In Civil Appeal No. 5849-5850 of 2023 -SC- Registrar of Society has power to cancel registration under West Bengal Registration Act, rules Supreme Court
Justice Aniruddha Bose & Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia [13-09-2023]

Read Order: Chen Khoi Kui V. Liang Miao Sheng & Ors

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 1, 2023: In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has upheld the authority of the Registrar of Societies to cancel the registration of societies under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961.

The central question addressed in this case was whether the Registrar, who has the power to grant registrations under the West Bengal Registration Act 1961, also possesses the authority to cancel such registrations.

This case originated from a dispute between two factions of Chinese tannery owners in Kolkata over the management of Pei May Chinese School. The school, founded in 1929 in Kolkata's China Town area, was later relocated to Tangra by the Chinese Tannery Owners Association. Although the Association had been operating since 1944, it formally registered as a society in 1967 and managed its school, Pei May School. However, a claim was made by the appellant, who asserted to be the school's secretary, arguing that it was under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Tannery Owners Association.

The conflict escalated when the Registrar granted registration to Pei May Chinese High School as an independent society on February 19, 2010, using an address disputed by the Chinese Tannery Owners Association. The appellant contended that the Association had no legitimate affiliation with the school. This led to a complaint filed with the Registrar, and subsequently, letters from seven individuals, disputing their roles in the school society, alleging forgery, and requesting the cancellation of the school's registration.

Legal disputes between the parties began in 2011, with the central issue focusing on the Registrar of Societies' authority to cancel an order issued on January 25, 2012, in response to an application alleging a forged signature. Notably, a criminal case related to the forgery allegations was under investigation. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court found that the Registrar's determination that the signature was not forged was premature, despite the absence of explicit provisions for substantive review in the relevant legislation.

On April 19, 2016, the Registrar issued an order stating that Pei May School should continue to operate under the Chinese Tannery Owners Association, registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The Registrar's rationale was based on the emergence of a new society, Pei May Chinese High School, at the same address, without the necessary amendment to the Memorandum of Association of the Chinese Tannery Owners Association, violating the law. Consequently, the Registrar cancelled the registration of Pei May Chinese High School, citing Section 22 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899.

Efforts to challenge the Registrar's order through legal petitions were unsuccessful, and a division of opinion emerged within the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court during an appeal filed by respondents contesting the Single Judge's decision to uphold the cancellation order.

Thereafter, the Referee Judge referred to judgments of the Supreme Court, including those in Grindlays Bank Ltd. -vs- Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others [LQ/SC/1980/487] and Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union -vs- Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another [LQ/SC/2005/376] and concluded that the Registrar had effectively exercised his power of substantive review without taking into account the successful application for registration.

The division bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia held that the principle of constructive res judicata did not apply in this case. The appellant had argued that the judgment of the Division Bench, had attained finality and, therefore, it was not permissible for the Division Bench and subsequently the Referee Judge to re-examine the Registrar's exercise of power. However, the bench found that the Referee Judge had not addressed any issue already covered by the Division Bench's decision. The Division Bench had explained the position of the law regarding substantive review and procedural review, and the Referee Judge had applied the same principles to assess the Registrar's order.

The bench further opined that the closure of the criminal case and the discharge of the accused (respondent no.14) did not conclusively resolve the dispute between the two sets of parties regarding the allegations of filing false and fabricated documents before the Registrar of Societies. They highlighted that the closure report and the discharge in the criminal case did not equate to a final determination of the dispute in the civil matter.

Thus, the bench expressed the view that the challenged judgment did not have any legal shortcoming that would justify their intervention or interference.

Accordingly, the present appeal was disposed of.