Arindam Sinha, J
1. Mr. G. Mishra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, his clients are apartment owners in Phase-II of Kendriya Vihar Apartments constructed by Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization.
2. He submits, impugned is order dated 9th February, 2023 by which the Registrar of Societies cancelled registration of his client’s society known as ‘Kendriya Vihar Apartment Owners Association Phase-II (KV AOA-II)’. He submits, the cancellation was illegal.
3. The project for constructing apartment buildings was to be undertaken in two phases. His clients are apartment owners in Phase-II, construction of which was completed after coming into force of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. He draws attention to the explanation under section 3, reproduced below.
“Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, where the real estate project is to be developed in phases, every such phase shall be considered a stand alone real estate project, and the promoter shall obtain registration under this Act for each phase separately.”
(emphasis supplied)
Separate registration in respect of Phase-II was obtained as evident from application made in Form-B dated 18th November, 2019.
4. He relies on view taken by a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Pritam Singh v. Registrar of Firms and Societies (W.P.(C) no.7517 of 2012) decided on 9th April, 2015 and available at 2015 SCC Online Del 8732. He relies on paragraph 7.1 reproduced below.
“7.1 Ms. Maheshwari has not been able to demonstrate from the provisions of the SRA or the Rules framed thereunder, anything, which would show that two societies cannot be housed in the same premises.”
5. He submits, this contention was taken before the Registrar but not dealt with. On query from Court he submits, there was no misrepresentation in giving address of his clients’ society and hence there was no ground under section 12-D(c) in Societies Registration Act, 1860 (by Odisha Amendment) to cancel the registration. He seeks interference.
6. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 and submits with reference to impugned order that there was clear misrepresentation regarding address of petitioners’ society. The project consisted of phases 1 and 2, as was made known to petitioners. It had and has only one address, which is address of his clients’ society. Hence, there was clear misrepresentation of address given by petitioners’ society in operating from the same project and necessarily to have the same address. In the circumstances, clause (c) in section 12-D (Act of 1860/Odisha Amendment) stood attracted and impugned order duly made.
7. Ms. Pattanayak, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1.
8. The cancellation provision was brought into the Act of 1860 by Odisha Amendment. Subsequently the Act of 2016 (Central Act) was enacted and to come into effect on notification made. Mr. G. Mishra submits, separate provisions were separately notified. Section 3 was notified as came into effect on 19th April, 2017.
9. It appears from the form-B application dated 18th November, 2019, for registration under the Act of 2016 in respect of Phase-II that several plots were mentioned in it. All these plots were said to come within limit of post office Janla having pin code 752054. However, address of petitioners’ Society, as per its certificate of registration dated 13th July, 2020 gives, inter alia, pin code to be 751028. There does not appear to be inquiry made regarding this, in the finding of misrepresentation of address given for cancellation of registration of the society of petitioners. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to delve further for adjudicating whether commonality found by impugned order would prevent separate registration of the societies.
10. There appears on the face of impugned order material irregularity, in omitting to consider the facts urged before it as available from the materials on record. In the circumstances, impugned order is set aside and quashed. Application of opposite party no.2, for cancellation of registration in respect of petitioners’ society, is restored to the authority. Upon hearing given to petitioners and opposite party no.2, opposite party no.1 will pass fresh order, to dispose of the application.
11. The writ petition is disposed of.
……………………..
