ALL INDIA CHESS FEDERATION V. UNION OF INDIA

WP(C)/15778/2005

AI Insights

The case involves the All India Chess Federation and several regional chess associations challenging the second registration of the Federation in Kozhikode by the 3rd respondent, who was accused of fraudulently registering the Federation a second time while it was already registered in Chennai. The petitioners argued that the second registration was obtained with malafide intent to defalcate funds. The respondents, including the 2nd respondent (the registrar who registered the Federation in Kozhikode) and the 3rd respondent, defended the registration, claiming it was done legally and in good faith. The court dismissed the petition, citing the lack of evidence of fraud and the participation of the petitioners in the registration process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722355 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ramasamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Government All Department Watchman and Basic Servants Association Vs. Union of India, Jugar Harish Shah vs. Union of India & another, Shrik R. Raghavan vs. Union of India, Janata Dal (Samajwadi) vs. Election Commission of India, Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare & ots, State of Bihar vs. S.A.Hassan and another, Brij Mohan Gupta v. the Registrar of societies, Shimoga Zilla Madivala Sangha and others vs. The District Registrar and another, Maharshi Nikhilesh Sewa Sansthan vs. State of Jharkhand and others, Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and others
• Laws Referred To: Societies Registration Act, 1860, Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, General Clauses Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N NAGRESH; C G PREETHA; T SANJAY; PRINCY XAVIER; MILLU DANDAPANI; A V THOMAS; P S SREEDHARAN PILLAI; ARJUN SREEDHAR; K RATHISH KUMAR; JOSEPH GEORGE; ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN; K S ANIL KUMAR; MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Malafide intention; Public interest; Society Registration; Fraudulent registration; Chess federation
• Section: 156; 21; 16(3)(b); 44(4); 44(5)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA WEDNESDAY , THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938 WP(C).No. 15778 of 2005 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. ALL INDIA CHESS FEDERATION, (REG. NO.125 OF 1958 CHENNAI NORTH), REP. BY ITS HON. SECRETARY (CO-OPTED), D.V. SUNDAR, ROOM NO.82, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, CHENNAI- 600 003, BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MANUEL AARON. 2. TAMILNADU CHESS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY HON. SECRETARY MANUEL AARON, HALL NO.75, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, CHENNAI -600 003. 3. MAHARASHTRA STATE CHESS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SANJAY KEDGE, KEDGE ELECTRONICS, HARBHAT ROAD, TILAK CHOWK, SANGLI 416 416 BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MANUEL AARON. 4. DELHI CHESS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS HON. SECRETARY BHARAT SINGH, 149, BHAKANUKHERJWE NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 009, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MANUEL AARON. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.K.S.ANIL KUMAR (VAIKOM), SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (SPORTS), MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI -110 001. WP(C).No. 15778 of 2005 (C) 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), REGISTRATION AUTHORITY FOR SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOZHIKODE. 3. P.T. UMMER KOYA, 'NAJU RIVAGE', V.K. KRISHNA MENON ROAD, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE- 673 003, KERALA STATE. * ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED #4. KERALA STATE CHESS ASSOCIATION, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-27, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.K. BHASKARAN, AGED 68 YEARS, SON OF KANNAN, RESIDING AT CHECKMATE, AROLI, KANNUR. (CORRECTED) * ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 08/07/2008 IN I.A. NO.8517/2008. # THE NAME OF THE ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS ''ALL KERALA CHESS ASSOCIATION'' IN THE PLACE OF ''KERALA STATE CHESS ASSOCIATION'' AS PER ORDER DATED 21/12/2016 IN I.A. NO.9303/2008. ** ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED 5. UTTAR PRADESH CHESS ASSOCIATION, 112, SUNDAR BAGH, LUCKNOW, U.P., REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY NAVIN K.WAL, S/O. PROF.M.C. SAXENA, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT 112, SUNDAR BAGH, LUCKNOW, U.P. * ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/03/2009 IN IA. NO.4199/2009. WP(C).No. 15778 of 2005 (C) *** ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED 6. RAJASTHAN CHESS ASSOCIATION, RATTANI VYASON KA CHOWK, BIKANER, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.S.L. HARSH, S/O. LT . GANESH DAS HARSH, RESIDING AT RATTANI VYASON KA CHOWK, BIKANER. *** ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/12/2016 IN I.A. NO.13986/2009. R1 BY SRI.N. NAGARESH, ASST. S.G. OF INDIA. SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC, SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER. R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. ADDL. R4 BY SRI.A.V. THOMAS, SENIOR SC. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, ADV. SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR, ADV. SRI.K.RATHISH KUMAR, ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE (MULLAKKARIYIL), ADV. SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2016, THE COURT ON 21/12/2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 15778 of 2005 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REGISTRATION AND BYE-LAWS OF ALL INDIA CHESS FEDERATION REGISTERED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, CHENNAI SOUTH. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2005. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF URGENT MEETING OF GENERAL BODY. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE OF URGENT MEETING OF GENERAL BODY. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 19/02/2005. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE CONCOCTED MINUTES OF GENERAL BODY ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2005 IN WP(C).NO.5221 OF 2005. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/03/2005 IN OA. NO.256/2005. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE REVISED CONSTITUTION. EXT.P12 COPY OF THE LETTER REQUESTING FOR CERTIFIED COPIES OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS REGISTRATION INSTEAD OF CERTIFIED XEROX COPIES. EXT.P14 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B2-1751/05 DATED 21/02/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXT.P16 COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURNS FOR THE YEARS 1991 TO 2001 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ....2/- WP(C).No. 15778 of 2005 (C) EXT.P17 COPY OF THE CERTIFIED RETURN FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P18 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/06/2006 OF THE HONOURABLE DIVISION BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT. EXT.P19 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P20 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/04/2006 ISSUED BY IG REGISTRATION. EXT.P18 TO P33 IN I.A. NO.18904/2016 EXT.P18 COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE HONOURABLE XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, SAIDAPET. EXT.P19 ORDER OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN APP. NO.755/2005 IN CS. NO.52/2005. EXT.P20 ORDER OF HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5656-5657/2005. EXT.P21 MINUTES OF MEETING OF PETITIONER (RESOLUTION). EXT.P22 EXPERT'S REPORT. EXT.P23 FINAL REPORT BY SI, CBI, EGMORE, CHENNAI. EXT.P24 ORDER OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN CS. NO.396/2007. EXT.P25 NATIONAL SPORTS FEDERATION CERTIFICATE OF AICF FOR 2010. EXT.P26 DECLARATION VIDE NO.F.NO.36/2-2010 SPII OF NATIONAL SPORTS FEDERATION AS PUBLIC AUTHORITY ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF SPORTS. EXT.P27 GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT. EXT.P28 NATIONAL SPORTS FEDERATION CERTIFICATE OF AICF FOR 2011. EXT.P29 ORDER OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN CRL.OP. NO.8398/2008. EXT.P30 ANNUAL RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL SPORTS FEDERATION FOR THE YEAR 2012. ....3/- WP(C).No. 15778 of 2005 (C) EXT.P31 D.O. NO.22-9/2013-SP-1 BY SECY. DEPT. OF SPORTS, MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA. EXT.P32 ORDER OF SUPREME COURT IN SLP CRL. NO.3686/2012. EXT.P33 AUDITED ACCOUNTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R3(1) MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL GENERAL BODY MEETING OF THE AICF HELD A CHENNAI ON 19/02/2005. EXT.R3(2) MEETING NOTICE OF THE AICF DATED 05/02/2005. EXT.R3(3) CONSTITUTION (BYE-LAWS) OF THE AICF. EXT.R3(4) MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED TO REVIEW THE AICF CONSTITUTION HELD AT CALICUT ON 21/05/2001. EXT.R3(5) LETTER SEND BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE SECRETARY, AICF CALICUT DATED 15/03/1999. EXT.R3(6) CONSTITUTION OF THE AICF NO.825/1991 INCORPORATED OF ALL AMENDMENTS UPTO 17/11/1992. EXT.R3(7) MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL GB MEETING HELD AT CALICUT ON 26/04/1989. EXT.R3(8) AICF RULES PUBLISHED BY RESPONDENT NO.2. EXT.R3(9) ANNUAL REPORT AICF FROM 01/04/1988 TO 31/03/1989. EXT.R3(10) CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF AICF S.NO.825/1991. EXT.R3(11) TAMIL NADU GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 07/12/2005. EXT.R3(12) NIL. EXT.R3(13) NIL. EXT.R3(14) COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 07/12/2005 ISSUED BY THE TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT. EXT.R3(15) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/09/2001 IN WP(C).NO.27707/2001 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ....4/- WP(C).No. 15778 of 2005 (C) EXT.R3(16) COPY OF THE PAGE NOS.51 & 52 FROM THE BOOK ''AICF FORUM'' THE OFFICIAL CHESS MAGAZINE VOL.7 OF NOVEMBER 2001. EXT.R3(17) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2004 IN CMA NO.40/2001 OF THE 1ST ADDL. SUB JUDGE, MADHURAI, ALONG WITH COPY OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE AICF, 1989. EXT.R3(18) COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS DATED 06/02/2006 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, COMMERCIAL TAXES & REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI. EXT.R3(19) COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED ON 06/02/2006 BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 44(5) OF THE TAMIL NADU SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, CHENNAI. EXT.R3(20) COPY OF THE DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 24/03/2006 ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/03/2006 ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (I), KOZHIKODE. EXT.R3(21) COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 05/01/1999 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS. EXT.R4A COPY OF THE TAMIL NADU GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.47 DATED 07/12/2005. EXT.R4B COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 06/02/2006. EXT.R4C COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVT. TAMIL NADU DATED 06/02/2006. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. P.V.ASHA, J. W.P.(C) No.15778 of 2005 Dated this the 21st day of December, 2016 JUDGMENT All India Chess Federation along with Tamilnadu Chess Association, Maharashtra State Chess Association and Delhi Chess Association have filed this writ petition with the prayer to quash “the improper registration of All India Chess Federation S.No.825 of 1991 for second time under the Societies Registration Act by the 2nd respondent, the District Registrar General” . 2. The case of the petitioners is that All India Chess Federation ('Federation' for short) was already registered on 10.12.1958 as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with the Registrar of Assurances, North Chennai, Tamilnadu as per Ext.P1, with registration No.125/1958 and it is governed by Ext.P1 bylaw. The 3rd respondent Sri.P.T.Ummarkoya, was elected as the Honorary Secretary of the Federation in 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2001. Suppressing the fact that the very same All India Chess Federation was already registered with registration No.125/1958, in Chennai, 3rd respondent got the Federation registered with the 2nd respondent for the second time with the very same name in Kozhikode in the year 1991, with registration S.No.825 of 1991, while he was the Honorary W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :2: Secretary of the Federation. It is the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent got it registered with malafide intention to defalcate its funds, misusing his position, by playing fraud. The petitioners have alleged that various 'fraudulent activities' were carried out by the 3rd respondent during his tenure and they came to know about the second registration of the federation only in the year 2004-05 and on coming to know about it, the first petitioner submitted applications for cancellation of the same. They have produced Exts.P12 to P14, stating that they had requested for certified copies of the application submitted by the 3rd respondent on 1.7.1991 for registration of the Federation and for copies of the certificates when they were asked to remit the requisite stamp for the same. The case of petitioners is that there cannot be any second registration for a federation. Therefore the second registration obtained by playing fraud is liable to be canceled. 3. Ext.P3 certificate of registration of societies with No.825/1991 was issued on 11.12.1991. According to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent, got it registered in Kozhikkode in order to swindle the public money which was to be used for the development of the game of chess. There are several litigations pending between the first petitioner and the 3rd respondent -before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saithapettu for committing the offence of forging documents W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :3: and using the same for registration for the 2nd time with the very same name. Apart from that, original suit has been filed before the Madras High Court in which the High Court has passed orders restraining the 3rd respondent and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Original Suit Appeal Nos.330, 335, 9 and 17 of 2005 has passed orders declaring that the second registration of the Federation at Kozhikkode is invalid. According to the petitioners, the annual general body of the first petitioner held on 25.9.2005 resolved to cancel the registration in Kozhikkode, since the said registration is illegal and obtained by playing fraud. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent who issued orders registering the society, is competent to cancel the registration in the light of section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The petitioners claim that the 2nd respondent ought to have done the registration only after making himself sure that there is no other society with identical or similar name exists. Apart from that the Registrar had to follow the procedures prescribed in the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. When the name of the federation contains the name of India, there was prohibition for registering such names using the word India. Therefore, it is alleged that the 2nd registration by the 2nd respondent was contrary to public W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :4: interest. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent has admitted that the registration was already made for the 2nd time with the same name and hence there is no dispute over the 2nd registration. It is the contention of the petitioners that this court has to direct cancellation of the registration made in Kozhikkode by the 2nd respondent, since registration was illegal and vitiated by fraud. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the 2nd respondent stopped filing of documents in respect of the society with registration no. 825/1991 since the year 2005, on coming to know about the existence of pre-registered society with the same name in Chennai with registration No.125/1958 and the pendency of a case relating to the registration of the federation before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saithapettu, Chennai. On the basis of the orders passed by that court, the 2nd respondent had forwarded the originals of bylaw, memorandum of association, application for registration of society etc, and thereafter no lists of that society were filed. The 2nd respondent has also stated that the society was registered in 1991 on the basis of the application and declaration by the 3rd respondent in his capacity as Secretary of the Federation on 11.12.1991, to the effect that there is no other society with the same name working in that place. He registered the society and allotted W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :5: registration number in good faith. According to the 2nd respondent, petitioners have to approach the civil court, in case they want to get the registration canceled. 6. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable, raising the following grounds. The registration of the year 1991, is challenged in the year 2005. The persons representing the petitioners were very well aware of the registration of the federation at Kozhikkode and it is only on account of their malafide intention in connivance with several others that they have turned against him and the writ petition is filed as a short cut. If at all the registration is to be challenged as being invalid, the appropriate action should have been by approaching a civil court and not this court under Article 226. The writ petition is filed suppressing several material facts. The persons who represent the 1st petitioner for filing this writ petition did not have any right to represent it. The election held on the basis of the orders passed by this court in OP No.27707/2001, is not challenged by anybody. The petitioners filed a suit C.S.52/2005 before the High Court of Madras for restraining the 3rd respondent and others in order to topple the activities of the federation with the connivance of highly influential persons, etc. 7. According to the 3rd respondent, the Indian Chess Federation, W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :6: which was registered in 1958 was not functioning properly and and it had not renewed the registration after 1960 and has become defunct. It was therefore decided by the office bearers including M/s.Manual Aaron and D.V.Sunder who represent the petitioners 2 and 1 respectively in this writ petition and it was in their presence he decided to register the federation in the District Headquarters. The 3rd respondent had got the federation registered in Kozhikkode in view of the amended provisions contained in the bylaw, according to which the registration of the federation shall be at the District of Headquarters. Pointing out that the persons representing the petitioners were very much present in the meeting held on 5.3.1999, in which discussions were held regarding the registration of the federation in the District headquarters, the averments that they were not aware of the registration of the federation at Kozhikkode till 2004 is factually incorrect. The 3rd respondent pointed out that as per the provisions contained in the bylaw, the Secretary had to ensure that the Federation was registered under the Registration of Societies Act in the District where the headquarters of the federation is situated, in terms of clause 11.03 of the Constitution of the Federation (Powers and Duties of the Secretary). Producing Ext.R3 (minutes) dated 26.4.1989 in which Sri.Manuel Aaron who represents the 2nd W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :7: petitioner had attended after the headquarters was shifted to Calicut, the 3rd respondent points out that all these facts have been suppressed while seeking cancellation of registration and therefore the petitioners are liable to be proceeded against for perjury. 8. According to the 3rd respondent, the registration certificate was issued on the basis of the application submitted along with declaration by the office bearers. At that time the registration at Madras in the year 1958 had no validity, since the returns were not filed in accordance with the provisions in the Registration Act. As per Rules, the federation had to renew its registration every year by filing the prescribed returns, failing which registration will automatically lapse. Since there was no registration from 1960 onwards, registration in Madras had already lapsed. According to the 3rd respondent, the registration was granted after presenting the documents in accordance with rules. Ext.R3(11) notification issued in gazette dated 7.12.2005 is produced in support of the contention that the society registered in Madras had already become defunct. It is pointed out that the persons representing the petitioners were also part of registration at Kozhikkode and they had affixed their signatures in the memorandum of association and it is totally incorrect to say that the 3rd respondent had made the registration without their knowledge or consent or by W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :8: presenting forged documents. It is further pointed out that the copy of the amended constitution was issued to all its members showing the registration at Calicut at cover page itself and therefore there is no basis for the allegation of suppression as against the 3rd respondent in registering the federation at Kozhikkode. It is further pointed out that the writ petition is filed in order to over come the bar of limitation for filing the suit for declaration of the instrument as forged after a period of three years. According to the 3rd respondent, the issue requires to be adjudicated in a civil court after adducing evidence and the judgments relied on by the petitioners or section 21 of the General Clauses Act will not help the petitioners who were parties to the alleged fraud and malpractices and the allegation of forgery cannot be proved except after adducing evidence. 9. The Uttarpradesh Chess Association was got impleaded as the 4th respondent. According to them, the writ petition was filed suppressing material facts, with an oblique motive by playing fraud. All India Chess Federation is a society registered in the year 1950 and it is the supreme apex body at national level and affiliated to World Chess Federation in the year 1956 which controls the game of chess throughout the world. As per the bylaws governing AICF, the federation shall be registered with the Registrar of District in which the W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :9: headquarters of federation is situated as provided under clause 3. As per clause 5 headquarters of the federation shall be placed where the Hon.Secretary ordinarily resides. The 4th respondent has furnished a chart showing the name of the Secretaries of the AICF for the period from 1950-51 to 1997-2001 along with the headquarters. As per the details given in this chart, the headquarters was being shifted from Bombay to Madras then to Delhi, Hyderabad, Calicut etc depending on the residence of the respective Secretaries. The 3rd respondent is shown to have been a Secretary from 1989 to 1993, 1993 to 1997, 1997 to 2001 and since 2001. Sri.Manual Aaron was the Secretary during the period from 1980-1981 and from 1985 to 1989. It is stated that the office of the Federation was shifted to Kozhikode and it was registered in Kozhikkode consequent to the election of the 3rd respondent as Hon. Secretary and the registration certificate dated 11.12.1991 was issued accordingly. Thus according to the 4th respondent, the federation happened to be registered in 1958 at Chennai, only because the then Hon. Secretary ordinarily resided at Chennai. It is the contention that the society registered in 1958 at Madras ceased to function as such and became defunct when the next Hon.Secretary was elected whose headquarters was at Delhi. It is further stated that the federation with registration No.125/1958 is a W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :10: defunct society since 1960. Its name was struck off from the register of societies as per gazette notification No.47 dated 7.12.2005 by the Registrar of Societies under section 44(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. That society did not filed any annual report since the year 1960, as can be seen from the District Registrar's letter dated 3.11.2005. Therefore it is stated that at the time when the writ petition was filed, the 1st petitioner was a defunct society. It is also pointed out that the 1st petitioner had submitted an application under Section 44(5) of the Societies Registration Act. The application was filed to restore chess federation back to register. Such an application was given on 6.2.2008 which would indicate that till that time it was defunct. Another application was filed before the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu on 6.2.2008. It had admitted therein that statutory requirements under section 16(3)(b) to file annual returns for the period from 1961 to 1978 itself would show that the company was defunct. According to it, the application for revival of the society submitted to Government of Tamil Nadu is with oblique motives after concealing several facts. According to the 4th respondent, the office and headquarters of the society used to change depending on the ordinary residence of the Hon.Secretary. It happened to be registered in Tamil Nadu only because the then W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :11: Hon.Secretary was hailing from Madras. 10. According to the Senior counsel Sri.A.V.Thomas, the writ petition was not liable to be entertained and the petitioners did not have any locus standi to file the writ petition, since there was no society in existence as claimed by the petitioners. The 4th respondent has produced Ext.R4(a) asserting that the petitioner society was removed from the register. Ext.R4(b) petition was filed on 6.2.2006 for restoration of its name in the register. 11. As against these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that at the time when the writ petition was filed the society was not defunct. It became defunct only thereafter and the order passed by the District Registrar was set aside by the Inspector General of Registration on 25.4.2006. It is pointed out that notice to ascertain functioning of the society was issued only on 3.5.2005, whereas this writ petition was filed on 6.4.2005. 12. Referring to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Ramasamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2014 (4) CTC 627], Tamil Nadu Government All Department Watchman and Basic Servants Association Vs. Union of India [2005 (2) MLJ 570], the judgment dated 7.2.2011 in WP(C) No.1674/2010, Jugar Harish Shah vs. Union of India & another [2001 (1) MhLJ 483], Shrik W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :12: R.Raghavan vs. Union of India [1979 LabIC 1294], Janata Dal (Samajwadi) vs. Election Commission of India [1996 (1) SCC 235] and Indian National Congress vs. Institute of Social Welfare & ots [(2002) 5 SCC 685], it is argued that 2nd respondent has got the power to cancel the registration invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The judgments of the apex court in Indian Bank vs. Satyam Fibres [1996 (5) SCC 550], A.V. Pappaya Shastry vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 2007 SC 1546] and Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority vs. Mahesh Jaggumal Sacchani & Ors [2007 (5) Mh LJ 297] are relied on in support of the contention that registration obtained by fraud is liable to be declared as null and void. It is pointed out that when there is no dispute in facts as revealed from the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent, this court can under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere in the matter and direct cancellation of the registration by the 2nd respondent. In the light of the judgments in ABL International Ltd & another V Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd & Others [(2004)3 SCC 553] and National Thermal Power Corporatin V Mahesh Dutta & others [(2009) 8 SCC 339], it is argued that factually disputed questions or availability of statutory remedy cannot stand in the way of this court in W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :13: exercising the jurisdiction of this court and this court can even examine witnesses, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, relies on the judgment of the Madras High Court in R.Muralidaran and ors. Vs. the District Registrar and Sidharth Heights Apartments Owners Association [2008 (1) MLJ 1308] and Committee of Management and Ors Vs. State of U.P. and others [2012 (93) ALR 597] in support of the contention that appropriate remedy against the action of the 2nd respondent would lie in an appeal and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The learned Senior counsel appearing for 4th respondent relied on the judgment of the apex court in State of Bihar vs. S.A.Hassan and another [AIR 2002 SC 1258] and Brij Mohan Gupta v. the Registrar of societies [2012 (189) DLT 577], Shimoga Zilla Madivala Sangha and others vs. The District Registrar and another [2003 ILR Karnataka 2906]and Maharshi Nikhilesh Sewa Sansthan vs. State of Jharkhand and others [2015 (4) AIR Jhar R.31] in which similar issues were considered regarding cancellation of registration as Societies under the Acts of 1960 and similar State enactments and the application of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was ruled out. The judgment of the apex W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :14: court in Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare and others [2002 (5) SCC 685] is also relied on. 15. Innumerable allegations of fraud, swindling, siphoning, defalcation etc are raised in between the parties. At any rate, it appears that the issue raised in that original suit is now pending before the Supreme Court and the original suit is not finally decided. 16. I heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and considered their contentions. 17. Serious allegations and counter allegations are raised each other regarding the commission of fraud and suppression of material facts. While the petitioners claim that they came to know about the second registration in 2005 only, respondents 3 and 4 refute the same saying that the declarations submitted by the persons representing petitioner association had also put the signatures in the declaration forms furnished before the 3rd respondent and they were very well aware of the registration effected in 1991 itself. At the same time the 3rd respondent's case is that the registration was done at Kozhikode, since the Federation registered at Madras had become defunct, since the returns were filed in time. The contention of the 4th respondent is that the Federation was originally registered in the year 1950 and it had got registered in several States as per the place of residence of W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :15: the Secretaries elected from time to time. It is also stated that all these registrations are known to the members and office bearers of the elected body. On an over all assessment of the pleadings and contentions of the petitioners as well as the party respondents, it is difficult to find any bonafides in their respective contentions. 18. It is seen that the authority of the District Registrar to cancel the registration of the societies is the only question to be considered. Petitioners assert that the 2nd registration with the very same name at the instance of the 3rd respondent at Calicut is vitiated by fraud and therefore in such circumstances, the District Registrar had to rectify his order by cancelling the registration as and when the matter was pointed out to him. It is further argued that the 2nd registration was actuated by fraud, this court can definitely interfere and declare that the registration is null and void or direct the District Registrar to cancel the registration. According to the petitioners there are only admitted facts and there is no scope for any adjudication on disputed questions of facts. 19. In this context, it is necessary to examine whether there is any admission on the part of the respondents that they committed fraud. The alleged admission stated by the petitioners is on the basis of the averments in the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent that he W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :16: was aware of the registration of the society in Tamil Nadu with the same name and he admitted that the society was registered at Kozhikkode after he became President, though it is alleged to be on the basis of the provisions contained in the bylaw. But it is to be noted that the 3rd respondent as well as the 4th respondent has a contention that for the purpose of registration in Calicut, the persons representing the petitioners had also obtained registration at Calicut on the basis of the application jointly submitted by the 3rd respondent along with the persons representing the petitioners and they were aware of this registration all along. Thus there is a serious dispute over the factual circumstances as well as the bonafides of the petitioners in approaching this court after a period of 14 years of the registration at Kozhikkode. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the facts are admitted. 20. The question whether registration is necessary as and when there is change in headquarters, whether the registration was done with the knowledge of petitioners notwithstanding the bar in registration with the same name, whether the Federation was registered originally in 1950, whether the registration in 1958 in Chennai was only on account of change in headquarters, whether the Federation registered in Chennai became defunct on the change of W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :17: headquarters, whether the Headquarters and registration were shifted from Bombay to Madras then to Delhi, to Hyderabad and then to Kozhikode etc. as contended by 4th respondent; if so the registration at Kozhikode will also face the same disabilities on change of headquarters are all questions to be determined after adducing evidence. 21. Merely because the High Court of Madras has in its interim order in the Original Suits filed -C.S.No.396/2007 or in OSA No. 330,335,9 and 19/2007, refused to reject the plaint rejecting the contention of the 3rd respondent and others that the Federation registered at Madras had become defunct or that the subsequent registration in Kozhikode is not valid, or because criminal proceedings are pending against the 3rd respondent in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saithapett for offences under Section 465 or 471, this court cannot direct cancellation of the registration of the Federation at Kozhikode or declare that the said registration is invalid, as sought for by the petitioner, in these factual circumstances. 22. The contention of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent is bound to cancel the registration granted in the year 1991, invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, on the basis of request made by the petitioners in the year 2005, relying on the judgments of the W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :18: apex court and the High Court mentioned in paragraph no--- do not therefore deserve consideration at the instance of the petitioners who are alleged to have been parties to that registration at the relevant time and that too in a writ petition filed in 2005. At any rate none of the cases relied on by the petitioners relate to a cancellation after a period of 14 years. 23. In the judgment in ABL International's case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is true that the apex court held that the High Court can under Article 226, go even into disputed questions of facts if the dispute relates to interpretation of documents, even in a case where there is an alternate remedy. In that case, the dispute was with reference to the clauses in an agreement executed between the contractor and a State owned Corporation and the clauses in the policy insurance covering the contract, raised immediately on repudiation of the claim. In National Thermal Power Corporation's case (supra), the dispute was as to whether the actual physical possession of the acquired land was taken over or not. That was a case where land was acquired for public purposes where it was found that the question could be determined on the basis of affidavit. Though the contention is that in the light of the admission about the 2nd registration by the 3rd respondent, there is no dispute W.P.(C) No.15778/2005 :19: over the facts in issue over the illegality of registration, the factual circumstances arising in this case do not warrant a decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of petitioners. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out a series of decisions which provide for cancellation of registration invoking section 21 of the General Clauses Act, and judgments which render the acts which are vitiated by fraud as nullity, I am of the view that those provisions or judgments cannot be applied in the circumstances of the case when the petitioners are found to have been or alleged to have been aware of the registration. It was always open for the petitioners to approach the civil court and get the registration cancelled in case they did have any bonafide. Under the above circumstances, I dismiss the writ petition. Sd/- P.V.ASHA JUDGE rkc "