Orissa High Court
Binod Bhaban Club vs The Collector on 25 April, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 11768 of 2004
and
W.P. (C) 11792 of 2004
(In the matters of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
(In W.P.(C) No. 11768 of 2004)
Binod Bhaban Club, Dhenkanal .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
The Collector, Dhenkanal and Anr. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
(In W.P.(C) No. 11792 of 2004)
Aswini Kumar Baral .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Orissa and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-10.03.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.04.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India: W.P.(C) No. 11768 of 2004 has been filed by
Binod Bhavan Club, challenging the Letter No.5099 dated 13.10.2004
issued by the Sub-Collector, Dhenkanal, and the subsequent sealing of
the Club premises; and W.P.(C) No.11792 of 2004 has been filed by a
private individual (the petitioner-lessee), seeking to restrain the
District Administration from interfering with the operation of their
LPG retail shop, which is situated on land leased by the Club.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows: (i) Binod Bhavan Club is a registered society under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, established in 1961 and registered on
06.03.1969 (Regn. No. 053-4/11 of 1968-69). It was founded by retired
and serving government officials and intellectuals in Dhenkanal for
promoting science, literature, physical recreation, and culture. The
Club’s original bye-laws named the Collector of Dhenkanal as Ex-
Officio President. The constitution allowed for amendments through a
2/3rd majority vote in the General Body.
(ii) On 31.12.1989, the General Body of the Club allegedly resolved to
remove the Collector as Ex-Officio President. Petitioners claim this
Page 2 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
was done with the knowledge and informal consent of then Collector
Shri S. Jena.
(iii) The Opposite Parties dispute the legitimacy of the 1989 amendment to
the Club’s bye-laws, asserting that no notice was served on the then
Collector prior to the General Body meeting and that the amendment
procedure was legally defective. They contend that the revised bye-
laws were neither submitted to nor did it approve by the Inspector
General of Registration (IGR) as mandated by law.
(iv) According to the petitioner, a General Body meeting held on
11.01.2004 resulted in the election of Retired Justice D.M. Pattnaik as
President, Retired Engineer Ramakanta Pattnaik as Secretary-cum-
Treasurer, and Halamani Das, B.P. Mitra, Ramesh Chandra Mishra,
Ajay Kumar Rout, and Rabindranath Das as Executive Committee
Members. However, the Opposite Parties do not recognize these office
bearers, citing the absence of validation from the competent
Registration Authority.
(v) On 01.01.2000, a lease agreement was executed between Binod Bhavan
Club and the petitioner (a private individual) in W.P.(C) 11792 of 2004
for the construction and operation of a shop measuring 13′ x 28′ x 10’6″
on vacant Club land (Plot Nos. 3237 and 3298/6949, total area: 0.359
decimals). The lease terms stipulated a monthly rent of ₹500 for a
period of 10 years starting from 01.04.2000, with a 10% increment
every three years, along with a security deposit of ₹43,332. The
petitioner reportedly invested approximately ₹3 lakhs in constructing
the shop, which was established as an Indane LPG distribution outlet,
Page 3 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07recognized as a public utility service. The petitioner claims that there
was no objection from the Club or the public regarding the shop’s
operation for over four years.
(vi) The Opposite Parties contend that the lease agreement is legally
infirm as it remains unregistered, lacks the official seal of the Club,
and was executed without any attesting witnesses. They further
question its validity by alleging that the signatory President who
executed the lease was not legally elected at the time, thereby casting
doubt on the contractual authority. Additionally, they argue that the
petitioner’s dual role as both a Club member and tenant presents a
conflict of interest. In contrast, the petitioner asserts that the lease was
executed in good faith under the then-operating Club administration,
rent has been paid regularly without default, and no objections or
disputes arose until the recent intervention by the District
Administration.
(vii) Based on public complaints, notably from Shri H.P. Singh, the
Additional District Magistrate ordered an enquiry into the affairs of
Binod Bhavan Club on 13.01.2004. Notices were issued to the Club
Secretary, who allegedly failed to respond. Subsequently, the
Registration Authority, through a letter dated 23.09.2004, requested a
report regarding the possible cancellation of the Club’s registration
due to alleged non-compliance with statutory legal norms.
(viii) The Sub-Collector issued Letter No. 5099 dated 13.10.2004, directing
the Binod Bhavan Club to submit its records within three days, citing
alleged irregularities. In response, the Club Secretary replied on
Page 4 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:0730.10.2004, requesting an extension until 06.11.2004 to consult with
members. However, the Club premises were forcibly sealed on
26.10.2004, and a seizure list was subsequently submitted.
(ix) The petitioner-shopkeeper was also threatened with the sealing of
their shop by 10.11.2004. The petitioners allege that the action was
politically motivated, carried out without proper notice or due
process, and that Club assets may have been tampered with while
members were denied access to the premises.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S):
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioners contend that the seizure of the Club premises and the
threat to seal the petitioner’s shop were carried out arbitrarily and
without legal authority. They argue that neither the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, nor does any other statute provide for the
Collector or Sub-Collector with unilateral power to seize the premises
of a registered society or interfere in its internal affairs. The absence of
any statutory provision authorizing such coercive measures renders
the administrative action illegal.
(ii) It is asserted that the action taken by the Sub-Collector, particularly
the sealing of the Club and the threats to the petitioner’s livelihood,
was done without issuing proper notice or affording any opportunity
of hearing. Petitioners emphasize that these steps were taken behind
their backs which amounts to a violation of the fundamental
Page 5 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and to
defend one’s position before action is taken.
(iii) The Club maintains that the amendment to its bye-laws in 1989, which
removed the Collector as Ex-Officio President, was lawfully passed by
the General Body and with the knowledge of the then Collector. Based
on this amendment, the current office bearers, including those elected
in the General Body meeting on 11.01.2004, are legally recognized by
the members. Petitioners argue that the functioning of the Club has
remained lawful and undisputed by any of its members, with no legal
challenge filed against the said amendment or elections.
(iv) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11792 of 2004 asserts that the lease
agreement executed with the Club for establishing an LPG
distribution outlet was valid, having been entered into with the
legitimately elected President. The petitioner has complied with all
lease terms, made significant financial investments in infrastructure,
and operated the business peacefully for years without any complaint
or violation. It is emphasized that the business serves public utility
needs and has not been a source of nuisance or illegality.
(v) The petitioners further argue that the District Administration has
overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the functioning of a
private society and attempting to nullify a valid private lease
agreement. They contend that any dispute regarding the Club’s
internal affairs or property arrangements falls exclusively within the
domain of civil courts and not administrative authorities.
Page 6 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
(vi) Both petitioners claim that the administrative actions violate their
constitutional rights under Article 19(1)(c) (freedom of association),
Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade and occupation), and Article 21 (right to
livelihood and dignity). The Club’s right to self-governance and the
shop owner’s right to conduct lawful business have, according to the
petitioners, been unjustly curtailed through coercive state action.
(vii) Finally, the petitioners contend that there is no alternative or
efficacious remedy available to them in any other legal forum,
justifying their recourse to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High
Court under Articles 226 and 227. They stress that the harm caused,
including potential cancellation of the Club’s registration and the
threat to the petitioner’s sole source of livelihood, is immediate,
irreparable, and necessitates urgent judicial intervention.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Opposite Parties contend that the petitions are not maintainable
under Article 226, as they revolve around private disputes and
involve disputed questions of fact, particularly relating to the validity
of the 1989 resolution, status of elected office bearers, and the lease
agreement. These matters, according to the opposite parties, are best
resolved through a civil suit, not a writ petition. Moreover, alternative
legal remedies exist, and the petitions are termed premature, pre-
emptive, and an abuse of process.
Page 7 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
(ii) It is argued that the amendment removing the Collector as Ex-Officio
President in 1989 was carried out without following the legal
procedure, lacked proper notice, and was never submitted for
approval to the Registration Authority (IGR). As a result, the
amendment is legally ineffective, and the original bye-law recognizing
the Collector remains in force. Consequently, the elections held
thereafter, including those in 2004, are invalid, and the elected office
bearers lack legitimacy.
(iii) The respondents argue that the petitioners, both the Club and the
shop lessee, lack locus standi as they derive their claims from a
constitutionally invalid and unrecognized Club administration. The
lease agreement, signed by an allegedly unauthorized President, is
termed unauthenticated, unregistered, and legally void. The
petitioner-lessee is characterized as a trespasser, not a legitimate
tenant, and their financial or business claims do not create a legal right
to occupy the Club’s property.
(iv) According to the respondents, the Collector, being the Ex-Officio
President under the unamended bye-laws, had the authority to seek
Club records to verify and initiate corrective action. The seizure of
records and premises by the Sub-Collector was taken in response to
complaints of mismanagement, and aimed to preserve public safety
and enforce legal compliance. The action was not arbitrary but a result
of inquiries into improper elections and misuse of Club premises.
(v) Letting out parts of the Club to commercial ventures, including a
liquor shop and a gas agency, is said to be in violation of the Club’s
Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
objectives, the terms of government lease, and poses a risk to public
safety. Respondents argue that these activities are incompatible with
the intended social and cultural functions of the Club and justify
intervention by public authorities in the larger interest of lawful
governance and public welfare.
(vi) The Opposite Parties reject the petitioners’ invocation of financial
hardship, employment dependency, or humanitarian grounds as a
basis for relief under writ jurisdiction. They assert that rule of law
prevails over personal hardship, and allowing occupation based on
emotional arguments would legitimize unauthorized possession and
undermine public interest.
(vii) The Opposite Parties conclude that both petitions are devoid of legal
merit and seek to bypass due legal channels under the guise of a
constitutional remedy. They reserve their right to submit further
affidavits and documentation to substantiate their actions and
reiterate that the administrative intervention was motivated by legal
duty, public complaints, and the restoration of lawful management of
the Club.
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed before this Court.
6. At this juncture, the central and most consequential legal question
that demands resolution is twofold: first, whether the Collector
lawfully retains the position of Ex Officio President of Binod Bhavan
Page 9 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
Club under its prevailing bye laws; and second, assuming such a
position is indeed held, whether that role, by its nature or by any
statutory implication, confers upon the Collector the authority to
unilaterally order the sealing of the Club’s premises.
7. Having examined the facts, submissions, and legal materials including
the relevant governing documents of Binod Bhavan Club, it becomes
clear that the resolution passed in 1989 to remove the Collector as the
Ex-Officio President was not validly effectuated in the eyes of law due
to two reasons:
a. The amendment was not approved by the Inspector General of
Registration.
b. The failure to provide proper notice to the then Ex Officio
President (the Collector) vitiated the procedural sanctity of the
General Body meeting, thus rendering the amendment defective
ab initio.
8. Accordingly, in the absence of lawful validation, the original bye-laws
continue to operate. These bye-laws clearly provide that the Collector
of Dhenkanal shall remain the Ex Officio President of the Club. As per
the Club’s governing charter:
“The President shall preside over all meetings. He can sign,
verify the club cash book, stock book and all other documents
including receipt books. He shall have all powers.”
9. This language, although broad and vaguely framed, has been
accepted by both parties as the governing rule. The interpretation of
this provision raises a legal conundrum: Does the phrase “He shall
Page 10 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
have all powers” extend to administrative acts such as sealing the
premises of the Club?
10. In such scenario, it would be imperative to peruse the Supreme
Court’s judgment in the case of Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing
Society v. District Registrar1which establishes the primacy of a
society’s registered bye-laws, provided they are not in contravention
of the parent statute. In line with this, the Supreme Court further held
as follows:
“It also appears to us, that a person after becoming a
member of a Cooperative Society cannot seek to get out of
the obligation undertaken by him while becoming a member
of such a Society by resort to the principle of public policy
based on constitutional protections given to an individual as
against State action. As noticed in Rodriguez vs. Speyer
Bros. (1919) A.C. 59 and Fender vs. Mildmay (1938) A.C.
1, the considerations of public policy are disabling and not
enabling. Observed Lord Sumner in Rodriguez (Supra)”:
“Considerations of public policy are applied to private
contracts or dispositions in order to disable, not to enable. I
never heard of a legal disability from which a party or a
transaction could be relieved because it would be good policy
to do so.”
….”
11. The abovementioned precedent makes it clear that bye-laws of a
registered society are binding on its members and office bearers, and
such bye-laws, unless contrary to a statute, must be respected in letter
and spirit. However, the powers conferred under such bye-laws,
particularly phrases such as “He shall have all powers,” cannot be
1
(2005) 5 SCC 632
Page 11 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
interpreted to exceed statutory or constitutional limits.In line with
that reasoning, while the Collector may wield considerable influence
in Club affairs, including control over records and financial
verification, nowhere do the bye-laws, explicitly or implicitly,
empower the Collector to seal the premises or take coercive
administrative action without due process or statutory backing.
12. Even where the bye-laws vest “all powers” in the President, such
language must be interpreted harmoniously with general principles of
rule of law. It is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that
generality of expression must yield to contextual limitation. No
power, however broadly worded in a private charter, can override the
foundational values of audi alteram partem, transparency, and
proportionality. The office of the President, particularly where held
ex-officio by a public servant such as the Collector, carries with it a
fiduciary responsibility to act not in assertion of dominion, but in
service of stewardship.
13. Thus, the sealing of premises, an act inherently coercive in nature,
demands a higher threshold of justification, not only in terms of
statutory source but also procedural integrity. If such actions are
taken merely on the strength of a phrase like “all powers,” it would
amount to sanctioning a rule by fiat, antithetical to the spirit of both
the Societies Registration Act and the Constitution of India.
14. Now the next important question before this Court is in relation to the
validity of the lease agreement between the Club and the petitioner-
lessee in W.P.(C) 11792 of 2004. The perusal of the materials and the
Page 12 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
factual matrix makes it clear that this case raises issues of private
contractual disputes, rather than public law grievances. The lease
remains unregistered, lacks witnesses, and was executed by a
President whose status is legally disputed. These deficiencies indicate
that the matter requires examination of factual evidence and
interpretation of private rights and obligations, a task appropriately
suited for the civil courts, not writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
V. CONCLUSION:
15. Ordinarily this Court would be reluctant to entertain a petition rooted
in disputed authority within a private society and a challenge to
executive action taken under questionable claims of control. The
sealing of premises without statutory backing or clear procedural
safeguards would typically be contested in a civil forum or through
appropriate administrative channels. However, what could have been
addressed swiftly through lawful means has now lingered unresolved
for years. The authority exercised remains murky, the consequences
tangible, and the process lacking. In such a situation, the Court cannot
remain a distant observer. While this matter may not have been
strictly maintainable at the outset, the long lapse of time and the
continuing impact compel the Court to take it up, not as a matter of
precedent, but to ensure that power is not exercised unchecked and
that justice, however delayed, is not altogether denied.
16. In the light of the foregoing discussion and upon careful consideration
of the facts, governing bye laws, and applicable legal principles, this
Court concludes that the action of sealing the premises by the Sub-
Page 13 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07
Collector was undertaken without legal authority and in clear
violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, such action
stands set aside.
17. The matter is accordingly remanded to the Collector of Dhenkanal,
who, as the Ex-Officio President of Binod Bhavan Club under the
prevailing bye laws, shall undertake a fair, transparent, and
consultative examination of the Club’s affairs. It shall be open to
him/her to address any issues of governance or administration, but
such exercise must be carried out strictly in accordance with law and
with due regard to the principles of natural justice.
18. As for the petitioner-lessee, whose claim arises out of a disputed lease
agreement, liberty is granted to seek appropriate relief before a
competent civil forum, as the issues raised are inherently contractual
and fall beyond the scope of summary adjudication under writ
jurisdiction.
19. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are partially allowed.
20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier,in any of the above-mentioned
Writ Petitions stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 25th April, 2025/
Page 14 of 14
