1984 (7) TMI 319 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Institute of Company Secretaries of India is an 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the Institute is a statutory authority and under a statutory obligation to admit the petitioner as an associate member.
3. Whether the petitioner fulfilled the conditions for enrolment as a member of the Institute as per the notification dated May 15, 1975.
4. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for associate membership was legal and valid.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Institute of Company Secretaries of India is an 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution:

The respondents initially contended that the Institute is not an 'authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. However, this objection was conceded by the respondents in view of the Supreme Court decisions in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, which implied that the Institute could be considered an 'authority' under Article 12.

2. Whether the Institute is a statutory authority and under a statutory obligation to admit the petitioner as an associate member:

The respondents argued that the Institute is not a statutory authority and thus under no statutory obligation to admit the petitioner. However, the court found that the petitioner has a legal right to be enrolled as a member of the Institute provided he possesses the prescribed qualifications. There is a corresponding legal duty on the Institute to admit the petitioner as a member if he fulfills the prescribed conditions, making this right judicially enforceable.

3. Whether the petitioner fulfilled the conditions for enrolment as a member of the Institute as per the notification dated May 15, 1975:

The petitioner claimed that he fulfilled the conditions specified in the notification dated May 15, 1975. The notification provided that any person working as a secretary of a public limited company on August 1, 1972, and possessing certain academic qualifications, was eligible for enrolment. The petitioner met these criteria, having worked as a secretary and possessing the necessary qualifications. The court noted that the notification did not distinguish between secretaries of companies with a paid-up capital of Rs. 25 lakhs or more and those with less.

4. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for associate membership was legal and valid:

The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application was not legal and valid. The executive committee's decision to reject the application was based on additional criteria not specified in the notification, such as the company's paid-up capital and turnover. The court held that these additional criteria were not part of the original notification and thus could not be used to disqualify the petitioner. The petitioner was entitled to be enrolled as a member based on the qualifications specified in the notification dated May 15, 1975.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated April 26, 1976, rejecting the petitioner's application for associate membership, and directed the respondents to admit the petitioner as an associate member. The court also noted that the writ proceedings could continue against the Institute even after its reconstitution under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →