1 / 9 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1151 of 2022 Order Reserved on 01.05.2025 Order Delivered on 04.07.2025 Sunni Muslim Jamaat Korba, Through its President Mohd. Arif Khan Son of Mohd. H U Khan, aged about 50 years, R/o Plot No.241, Kosabadi, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Registrar, Firms & Societies, Block-1, Third Floor, Indrawathi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Registrar, Office of Assistant Registrar, Firms & Societies, Bilaspur, Vikrant Bhawan, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Sunni Muslim Jamat Korba, Society, Registered under Society Registration Act, 1973, having its Registration No.24875, Office at Idgah Road, Purani Basti, Power House Road Korba, District Korba (C.G.), Through its President Haji Akhalakh Khan Asharfi S/o Late Nabab Khan, aged about 60 years, R/o. HIG-98, MP Nagar, Niharika Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma and Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocates YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.05 17:07:40 +0530 2 / 9 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C A V Order 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by a letter dated 03.01.2022 whereby the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies/respondent No.2 has directed the petitioner-society to change/modify its registered name otherwise its registration would be cancelled. A complaint has been made by respondent No.3 having registration No.24875 of the year 1990 stating that the society was registered way back in the year 1990, however subsequently in the year 2014, an another society has got registered itself under the same name, as such, the subsequent registration is required to be cancelled. Upon this, the Assistant Registrar Firms and Society, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur has directed the petitioner-society to change its name and to upload the proposal in respect of amendment in the name of the society within 45 days, otherwise, necessary action will be taken for cancellation of registration number of the society. 2. The petitioner has sought for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned letter (Annexure P-1) dated 03- 01-2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to allow the petitioner society to continue functioning with the name "Sunni Muslim Jamaat Korba" registered on 20-12-2021 by the office of respondent no. 2 without 3 / 9 any hinderance/obstruction and they may be allowed to control/manage the Eidgah- Kabristan and Jamaat Khana (Community Hall). 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-society has been formed for upliftment of marginalized strata of the society, self-sufficiency of women, education of the girl child, health facilities, and towards the creation of awareness of the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India having its registered office at House No. 2, Rock Bottom Shop, Sharda Vihar, Railway Crossing, Power House Road, Ward No. 11, Korba, District Korba (C.G). After due fulfillment of the prescribed qualification, the society has applied for the registration before the Registrar, Firms and Society by filing relevant documents. After due verification, the Registrar, Firms and Society has registered the society in the name of "Sunni Muslim Jamaat Korba" vide Registration No.122202159041. The society is engaged in managing affairs of two other properties, namely Eidgah-Kabristan and Jamaat Khana i.e. Community Hall. These two properties were not registered with the Waqf Board, however, other community properties are registered and controlled by the Chhattisgarh Waqf Board. After getting registration, the Society has started its work and a Sub- Committee was also formed in the name of Markazi Eidgah 4 / 9 Kabristan Committee to manage the affairs of Eidgah-Kabristan. Subsequently, on 22.12.2021, respondent No.3 namely, “Sunni Muslim Jamat Korba (Reg.)" having registration No.24875 has made a complaint that the society has already been registered since 19.09.1990 and thereafter, subsequent registration of the petitioner-society in the same name is required to be cancelled. Respondent No.2 without following any procedure has pased the impugned order dated 03.01.2022 and that too without any application of mind. The registration No.24875 is registered in the name of "Muchua Shakti Evam Sahayta Samuh, Kharkena". When the petitioner-society seeks some documents in respect of the complainant-society bearing registration No.24875, nothing has been provided and without granting any opportunity of hearing, the order impugned has been passed, which is nonest in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that before passing such an order, respondent No.2 is required to hear the petitioner- society and is further required to verify the registration number of the society. The registration No.24875 belongs to one Muchua Shakti Evam Sahayta Samuh, Kharkena and the registration was effected on 29.09.2014, as such, even without any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the name of society is one and the same, as such the name is required to be changed. When the petitioner-society has sought documents, the same were not provided and without any verification, the impugned order has 5 / 9 been passed, which is per se illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner-society has got its name registered under the name of same society, which was registered earlier, as such, respondent No.2 has rightly issued notice to the petitioner-society while directing them to amend its name and to show it on the portal. It has been argued that the order was passed by the Assistant Register, Firms and Society, and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, there is an alternative remedy available under the law, which the petitioner has not availed and has directly approached this Court by filing this writ petition, which itself is not maintainable. The petitioner should have availed remedy under Section 40 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registration Act, 1973 (for short, “Act of 1973”), which it has failed to do. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the registration number of respondent No.3 is 24875 of 1990, which is registered on 19.09.1990, whereas registration number of other society namely Muchua Shakti Evan Sahayta Samuh Kharkena is 24875 of the year 2014. the said society was registered on 29.09.2014, as such it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 is not a registered society namely, ‘Sunni Muslim Jamat Korba’. It has been contended that the petitioner has suppressed the aforesaid fact. When an application for intervention has been filed by respondent No.3, the same has 6 / 9 been allowed by this Court and directed the petitioner-society to array respondent No.3 as party respondent. When a previous society in the same name has already been registered way back in the year 1990, then a subsequent society of the same name cannot be registered and therefore, when an objection has been filed, respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order, which cannot be said to be faulted with. The registration number bearing 24875 dated 19.09.1990 has been issued in favour of respondent No.3 is still in existence, however, on the basis of registration in the name of petitioner-society now they are creating hurdle and interfering into day to day affairs of the society taking advantage of the same name. There is no illegality in passing the order by respondent No.2, as such the petition filed by the petitioner-society is sans merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and considered their rival submission made herein and gone through the record thoroughly and extensively. 8. From the perusal of the record, it seems that both the societies, i.e. petitioner-society as well as respondent No.3 society are having same name. Respondent No.3 got itself registered way back on 19.09.1990 bearing registration No.24875. The said society i.e. respondent No.3 is still in existence, however subsequently, in the same name, the petitioner-society has applied for its registration and on 20.12.2021, the petitioner- society was registered bearing registration No.122202159041. 7 / 9 The other society i.e. Muchua Shakti Evam Sahayta Samuh Kharkena is having registration No.24875, but the date of registration is 29.09.2014, as such the dispute raised by the petitioner-society seems to be not in accordance with law. When an earlier society in the same name has been registered on 19.09.1990 and same is still in existence, the other society in the same name cannot be registered and therefore, when an objection was raised by respondent No.3, the order dated 03.01.2022 has been passed, which cannot be said to be suffers from any illegality or any arbitrariness. 9. Since another society has already been registered in the same name, as such, the petitioner-society cannot get itself registered in the same name. Respondent No.2 has rightly passed an order dated 03.01.2022. 10. In a similar dispute, this Court has considered the same aspect in Writ Petition No.1177/2002 (Chhattisgarh Shikshak Congress v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 27.04.2011, in which this Court has quashed the registration in the name of similar society which has been later registered. Paras 8 to 11 of the order are relevant and are reproduced herein-below:- “8. The name and style "Chhattisgarh Pradesh Shikshak Congress" under which respondent No.5 has been granted registration by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Society, Raipur (Annexure R-4). and the name and style Chhattisgarh Shikshak 8 / 9 Congress", under which petitioner has been registered, if I may say so, too nearly resembles. Both the Societies in their name and style appeared to be representative society of teachers. The only word which has been admittedly incorporated in the name and style of respondent No.5 is "Pradesh". Rest of the words in the name of both the societies are the same. Therefore, the registration of respondent No.5 in the name and style "Chhattisgarh Pradesh Shikshak Congress" is clearly in the teeth of provision contained in Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act of 1973. 9. The aforesaid provision not only prohibits use of a name which is identical, but also a name which too nearly resembles. Therefore, apparently, action of registration of respondent No.5 in the name and style "Chhattisgarh Pradesh Shikshak Congress" is illegal and in excess authority under the law. The Appellate Authority has also not looked into this aspect and has justified the order of registration in favour of respondent No.5, on certain consideration, which are wholly irrelevant. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 10th April, 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority as well as registration of respondent No.5 in the name and style "Chhattisgarh Pradesh Shikshak Congress" (Annexure P-4) is quashed. 11. Since the action has been held to be 9 / 9 illegal on the ground that the name and name and style used by respondent No.5 has been registered in violation of the provision contained in Section 6 (2) (a) of the Act of 1973, respondent No.5 would be at liberty to apply for registration in any other name and style before the competent authority in accordance with law.” 11. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court does not find present to be a fit case to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh