Voltas Employees Cooperative House … vs State Of Telangana on 4 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

Voltas Employees Cooperative House … vs State Of Telangana on 4 March, 2025

      THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

                                     AND

             THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

                     WRIT APPEAL No.253 of 2025
JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, (appellant No.2), who is the Secretary

of appellant No.1-Voltas Employees Co-operative House

Building Society, appeared in person.

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order

dated 25.11.2024 passed in WP.No.32980 of 2024, whereby, the

writ petition filed by the appellants/petitioners was rejected by

assigning two reasons.

3. The prayer in the aforesaid writ petition was as under:

“to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more
particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing
the registration of 4th respondent association vide
Regd.No.1164/2007, dt.21.07.2007 by the 2nd respondent
as it is not in-line with the provisions of Section 3 of
A.P.Societies Registration Act, 2001, as it is illegal,
arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 12, 14,
19, 21, 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently
set aside the fraudulent registration of 4th respondent
association.”

4. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere on two

reasons namely: i) the petitioner is not the member of the

respondent No.3-Society whose registration is sought to the
2

cancelled and ii) the aims and objects of respondent No.3-

Society fall within the ambit of enabling provision for

registration.

5. The party-in-person submits that in WP.No.3319 of 2013

the registration of society was cancelled because it was not

falling within the ambit of enabling provision for registration.

Secondly, he submits that respondent No.3-Society is causing

hindrance and encroaching the land of appellant No.1. For this

reason, the registration of respondent No.3-Society must be

cancelled.

6. The appellant party-in-person was heard at length.

7. On repeated query, he could not point out any statutory

provision which enables that for aforesaid allegations against

respondent No.3-Society, its registration can be cancelled.

So far as the judgment of this Court in WP.No.3319 of 2013 is

concerned, it relates to a different society whose bye-laws, aims

and objects were different. The question cropped-up in the said

case was whether the Society activities fall within the four

corners of “public purpose”. After consideration of Clause-4 of

bye-laws of respondent No.4-Association therein, this Court
3

opined that the activities of said association by no stretch of

imagination fall within the ambit of “public purpose” and

therefore, the interference was made. In this case, if the

grievance of the appellant No.1 is that the respondent No.3-

Society is encroaching the land of appellant No.1-Society, the

appellants can avail the remedy under civil Law, else, the

appellants could have pointed out any statutory provision that

because of such activity of alleged encroachment their

registration could have been cancelled.

8. Learned Single Judge in WP.No.32980 of 2024 opined as

under:-

” 9. For ready reference Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh
Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 is extracted
hereunder:-

(1) Any seven or more persons forming a society which has for
its object the promotion of art, fine art, charity, crafts, religion,
sports (excluding games of chance), literature, culture, science,
political education, philosophy or diffusion of any knowledge or
any public purpose may be registered under this Act.

10. Admittedly in the case on hand, the petitioner is not the
member of the respondent No.4 Society and the person who is
not the member of the Society cannot question the very
registration of the society. It is also noted that one of the aims
and contentions of the respondent No.4 society is “To conduct
cultural programs” and the same would satisfy the provisions of
Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964.
Hence, this Court do not find any merits in this writ petition.”
4

9. The bye-laws of respondent No.3-Society were considered

by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition which includes

the activity “to conduct cultural programs” and opined that this

falls within the ambit of Section 3 of the Co-operative Societies

Act, 1964 which was extracted herein above by the learned

Single Judge. No amount of argument can be advanced to show

that this activity of cultural programs does not fall within the

ambit of Section 3 aforesaid. Thus, in our opinion, the learned

Single Judge has taken a plausible view which does not warrant

interference by this Court.

10. The Writ Appeal sans substance and is hereby dismissed.

No costs.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand

closed.

_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J

04.03.2025

Nvl