minutes thereof. The names of the 10 persons mentioned in the Minutes are the office bearer who attended the Managing Committee meeting held on the same day. The Minutes are in respect of both the General Body and the Managing Committee meeting held on the same say. A perusal of the said Minutes would also go to show that reference is being made to the 'House' namely the General Body. In fact in the appeal memo at paragraph 9 it has been categorically stated that 127 members as per list at pages 110 to 119 attended the said Annual General Meeting held in December, 1998. The said averment remains uncontroverted. On these contentions it is clear and evident that the learned trial court in granting injunction exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely and by ignoring the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions for which reasons the impugned order is liable to be appropriate interfered with by this.

24. On the other hand, the Learned Advocate for the respondents made the following submissions :

(i) The case of the respondents as averred in the plaint in T.S. No. 2/ 2000 and the written statement filed in T.S. No, 3/2000 is that being aggrieved by the irregular functioning of the Mission under the Chairmanship of Shri Gegong Apang, appellant No. 1, who in utter violation of the provisions of the bye-laws of the Mission declared himself a 'Life Chairman' vide resolution No. 5 of the purported General Body Meeting dated 16.8.1995 one Lijum Ronya, the Vice Chairman of the Managing Committee convened a meeting of the General Body on 16.8.2000 for re-constituting a new Managing Committee. Title Suit No. 1/2000 was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare, Itanagar by Donyi-Polo Mission represented by Shri Sanjoy Tassar as Secretary who was admittedly deputed by the appellant No. 1 Shri Gegong Apang, Challenging the action of convening of the meeting dated 16.8.2000 by Lijum Ronya. The trial court having rejected the plaint, F.A.O. Nos. 19 and 20/2000 were filed against the order of rejection of the plaint before this Hon'ble Court by Donyi-Polo Mission represented by the Secretary, Sri Sanjoy Tasar as Secretary who was admittedly deputed by the appellant No. 1, Sri Gegong Apang, challenging the action of conveying of the meeting date 16.8.2000 by Lijum Ronya. The trial court having rejected the plaint, FAO Nos. 19/2000 and 20/2000 were filed against the order of rejection of the plaint before this Hon'ble court by Donyi-Polo Mission represented by the Secretary, Shri Sanjoy Tassar as deputed by the Chairman of the Managing Committee, Shri Gegong Apang. In the said F.A.Os this Hon'ble Court passed order on 7.4.2000 directing Sri Sanjoy Tassar to hold the Annual General Meeting strictly in accordance with the Bye-laws of the Society within a period of 3 weeks by issuing notices to all concerned. In pursuance to the said direction, the Secretary convened a General Body Meeting on 30.4.2000 by issuing notice dated 8,4.2000 to all the members of the Mission, The meeting was attended by 114 members of the Mission out of total 236 members. One of the Agenda item of the Meeting dated 30.4,2000 was regarding reconstitution of the Managing Committee. The General Body, which is the ultimate Authority in all matters relating to the administration of the Mission as per Rule 3 of the Bye-Laws, reconstituted the Managing Committee of the mission. Since, then the new Managing Committee has been functioning. The respondents came to learn from news item published in Arunachal Times that the appellant No. 1 had convened a meeting of the Managing Committee on 6.5.2000, and that the appellant No. 2, Shri Techi Necha, who is not a member of the Mission, was allegedly installed as Secretary in the said meeting being chaired by the appellant No. 1 who was no longer Chairman of the Managing Committee after reconstitution of the same on 30.4.2000.

(ii) Admitted facts are that (a) Shri Sanjoy Tassar is a member of the Society, (b) Shri Sanjoy Tassar who was appointed as Secretary of the Managing Committee on 18.11.1999 in the earlier Managing Committee and has been discharging the duties as Secretary of the Mission (c) Shri Sanjoy Tassar was deputed by Sri Gegong Apang, appellant No. 1 to represent the Mission as Secretary for filing T.S. No. 1/2000 and F.A.O. 19/2000 and 20/2000 before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court directed him to hold the Annual General Meeting, (d) the General Body is the Supreme authority to take all major decisions affecting the entire management of the Mission (Para 21 of the plaint of T.S. No. 3/2000. (e) as per decision of the Managing Committee's meeting held on 28.12.1998, the month of April, 1999 was declared for membership drive.

(iii) The General Body Meeting was held on 30.4.2000 as per Order dated 7.4.2000 passed by this Hon'ble Court in F.A.O. No. 19/2000 and 20/2000. The validity of the said meeting and the decision taken therein cannot be questioned in view of the fact that this Hon'ble Court directed holding of the Annual General Meeting on consideration of the background of convening the Annual General Meeting on 16.8.2000 by the then Vice Chairman for the purpose of reconstitution of the Managing Committee because of malfunctioning of the Mission under the Chairmanship of Sri Gegong Apang, who consider that Mission as his personal property and made himself 'Life Chairman' in the Annual General Meeting in 1995 flouting the provisions of the Memorandum of Association and the Bye-laws.

(iv) Though, nothing has been sated in the plaint filed by the appellant in T.S. No. 3/2000 and in the written statement filed in T.S. No. 2/ 2000 as regards alleged holding of General Body Meeting dated 29.12.1998 and 127 members alleged to have attended the said meeting, the appellant's for the first time have introduced the said statement in the present Memo of Appeal, and have also annexed the list of 127 persons showing them to be members of the Mission as on 29.12.1998. Along with the memo of appeal, appellant also annexed two other documents as Annexure-VIII though no such documents were filed before the leaned trial court.

(v) The since the said list being Annexure-VII to the memo of appeal at Pages 110 to 119, and Annexure-VIII do not form part of the records of the Learned trial court and brought into existence in the Appeal, the same cannot be considered while deciding the present appeal. On the other hand, the respondents had already filed the list of members both life and general members and the form of membership with renewal money receipt files which form part of the record.

(vi) The general members who attended the General Body Meeting on 30.4.2000 were all enrolled as members by the earlier Secretary Prof. M.P. Kakar and Chairman, Shri Gegong Apang as per decision of the Managing Committee held on 28.12.1998, wherein month of April, 1999 was declared as the month for enrolment of membership. The enrolment of the members having been made as per decision of the Managing Committee, presided over by the Appellant No. 1, Shri Gegong Apang and Shri Gegong Apang and Sri M.P. Kakar having acted on the basis of the said decision of the Managing Committee, cannot now turn round and challenge the membership in any manner. It is pertinent to mention herein that since inception of the Mission there is not a single instance wherein a member once enrolled either as life or General Member, was later on approved in the meeting of the Managing Committee.

(vii) In the meeting dated 30.4.2000, out of total 236 members, 114 members were present and the list of members who attended the said meeting along with their signature was produced before the trial court. The membership of the said persons cannot be challenged in this Appeal. If a question arises in the suit regarding the membership of an individual, the same can be decided in the suit after evidence.

(viii) As averred in the plaint in T.S. No. 2/2000 and the written statement filed in T.S. No. 3/2000 the Annual General Meeting was held on/30.4.2000 strictly in accordance with Bye-laws of the Society and the direction of this Hon'ble Court by order dated 7.4.2000 passed in F.A.O. 19/2000 and 20/2000.

(ix) In the said General Body Meeting dated 30.4.2000 Managing Committee had to be reconstituted owing to the demand of the members of the Mission, who were aggrieved by the malfunctioning and arbitrary made of conduct of the affairs of the Society under the Chairmanship of Sri Gegong Apang, the Appellant No. 1. In the written statement filed by respondent in T.S. No. 3/2000 it has been specifically averred that in none of the General Body Meeting the quorum was maintained and in the General Body Meeting dated 16.8.1995 which was also held without quorum, Shri Gegong Apang was made 'Life Chairman' in violation of the Memorandum of Association and the Rules of the Mission. It has also been stated in the written statement filed in T.S. No. 3/2000 the Mission has suffered financial crisis because of the stoppage of grants-in-aid from the state and the Central Government in view of the irregular functioning of the Mission.

There is no provision either in the Memorandum of Association or in the Bye-Laws to make some on 'Life Chairman'.

(x) The respondent has established prima facie case to go for trial in T.S. No. 2/2000. The balance of convenience also is in favour of the plaintiffs of the said suit. Since the present Managing Committee has been functioning since 30.4.2000 and in view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, if the order dated 26.5.2000 passed by the Learned trial court is set aside, there will be chaos in the functioning of the Mission as there will be none to run the same. It is pertinent to mention herein that no injunction has been granted in T.S. No. 3/2000 and no appeal has also been filed against the order of rejection of injunction. Further, the Mission, which has been running and Managing more seven big educational institutions having more than 500 employees and thousands of students, will suffer irreparable loss and injuries which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

(xi) A copy of the Notice dated 8.4.2000 issued for convening the General Body Meeting dated 30.4.2000 was filed in T.S. No. 3/2000 and a copy of the same was also produced before this Hon'ble Court, as the record of T.S. No. 3/2000 was not sent to this Hon'ble Court till conclusion of the hearing.

(xii) Without prejudice to the statements made herein above, it is submitted that if this Hon'ble Court hold that the notice dated 8.4.2000 is not proper, as has been argued by the appellants and decides to direct reconvening of the General Boby Meeting under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court, till holding of the General Body Meeting the present Managing Committee constituted on 30.4.2000 and which is running the administration of the Mission since 30.4.2000 should be allowed to continue for the greater interest of the Mission. Further, the General Body Meeting of directed to be convened with an agenda for considering reconstitution of the Managing Committee, the meeting may be directed to be held on the basis of the membership list produced by the respondent before the trial court or a list prepared on the basis of the application form and renewal fee which are on record of the trial court and other records of the earlier proceedings of the Managing Committee.

25. Before we go further lest us have a look at the plea taken up by the appellant in the suit filed by the present respondent. The following are the pleas:

(a) The defendants humbly submit that with a view to usurp the authority of the Mission the plaintiff issued back dated notices to . some person whom he enrolled as fake members. He also called many persons in the meeting who were not members of the society. As per the bye laws of the Society a person cannot become automatically member of the Society by paying the requisite Membership Fee unless it is accepted by the Managing Committee. As per the decision of the Managing Committee's meeting held on 28.12.1998, the month of April, 1999 was declared for Membership drive. The individually selected persons cannot become member of the society,

(b) In utter violation of the spirit and the rules and bye-laws of the society Shri Sanjoy Tassar (Batte) nominated two persons namely Shri Laeta Umbrey and Shri Bengia Kahfa as Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively of his so-called Managing Committee in their absence. Moreover both of them are not member of the Society. The said plaintiff nominated three employees of the Mission namely Shri Gokia Ajoy, Shri Khoyada Tanik and Shri Ti Nille Estate Officer as Member of the Managing Committee whereas the salaries employee of the Mission can not be member of the Managing Committee at the same time. He further, nominated his own wife Smt. P. Tassar and his own sister Smt. Asha Tassar as members of the Managing Committee. The two persons namely Shri Tapak Zirdo and Shri Jumer Begra has given in writing that they are not members of the Misson of which Shri Tapak Zirdo was nominated as members of the Managing Committee. The Defendants dispute that there was many election. The answering opposite party defendants empathically state that there is no provision of approving the election of Managing Committee by any other authority in terms of the rules and bye-laws governing the mission/society.

(c) That with regard to the statements made in para 10 of the plaint the answering opposite party defendant emphatically states that the terms of existing Managing Committee will expires only the year 2001.

26. In the impugned order the Learned trial court has directed that the Director, Education and Director, Social Welfare ex-officio members of the Managing Committee in view of the involvement of Govt grants to the Dolyi-Polo Mission till disposal of the case. This power certainly is not available to the court at the time of disposal of a matter with regard to the injunction. So, that part of the order falls through on that ground along.

27. The next question is that whether the meeting held on 30.4.2000 constituting the new Managing Committee is valid or not and/or the said Annual General Meeting is prima facie valid or not. The Annual General Meeting according to the Rules and Regulations of the Society (Rule 3) the meeting can be held once in a year to consider the subjects mentioned in the Rule. Rule 8(d) provides for holding of the meeting of the Managing Committee and further provides that the agenda of the meeting must be notified. In this particular case will be evident from the Annexure-2 the memo of appeal quoted above many things were considered even without any agenda. A copy of the notice which was produced at the time of hearing does not show that these matters which were discussed in the General Body Meeting of the Mission were ever notified. It is also not clear from the record that these 114 members who attended the meeting were admitted as the members of the Mission as required under Rule 9(4) read with Section 15 of the Society Registration Act, 1860. Further it appears from the written statement filed in T.S. No. 2/2000 by the present appellants which has been quoted earlier. All these aspect of the matter were not considered by the trial court. A person can be a member of the Society as indicated above only when they become member in accordance with the Act of 1860 as well as of the Rules otherwise they cannot be members.

28. Regarding the power to grant injunction in such a situation William Williamson Kerr, Barrister at Law in Sixth Edition of Law of Injunction has pointed out as follows :

'Where parties contribute funds which are laid out on property which all enjoy in common, such as clubs, societies, associations, etc., the members of which have agreed to bind themselves by certain rules, they are bound by their rules, and the Court will not interfere, except in cases of breach of trust or oppression (a). The Jurisdiction of the Court in such cases is founded on the common interest of every member in the property of the club, society, etc., and on the common right of every member to require that the rules to which he has subscribed shall be properly carried out (b).

But althought in the case of an ordinarily constituted club, in which members have rights of property, a member whose rights have been interfered with by the committee is entitled to ask the Court to consider whether the rules of the club have been observed, whether anything has been done which is contrary to natural justice, and whether the decision complained of has been come to bona fide.'

29. Kerr further points out that in such a situation the court has a duty to see that the proceedings are conducted on the common principles of ordinary justice. If a meeting is called irregularly or if it is not summoned with proper notice the court can interfere in such a situation. The law on this point has been further settled by a catena of decisions. In AIR 1963 SC Page 1144 (T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363 S.C. Belgaum and others) the Supreme Court has pointed out the powers of the Court to interfere in such a matter. The Supreme Court pointed out that the question whether the doctrine of strict compliance with rules implies that every minute deviation from the rules, whether substantial or not would render the act of such a body void would depend upon the nature of the rule infringed namely, whether it is mandatory or directory depends upon the purpose for which it is made and the setting in which it appears. The Supreme Court further pointed out that in such a situation the club is bound to act strictly according to the Rules whether a particular Rule is mandatory or directory falls to be decided in each case having regard to the well settled rules of construction in that regard. The Supreme Court further pointed out that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited. It cannot sit as a court of appeal from decisions of such a body ; it can set aside the order of such a body; if the said body acts without jurisdiction or does not act in good faith or acts in violation of the principles of natural justice. That was with regard to the expulsion of a member from the Lodge.

30. AIR 1959 Allahabad Page 598 (Shridhar Misra and others v. Jaichandra Vidyalankar and others). That was with regard to the present Act of 1860. There the Allahabad High Court pointed out that if an institutions which is to get itself registered under the Act the institutions is bound by provisions of the Act. The Allahabad High Court pointed out in paragraph 53 of the judgment as follows :

'53. The principle that emerges from the cases decided in England and in India is this Ordinarily, the civil court will not interfere with the internal management of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act at the instance or some of the member of the Society, But this rule is subject to the following exceptions: (1) Whether the impugned action is ultra virus the Society ; (2) the act complained of constitutes a fraud ; and (3) where the impugned action is illegal. If a case falls under any of these exceptions, it is open to some of the members of the Society to file a suit in the civil court challenging the act done in the name of the Society,'

31. In AIR 1994 Allahabad Page 161 (Sardar Kanwaldeep Singh and other v. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, Faizabad and others) also the same principles was reiterated.

32. AIR 1969 Clacutta Page 224 (Ujjal Talukdar v. Netai Chand Koley) where in following principle have been laid down.

'A domestic tribunal cannot do anything it likes, throwing everything to the winds. But the jurisdiction of the Court is of a very limited character. Generally speaking, the court can set aside the decision of a domestic tribunal on one of the three basic considerations set out below :

A. When the tribunal oversteps the limits of its jurisdiction.

B. When it violates the principles of natural justice.

C. When it acts dishonestly, actuated by bias, bad faith and the like.'

33. 1998 (1) GLR Page 38 (Sri Bhaben Chandra Pegu v. The State of Assam & Ors.). This is a case where Division Bench of this court considered Assam Aided College Management Rules, 1976 and the Division Bench considered Rule 15 of that Rule which is with regard to the convening of a meeting of the Governing Body and the Division Bench pointed out that it is statutory Rule and any commission of act in violation of the Rules in passing the order or interfering in the management of the affairs of the college must be held to be void, unlawful and illegal and is liable to be set aside and/or quashed.

34. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. P.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate for the appellants is that the Managing Committee which was earlier constituted will hold term for a period of three years and according to the Rules governing the society that Managing Committee cannot be reconstituted in the annual general meeting of the society. At this stage Sri B.K. Goswami, Learned Advocate for the respondents draws my attention to the fact that even the meeting which was held on 28.12.1998 constituting a new governing body has not a meeting in accordance with the Rules and provisions of the Act of J 860 and as such that governing Body which was constituted must also be deemed to be nonest in the eye of law. He pointed out that there is no provisions to have somebody as life term and it is also not known whether the constitution of the Managing Committee was at all notified as required under the Act to which reference has already been made and the submits that in order to do complete justice it is necessary that this court should also interfere with that meeting of 28.12.1998 as the entire matter is wide open before this court and this is necessary for the betterment/welfare and growth of the society. The relief is to be wounded to do complete justice.

35. I am exercising my power under Article 227 read with Section 151 CPC to pass this order. I feel that the interest of the Mission requires such an exercise. Who will manage the Mission is not important and relevant, but how the Mission will be saved and better served is the prime consideration, the Mission must not be pushed to the path of ruin and destruction because of the fight between individuals I find that if the impugned order is allowed to stand if would result in manifest injustice, as the Respondents would have the right to manage the Mission on the basis of proceeding which I have found to be prima facie without authority of law and without adherence to its own Rules and the provisions of the Act of 1860. In the same manner the Managing Body headed by Gegong Apang also suffers from the same infirmity and prima facie appears to be irregular and without authority of law and rules. So, I decided to strike a balance, as the purpose and object of the court is to save an institution. The courts are duty bound to exercise power to that end, must exercises power to the end, that exercise always may not be a perfect solution and answer to the problem, but a bona fide and honest attempt must be made to wipe out the injustice starting at the face and appearing as hard and dirty/murky facts on record. Here is a case where a person made himself life President though the Act and the Rules do not allow it, it appears that the President conducted the affairs of the Society as his personal property. The Secretary was removed without adhering to Rules. In the same method the respondents removed the previous Managing Body in an unceremonious manner and picked up a body of its own choice.

36. Having given careful attention to all the submissions and on perusal of the materials on record and the Laws as indicated above I prima facie for the decisions of this appeal hold as follows :

(i) That the Annual General Body Meeting held on 30.4.2000 is not a valid meeting as required under the Rules and the Act of 1860 and as such prima facie the decision taken in the meeting has to fall through.

(ii) It is also held that there is grave doubt and suspicions as to whether meeting which has held on 28.12.1998 which elected a Managing Committee for three years with Gegong Apang as the life President of the Mission is a valid meeting. So. Constitution of the Managing Committee in that meeting also must fall through. For the betterment of the Mission and for the better and smooth management of the society as suggested by the Advocates of both the sides I appoint the following two Advocates as the Commissioner to hold the Annual General Body Meeting of the Mission by adhering to the Rules and Regulations of the Society as well as by looking to the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The two Commissioner are:-

(i) Mr. Arup Kr. Goswami, Learned Advocate and

(ii) Mr. Ashish Das Gupta, Learned Advocate

The meeting shall be held by these two Commissioners within a period of four months from today. They shall find out as follows :

(i) who are the valid members of the society as required under the Rules and Regulations as well as under the provisions of the Society Registration Act, 1860 for that purpose they may verify the list of members alongwith the application Firms and publish the valid list of members for scrutiny of all. They may also contact the Registrar of Societies, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar for this purpose. Both the parties shall co-operate with them in doing this. They may also publish a notification in the local newspaper in Arunachal Pradesh as well as in a newspaper elsewhere. The cost of publication shall be borne by both the parties equally. After preparing the valid list of members as indicated above they will issue notice for holding the Annual General Body Meeting giving the date place and time of the meeting along with agenda. They shall send a notice individually to the members in the address in the membership form and also shall issue a notice to be published in two news papers of their choice. The cost of publication shall be borne by the parties equally.

(ii) The date, venue and fixed time of the Annual General Body Meeting with agenda shall be arranged by the Commissioners and if there is necessity of vote for constituting the new Managing Committee that also may be done by the Commissioners but that will be by way of secret ballot.

(iii) As preliminary cost and fees of the Commissioners each of them at the beginning shall be paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 each and the balance shall be paid to the Commissioners after completion of the pro9ess on submission of bill. If the Commissioner require any clarification and/or guidelines they may approach this court for that.

(iv) A copy of this judgment be given to both the Commissioners to do the needful in terms of the order of this court. The impugned order shall stand quashed but not to cause dislocation to the Mission during this interim period status quo with regard to the matter as on to-day shall continue for a period of four months. No cost.

The Commissioner shall have the right to peruse the records of both the Title Suits. The Secretary shall produce all the records available with him. The local administration shall render necessary help to the Commissioner to do the things as directed by the court.

Subject	;Trusts and Societies
Court	Guwahati High Court
Decided On	Jul-26-2000
Case Number	FAO No. 67 of 2000
Judge	J.N. Sarma, J.
Acts	Societies Registration Act, 1860
Appellant	Gegong Apang and anr.
Respondent	Sanjoy Tassar
Appellant Advocate	P.K. Goswami, R. Gogoi, A. Roy and D. Baruah, Advs.
Respondent Advocate	B.K. Goswami, P.C. Deka, U. Baruah, A. Sarmah, D. Choudhury and C.R. Das, Advs.

Gegong Apang and anr. Vs. Sanjoy Tassar - Court Judgment