LexTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AYURVEDIC AND UNANI TIBIA COLLEGE, DELHI versus THE STATE OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1111 OtttHtr 23. 156 BUPREiltE COC'RT RElQRTS [19f~] SUPP. t'- T~E BOARD OF TRUSTEES, A YURVEDIC AND UNANI TIBIA COLLEGE, DELHI ti. THE STATE OF DELHI AND ANOTHER (B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) Registered Society-Wliether a corporation-Stat. enactment dia.o/ving suclo aocir.ty and aelting up corporati-On in ita place- Co11.sti1utionaliry of-Tibbia College Act, 1962 (Delhi 6 of 1962). -R•giarered Societies Act, 1860 (21of1860), s.. 6,6,7,!3,14- Uot'trn'™11t of Part 0 Stat.a Act, 1961 J49 of /9fil), s.~O Co111litution of b1dia, Ar~. U, 19(1)( ), JI and Srnmlh Scl.edule, List 1 E11try 44, ,Liat JI Entry 32, Li81 Ill Entries JO and !!8. • The Board of Trusteu, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College, Delhi wa• registered under the Societie9 Registration Act, 1860. It ran the Tibbia College, Delhi and an attached ho>tel and managed the Hindustani Dawakhana. The Delhi State Legislature passed the Tibbia College Act, 1952, which dissolved the Board, incorporated a new Board and vested all the property and all the rights, powers and privileges of the old Board in the new Board. The petitioners challenged the validity of the Act on the grounds: (i) that the old Board was a corporation whose objects were not confined to Delhi and legiJlation with regard to it would fall under Entry 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and as such the State Legislature was not competent to pa" the impugned Act, (ii) that the setting up of a new Board as a corporation wa• beyond the powen of the State Legislature, (iii) that the Act violated Arts. 14,19 and 31 of the Constitution, (iv) that the Act could not override the Societies Registration .Act, 1860 which was> Central Act, and (v) that the legblature a<:ted mala fiM in passing the impugned Act. Held, (per Sinha, C. J., Das, Sarkar and AyyaMpr,lJ.) that the State Legislature was compelent to enact the impugned Act. On ~tration under the Socie~ies ~egis- tration Act the old Board dtd not become a corporation 1n the 11ense of bei1111 incorporated within the meaninp; ofBntry 44 of Li1t I; it continued to be an unincorporated IOCiety though under the provisions of the Socictiea Registration Act it had certain privikgcs analogous to those of corporations. The provisions in the impugned Act relating to the dissolution of the old Board fell within the second part of Entry 32 of List II which included unincorporated societies. Though the impugned Act while creating the new Board gave it a corporate status, it confined its po1rers-and duties to institutions • .. J II (1) s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 107 in Delhi and limited its rights, powers and privileges to the purposes for which it was created. The pr-0visions of the impugned Act relating to the incorporation of the new Board fell within the first part of Entry 32 of List II. Taff Valt Railway v. .A.malgamakd Society of Railway Servants, (1900) A.O. 426 and Bo11Aor v. Musicians' Union, L.R. 1956 A.C. !04, referred to. Krishnan v. Sundaram, (1940) 43 Bom. L.R. 562, Boppana Ru,,,.inamma v. Maganti Vt11kata Ramadas, A.l.R. 1940 Mad. 946, M . .A.. Nullflitr v. Official Assignee, Madras, A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 875 and Satyavart Sidhantalanl:ar v. Tht Arya Samaj, Bombay, (1945) 48 Born. I .. R. 541, distinguished. The Stroanl8 of India Society, Poona v. Tht Charity Commissioner of Bombay, (1960) 63 Bom. L.R. 379, approved. Htld, further, that the impugned Act did not violate Arts. 14,19 or 31. The petitioner had failed to show that there were other institutions similarly situated as the petitioner and that the petitioner had been picked out for unequal treat- ment. Since the transfer of management was made by a valid law there was no question of violation of Art. 31 (I); and since the impugned Act did not provide for compulsory acquisition of property Art. 31 (2), as it stood at the relevant time, had no application. Neither the dissolved Board nor its members had any right to hold the property of the dissolved Board and there was no infringement af Art. 19(l}(f) involved in the Act vesting the property in the new Board. Under the Societies Registration Act, the members of a society did not acquire any beneficial interest on the dissolution of the society; the only right which they had was to determine as to which other society the property should be given to for management. This was not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.