Full Judgment Text
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6679/2000
rd
% Date of decision: 3 May, 2010
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION FOR CHRISTIAN
HIGHER EDUCATION ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana & Mr.
Puneet Sharma, Advocates
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate
CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported YES
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
th
1. The petitioner by this petition impugns the order dated 13 January, 2000
of the respondent no.2 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) and the
th
order dated 15 May, 2000 of the respondent no.1 Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal, holding the provisions of The Employees’ Provident Funds
& Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to be applicable to the petitioner for the
th
reason of the notification dated 19 February, 1982 of the Government of India
issued in exercise of power under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act and specifying the
following classes of establishments in which twenty or more persons are
employed as establishments to which the said Act applies namely:
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 1 of 9
(i) Any University;
(ii) any college, whether or not affiliated to a University;
(iii) any school, whether or not recognized or aided by the Central or a
State Government;
(iv) any scientific institution;
(v) any institution in which research in respect of any matter is carried
on;
(vi) any other institution in which the activity of imparting knowledge
or training is systematically carried on.
2. The petitioner is a Society incorporated under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. The objectives for which the petitioner is established inter alia are:
(i) To promote, in general, sound education in all
institutions of higher learning in India ……… to help, at
all levels, in the evolution of policies and programmes
aimed at securing this; to assist in the attainment and
maintenance of standards of excellence in higher
education; to encourage integrity, efficiency, scholarship
and dedication in students, teachers and educational
administrators; and in particular to unite member-
colleges for initiative and action regarding any or all of
these objects.
(ii) To promote and undertake research, pure and applied,
bearing upon education and the needs of human and
nation development in …………..
(iii) To undertake on its own and / or to enable member –
colleges to carry out or assist any programmes for
promoting the welfare or the uplift of the people in any
rural areas and to undertake or assist any programmes of
rural development and to train the personnel for
implementation of rural development.
(iv) To collect and circulate useful and worthwhile
information to publish journals, books, pamphlets and
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 2 of 9
other literature and to arrange for meetings, seminars,
conferences, consultations, etc.
(v) To initiate and assist educational projects in colleges in
India which will stimulate, encourage and strengthen
them to develop maximum efficiency …….. creative
experimentation and commitment in all areas of higher
education.
3. The RPFC, from the brochure issued by the petitioner, found that the
programme units of the petitioner consisted inter alia of Think Cell; that the
petitioner is engaged in imparting education in its various units and imparting
training to its associate members in the programme units. It was held that the
petitioner is engaged in education. Accordingly, the provisions of the Act were
held applicable to the petitioner.
4. Upon the petitioner preferring an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that
the petitioner is related to every branch of education and is imparting systematic
knowledge.
5. The senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has
no faculty / teachers of its own; the petitioner holds seminars for promoting
education and in which various guest speakers are invited and teachers / faculty
members of the member educational institutions of the petitioner participate. It
is argued that the status of the petitioner is like that of University Grants
Commission; the Appellate Tribunal also accepted the same but nevertheless
erroneously held the petitioner to be imparting education. It is further urged that
though evidence was led by the petitioner before the RPFC and written
arguments filed but neither has been considered. It is contended that the RPFC is
required to apply its mind but the order in the present case has been passed
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 3 of 9
th
mechanically. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 4 September, 2006 of
this Court in WP(C) 508/1982 titled M/s Suppliers, New Delhi Vs. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. To demonstrate the same, it is contended that
even though it was found in the order that the petitioner had only eighteen
employees, the provisions of the Act were nevertheless held applicable to the
petitioner.
6. The counsel for the petitioner after the conclusion of hearing has also filed
copies of judgment in (i) M/s Suppliers, New Delhi Vs. Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner (supra), (ii) Lakshmi Restaurant, New Delhi Vs. The
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1975 LAB. I.C. 1186, (iii) Polo
Amusement Park Ltd. Vs. EPF Appellate Tribunal 147 (2008) DLT 233, (iv)
M/s Khoja Lime Udyog Vs. RPF Commissioner (1992) I LLJ 903 (Raj), (v)
Pamadi Subbarama Chetty Vs. Mirza Zewar Ali AIR 1960 Mysore 14 (vi) The
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. T.S. Hariharan 1971 (2) SCC 68
(vii) Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Employees’ Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal (2000) 9 SCC 540 & (viii) Vatika Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1996 (74) FLR 2769, in support of the
contention that the findings of RPFC and the Appellate Authority should be
based on evidence and relevant material; the said authorities are required to do
effective determination in a quasi judicial manner; they should make independent
enquiry and their orders should not be made by placing reliance on the report of
their Inspector only; that in the absence of clear language, the Courts should not
in the guise of liberal construction of social welfare legislation put any
construction which will lead to absurdity.
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 4 of 9
7. The counsel for the RPFC besides supporting the orders impugned in the
petition has also contended that this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction
would only take an overview of the matter and only ensure that no prejudice is
caused to the petitioner. The RPFC has along with its counter affidavit also filed
th
copy of a notification dated 16 November, 1974 extending the applicability of
the Act to all Societies/Clubs/ Associations which render services to their
members without charging any fee over and above the subscription fee or
membership fee. It is contended that the petitioner being a Society, even if not
th
covered by the notification (supra) dated 19 February, 1982, would in any case
th
be covered by the notification dated 16 November, 1974. It is thus contended
that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
8. Though the senior counsel for the petitioner also sought to urge that
neither of the authorities have satisfied themselves of the petitioner employing
more than twenty persons but upon it being pointed out that no ground in this
regard has been urged in the memorandum of the writ petition, the senior counsel
for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the petitioner is engaging more than
twenty persons. During the course of hearing, it has also transpired that the
petitioner has its own Provident Fund Trust. However, the senior counsel for the
petitioner contends that according to the petitioner, the petitioner is outside the
ambit of the Act and does not desire to be governed by the provisions of the Act.
9. At the outset, I may state that the question whether the establishment of
the petitioner is covered by a particular notification or not is a mixed question of
law and fact. The scope of the writ petition against the concurrent findings of the
RPFC and the Appellate Authority is limited. This Court can only examine
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 5 of 9
whether any material evidence has not been considered or whether any evidence
which ought not to have been read has been considered. Re-appreciation of
evidence is outside the domain of scrutiny in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner
has neither raised any ground on which the writ ought to be entertained nor urged
any such argument. The petitioner would want this Court to independently
adjudicate whether it is covered by the notification or not. The same cannot be
permitted.
10. I am also of the view that the best measure of the activities of the
petitioner is its objectives as set out in its Memorandum of Association and as
recorded above. The same unequivocally shows that the petitioner is an
institution in which research is carried on and/or in which the activity of
imparting knowledge or training is systematically carried on.
11. The word “systematic” is defined in the Shorter Oxford English
th
Dictionary 6 Edition inter alia as arranged or conducted according to a system,
plan or organized method or as acting according to a system, regular and
methodical and/or as habitual, deliberate and premeditated. Similarly, the
Supreme Court in the The State of Bombay Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
AIR 1960 SC 610, though not in the context of the Provident Fund Act held “as a
working principle it may be stated that an activity systematically or habitually
undertaken for the production or distribution of goods or for the rendering of
material services to the community at large or a part of such community with the
help of employees is an undertaking. Such an activity generally involves the co-
operation of the employer and the employees and its object is the satisfaction of
material human needs. It must be organised or arranged in a manner in which
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 6 of 9
trade or business is generally organised or arranged. It must not be casual nor
must it be for oneself nor for pleasure. Thus the manner in which the activity in
question is organised or arranged, the condition of the co-operation between
employer and the employee necessary for its success and its object to render
material service to the community can be regarded as some of the features which
are distinctive of activities…….”
th
12. The language of the notification dated 19 February, 1982 permits wide
amplitude. The notification is for bringing establishments within the ambit of the
Act which itself is a welfare legislation. The Supreme Court in Andhra
University Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh
(1985) 4 SCC 509 has held that it has to be borne in mind that the Act is a
beneficial piece of social welfare legislation aimed at promoting and securing the
well being of the employees and the Court will not adopt a narrow interpretation
which will have the effect of defeating the very object and purpose of the Act.
The notifications under the Act thus also have to be liberally construed so as to
bring employees of maximum number of establishments within the ambit of the
Act. The notifications under Section 1(3)(b) are not required to be establishment-
specific. There can be one notification with respect to a class of establishments.
The notification in the present case is of the latter category. Such notifications
necessarily have to be generic and a distinction here or a difference there cannot
be used to contend that an establishment which generally would be covered by
the notification, owing to such difference or distinction is exempt therefrom. The
th
notification dated 19 February, 1982 is intended to cover all educational,
research, training, scientific institutions and it cannot possibly be contended that
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 7 of 9
the petitioner does not fall in this category. The counsel for the RPFC also
th
invites attention to the information submitted by the petitioner on 17 November,
1997 to the RPFC. In the same, the petitioner described itself as engaged in
“educational activities”.
th
13. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 6 Edition defines “promote” as to
advance or raise to a higher rank or position or to develop, help forward, or
support actively and or to take necessary steps with a particular objective. The
petitioner cannot advance, raise or develop or promote education without
th
imparting knowledge. Black’s Law Dictionary 6 Edition defines “promote” as
to contribute to growth, enlargement, or prosperity; to forward; to further; to
encourage; to advance. The petitioner in the affidavit of its General Secretary
filed before the RPFC deposed that the college principals and teachers who
participate in the training courses organized by the petitioner have to pay
registration fee; that the petitioner publishes journals on education and gives
grants for conducting training courses or seminars to member colleges. In my
opinion, from the said admissions alone it is established that the petitioner is
imparting knowledge and training. The same cannot be said to be done in a
casual manner.
th
14. I have recently had occasion to consider the notification dated 19
February, 1982 in Professional Assistance for Development Action Vs.
Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
MANU/DE/0425/2010. The said judgment was brought to the attention of the
senior counsel for the petitioner. The senior counsel sought to distinguish the
same by contending that the question involved therein was whether imparting of
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 8 of 9
knowledge was systematic or not; here there is no imparting of knowledge or
training. However, the said contention is found to be contrary to the admissions
made before the RPFC.
15. The senior counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge that the witness of
the petitioner was not cross examined by the RPFC; that there are certain other
errors in the orders of the RPFC and the Appellate Tribunal. However, such
discrepancies cannot reap any benefit to the petitioner.
16. Though RPFC cannot be permitted to, before this Court, seek to justify
applicability of the Act on the petitioner under a notification different from that
on ground whereof notice under Section 7A was issued and determination made
th
but from notification dated 16 November, 1974 (supra) making the provisions
of the Act applicable to all societies, which petitioner admittedly is, it is evident
that by bringing the petitioner within the net of the Act, no injustice has been
done to the petitioner. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
17. No ground for interference in the orders impugned is made out. The writ
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
rd
3 May, 2010
gsr
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 9 of 9
+ W.P.(C) 6679/2000
rd
% Date of decision: 3 May, 2010
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION FOR CHRISTIAN
HIGHER EDUCATION ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana & Mr.
Puneet Sharma, Advocates
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT
FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate
CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported YES
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
th
1. The petitioner by this petition impugns the order dated 13 January, 2000
of the respondent no.2 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) and the
th
order dated 15 May, 2000 of the respondent no.1 Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal, holding the provisions of The Employees’ Provident Funds
& Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to be applicable to the petitioner for the
th
reason of the notification dated 19 February, 1982 of the Government of India
issued in exercise of power under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act and specifying the
following classes of establishments in which twenty or more persons are
employed as establishments to which the said Act applies namely:
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 1 of 9
(i) Any University;
(ii) any college, whether or not affiliated to a University;
(iii) any school, whether or not recognized or aided by the Central or a
State Government;
(iv) any scientific institution;
(v) any institution in which research in respect of any matter is carried
on;
(vi) any other institution in which the activity of imparting knowledge
or training is systematically carried on.
2. The petitioner is a Society incorporated under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. The objectives for which the petitioner is established inter alia are:
(i) To promote, in general, sound education in all
institutions of higher learning in India ……… to help, at
all levels, in the evolution of policies and programmes
aimed at securing this; to assist in the attainment and
maintenance of standards of excellence in higher
education; to encourage integrity, efficiency, scholarship
and dedication in students, teachers and educational
administrators; and in particular to unite member-
colleges for initiative and action regarding any or all of
these objects.
(ii) To promote and undertake research, pure and applied,
bearing upon education and the needs of human and
nation development in …………..
(iii) To undertake on its own and / or to enable member –
colleges to carry out or assist any programmes for
promoting the welfare or the uplift of the people in any
rural areas and to undertake or assist any programmes of
rural development and to train the personnel for
implementation of rural development.
(iv) To collect and circulate useful and worthwhile
information to publish journals, books, pamphlets and
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 2 of 9
other literature and to arrange for meetings, seminars,
conferences, consultations, etc.
(v) To initiate and assist educational projects in colleges in
India which will stimulate, encourage and strengthen
them to develop maximum efficiency …….. creative
experimentation and commitment in all areas of higher
education.
3. The RPFC, from the brochure issued by the petitioner, found that the
programme units of the petitioner consisted inter alia of Think Cell; that the
petitioner is engaged in imparting education in its various units and imparting
training to its associate members in the programme units. It was held that the
petitioner is engaged in education. Accordingly, the provisions of the Act were
held applicable to the petitioner.
4. Upon the petitioner preferring an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held that
the petitioner is related to every branch of education and is imparting systematic
knowledge.
5. The senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has
no faculty / teachers of its own; the petitioner holds seminars for promoting
education and in which various guest speakers are invited and teachers / faculty
members of the member educational institutions of the petitioner participate. It
is argued that the status of the petitioner is like that of University Grants
Commission; the Appellate Tribunal also accepted the same but nevertheless
erroneously held the petitioner to be imparting education. It is further urged that
though evidence was led by the petitioner before the RPFC and written
arguments filed but neither has been considered. It is contended that the RPFC is
required to apply its mind but the order in the present case has been passed
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 3 of 9
th
mechanically. Reliance is placed on the judgment dated 4 September, 2006 of
this Court in WP(C) 508/1982 titled M/s Suppliers, New Delhi Vs. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner. To demonstrate the same, it is contended that
even though it was found in the order that the petitioner had only eighteen
employees, the provisions of the Act were nevertheless held applicable to the
petitioner.
6. The counsel for the petitioner after the conclusion of hearing has also filed
copies of judgment in (i) M/s Suppliers, New Delhi Vs. Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner (supra), (ii) Lakshmi Restaurant, New Delhi Vs. The
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1975 LAB. I.C. 1186, (iii) Polo
Amusement Park Ltd. Vs. EPF Appellate Tribunal 147 (2008) DLT 233, (iv)
M/s Khoja Lime Udyog Vs. RPF Commissioner (1992) I LLJ 903 (Raj), (v)
Pamadi Subbarama Chetty Vs. Mirza Zewar Ali AIR 1960 Mysore 14 (vi) The
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. T.S. Hariharan 1971 (2) SCC 68
(vii) Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Employees’ Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal (2000) 9 SCC 540 & (viii) Vatika Plantations Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1996 (74) FLR 2769, in support of the
contention that the findings of RPFC and the Appellate Authority should be
based on evidence and relevant material; the said authorities are required to do
effective determination in a quasi judicial manner; they should make independent
enquiry and their orders should not be made by placing reliance on the report of
their Inspector only; that in the absence of clear language, the Courts should not
in the guise of liberal construction of social welfare legislation put any
construction which will lead to absurdity.
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 4 of 9
7. The counsel for the RPFC besides supporting the orders impugned in the
petition has also contended that this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction
would only take an overview of the matter and only ensure that no prejudice is
caused to the petitioner. The RPFC has along with its counter affidavit also filed
th
copy of a notification dated 16 November, 1974 extending the applicability of
the Act to all Societies/Clubs/ Associations which render services to their
members without charging any fee over and above the subscription fee or
membership fee. It is contended that the petitioner being a Society, even if not
th
covered by the notification (supra) dated 19 February, 1982, would in any case
th
be covered by the notification dated 16 November, 1974. It is thus contended
that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.
8. Though the senior counsel for the petitioner also sought to urge that
neither of the authorities have satisfied themselves of the petitioner employing
more than twenty persons but upon it being pointed out that no ground in this
regard has been urged in the memorandum of the writ petition, the senior counsel
for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the petitioner is engaging more than
twenty persons. During the course of hearing, it has also transpired that the
petitioner has its own Provident Fund Trust. However, the senior counsel for the
petitioner contends that according to the petitioner, the petitioner is outside the
ambit of the Act and does not desire to be governed by the provisions of the Act.
9. At the outset, I may state that the question whether the establishment of
the petitioner is covered by a particular notification or not is a mixed question of
law and fact. The scope of the writ petition against the concurrent findings of the
RPFC and the Appellate Authority is limited. This Court can only examine
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 5 of 9
whether any material evidence has not been considered or whether any evidence
which ought not to have been read has been considered. Re-appreciation of
evidence is outside the domain of scrutiny in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner
has neither raised any ground on which the writ ought to be entertained nor urged
any such argument. The petitioner would want this Court to independently
adjudicate whether it is covered by the notification or not. The same cannot be
permitted.
10. I am also of the view that the best measure of the activities of the
petitioner is its objectives as set out in its Memorandum of Association and as
recorded above. The same unequivocally shows that the petitioner is an
institution in which research is carried on and/or in which the activity of
imparting knowledge or training is systematically carried on.
11. The word “systematic” is defined in the Shorter Oxford English
th
Dictionary 6 Edition inter alia as arranged or conducted according to a system,
plan or organized method or as acting according to a system, regular and
methodical and/or as habitual, deliberate and premeditated. Similarly, the
Supreme Court in the The State of Bombay Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
AIR 1960 SC 610, though not in the context of the Provident Fund Act held “as a
working principle it may be stated that an activity systematically or habitually
undertaken for the production or distribution of goods or for the rendering of
material services to the community at large or a part of such community with the
help of employees is an undertaking. Such an activity generally involves the co-
operation of the employer and the employees and its object is the satisfaction of
material human needs. It must be organised or arranged in a manner in which
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 6 of 9
trade or business is generally organised or arranged. It must not be casual nor
must it be for oneself nor for pleasure. Thus the manner in which the activity in
question is organised or arranged, the condition of the co-operation between
employer and the employee necessary for its success and its object to render
material service to the community can be regarded as some of the features which
are distinctive of activities…….”
th
12. The language of the notification dated 19 February, 1982 permits wide
amplitude. The notification is for bringing establishments within the ambit of the
Act which itself is a welfare legislation. The Supreme Court in Andhra
University Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh
(1985) 4 SCC 509 has held that it has to be borne in mind that the Act is a
beneficial piece of social welfare legislation aimed at promoting and securing the
well being of the employees and the Court will not adopt a narrow interpretation
which will have the effect of defeating the very object and purpose of the Act.
The notifications under the Act thus also have to be liberally construed so as to
bring employees of maximum number of establishments within the ambit of the
Act. The notifications under Section 1(3)(b) are not required to be establishment-
specific. There can be one notification with respect to a class of establishments.
The notification in the present case is of the latter category. Such notifications
necessarily have to be generic and a distinction here or a difference there cannot
be used to contend that an establishment which generally would be covered by
the notification, owing to such difference or distinction is exempt therefrom. The
th
notification dated 19 February, 1982 is intended to cover all educational,
research, training, scientific institutions and it cannot possibly be contended that
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 7 of 9
the petitioner does not fall in this category. The counsel for the RPFC also
th
invites attention to the information submitted by the petitioner on 17 November,
1997 to the RPFC. In the same, the petitioner described itself as engaged in
“educational activities”.
th
13. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 6 Edition defines “promote” as to
advance or raise to a higher rank or position or to develop, help forward, or
support actively and or to take necessary steps with a particular objective. The
petitioner cannot advance, raise or develop or promote education without
th
imparting knowledge. Black’s Law Dictionary 6 Edition defines “promote” as
to contribute to growth, enlargement, or prosperity; to forward; to further; to
encourage; to advance. The petitioner in the affidavit of its General Secretary
filed before the RPFC deposed that the college principals and teachers who
participate in the training courses organized by the petitioner have to pay
registration fee; that the petitioner publishes journals on education and gives
grants for conducting training courses or seminars to member colleges. In my
opinion, from the said admissions alone it is established that the petitioner is
imparting knowledge and training. The same cannot be said to be done in a
casual manner.
th
14. I have recently had occasion to consider the notification dated 19
February, 1982 in Professional Assistance for Development Action Vs.
Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
MANU/DE/0425/2010. The said judgment was brought to the attention of the
senior counsel for the petitioner. The senior counsel sought to distinguish the
same by contending that the question involved therein was whether imparting of
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 8 of 9
knowledge was systematic or not; here there is no imparting of knowledge or
training. However, the said contention is found to be contrary to the admissions
made before the RPFC.
15. The senior counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge that the witness of
the petitioner was not cross examined by the RPFC; that there are certain other
errors in the orders of the RPFC and the Appellate Tribunal. However, such
discrepancies cannot reap any benefit to the petitioner.
16. Though RPFC cannot be permitted to, before this Court, seek to justify
applicability of the Act on the petitioner under a notification different from that
on ground whereof notice under Section 7A was issued and determination made
th
but from notification dated 16 November, 1974 (supra) making the provisions
of the Act applicable to all societies, which petitioner admittedly is, it is evident
that by bringing the petitioner within the net of the Act, no injustice has been
done to the petitioner. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
17. No ground for interference in the orders impugned is made out. The writ
petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
rd
3 May, 2010
gsr
WP(C) 6679/2000 Page 9 of 9