Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management vs Additional Registrar, Firms, ... on 10 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)AWC2657, (2000)3UPLBEC2070
Author: I. M. Quddusi
Bench: I.M. Quddusi
JUDGMENT I. M. Quddusi, J.
1. These are two writ petitions filed by the Committee of Management, Janta Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Pipra Pratham, district Sant Kabir Nagar through its Manager Prahlad Singh. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner has desired to restrain the respondents to hold election of the Committee of Management of the Society on the basis of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms. Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur. Since in both the cases the facts are common and the later case has been filed due to further development and in the case filed earlier being Writ Petition No. 27548 of 1998, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, both are being disposed of by the common judgment.
2. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri S. S. Chauhan appearing for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 of Writ Petition No. 27548 of 1998 and respondent No. 2 of Writ Petition No. 37612 of 1998, namely. Jata Shanker Singh, as well as learned standing counsel for other respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the society in question namely, Janta Shiksha Prasar Samity. Pipra Pratham which was earlier in the district of Basti and now it is district Sant Kabir Nagar was registered under the Societies Registration Act as a Society in the year 1973. The bye-laws of the society was framed and the term of the Committee of Management was of three years.
There was no dispute regarding the election held before the year 1982, in the writ petition it has been alleged that the election was held on 11.7.1982 but this has been disputed in the counter-affidavit and it has been alleged that election was held on 24.4.1983 and the attestation was done on 17.9.1983. The registration letter issued on 29.8.1983 has also been filed as Annexure-C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit. A copy of the attestation of signature of Jata Shanker Singh as Manager has also been filed as Annexure-CA 3 to the counter affidavit. It is alleged in the writ petition that the renewal of the registration of the society was obtained fraudulently by Jata Shanker Singh and the Assistant Registrar. Firms, Societies and Chits set aside the same vide his order dated 30.1.1984 on the basis of the papers submitted by Prahlad Singh, Manager, but the same was stayed in Writ Petition No. 2182 of 1984 filed by Jata Shanker Singh vide interim order dated 14.2.1984. It has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit that the writ petition was filed and the interim order was granted. It has been further stated that the signatures of the Jata Shanker Singh were attested once again on 21.2.1984. The attested coy of the attestation of signatures dated 21.2.1984 has been filed as Annexure-CA 6 to the counter-affidavit. The interim order was confirmed vide order dated 26.4.1985. But the said petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
4. It is alleged in the counter-affidavit that on account of the death of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri G.C. Dwivedi no one could appear when the case was taken over and in the said writ petition in the absence of counsel ex-parte order was passed on 6.10.1994. The petition was dismissed as infructuous. It is alleged in the writ petition that the registration of the society was recalled on 6.4.1994 and the signature of Prahlad Singh was attested by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 23.2.1996.
5. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the order dated 6.10.1994 was recalled and the Assistant Director Firm, Societies and Chits passed the order dated 30.7.1997 recalling the registration of the society done on 6.4.1994 and the District Basic Education Officer, Basti, also cancelled the attestation of signature of Prahlad Singh vide order dated 23.11.1996 and the signatures of Jata Shanker Singh were re-attested. It has been mentioned in the writ petition also that application to recall the order dated 6.10.1994 was allowed on 30.10.1996 and the writ petition was restored to its original number but the same was again dismissed on 15.1.1997 for default and stay order passed by this court came to an end. Again an application for recall of order dated 15.1.1997 was filed which was allowed on 9.5.1997 and the writ petition was restored to its original number.
6. After that Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed the order dated 15.5.1997 recognizing Jata Shanker Singh as Manager of the Institution which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 23655 of 1997. Thereafter Writ Petition Nos. 2182 of 1984 and 23655 of 1997 both were heard together and were finally disposed of vide order dated 16.9.1997, directing Assistant Director Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi as well as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti, to pass fresh order on the fresh circumstances existing on date of judgment on the basis of the representations filed by the parties before them according to law and Rules made for the purpose without being influenced by any order either passed on 30th January, 1984 or 15th May, 1997. It was further directed that they are at liberty to decide the controversy afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
7. Thereafter, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti, vide order dated 29.10.1997 recalled the order dated 15.5.1997 declaring the same as ineffective by which Jata Shanker Singh was recognized as Manager and his signatures were attested. The B.S.A. had passed that order holding that the High Court has vacated the interim order and directed to dispose of the matter. But the B.S.A. had not given his reason for declaring his order dated 15.5.1997 as Ineffective, except that the interim order has been vacated by the High Court. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, has also passed an order dated 2.4.1998 in which he has held that society which has been re-registered and the renewal made thereafter in pursuance of the G.O. dated 16.2.1990 is liable to be renewed. It is also stated that under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and the bye-laws of the society registered on 20.8.1973, the Assistant Registrar ensure to conduct the elections of the valid members who were elected before the dispute of 1.9.1983 and renewal of the registered society dated 30.8.1973 be made after getting the fees deposited thereafter.
8. In pursuance of the aforesaid order Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur issued notice providing opportunity by 10.8.1996. Thereafter, Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur passed the order dated 12,8.1998 nominating Up-Zila Adhikari, district Sant Kabir Nagar under the powers conferred to him under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and directed to conduct the elections of the society as early as possible on the basis of the list of general body. This order dated 12.8.1998 has been challenged in Writ Petition No. 27548 of 1998.
9. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Gorakhpur has modified the order dated 12.8.1998 to the extent that in place of Deputy Collector (Up Zlla Adhikari Khalilabad), Deputy Collector, Menhdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar is nominated as Election Officer to hold elections of the committee of management of the society and thereafter vide order dated 3.11.1998 had declared the date of election as 16,11.1998. Against this order dated 3.11.1998, the subsequent writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 37612 of 1998 has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus restraining the Deputy Collector Menhdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar, to hold the election of the Committee of Management of the society.
10. This Court vide order dated 16.9.1997 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 23655 of 1997 and 2182 of 1984 held that the order dated 30.4.84 renewing the registration has lost the existence by lapse of time. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Varanasi, under the Societies Registration Act as well as Basic Shiksha Adhlkari, Basti, were directed to pass fresh orders on the facts and circumstances existing on the date of judgment on the basis of the representation filed by the parties before them according to law and representation made for the purpose without being influenced by any order either passed on 30.1.1984 or 15.5.1997. It was further directed that they be at liberty to decide the controversy afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari has passed the order without following the aforesaid direction and only passed an order on 20.10.1997 on the basis of the fact that Interim order was vacated by this Court while passing the above mentioned order. This Court did not direct this. The direction was to provide opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate order but Zlla Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Basti, has not passed speaking order and it has also not been mentioned in the order whether any opportunity was provided to the parties concerned as was directed. Hence the order passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari ts not relevant at this stage,
11. Now it is to be seen whether Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, has passed the order after providing opportunity to the parties properly or not. From the perusal of the Impugned order dated 2.4.1998, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, it appears that before passing the order he has provided opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as the parties had produced documents in support of their pleadings before the Assistant Registrar. On 25.3.1998, counsel were also allowed to represent the parties. The parties before Assistant Registrar also made written submissions. The Assistant Registrar has indicated in his order the following points :
(1) Both the parties have produced their written submissions, evidence and contentions, but most of them are related to the college run by the society.
(2) Both the parties want to get renewal of the society, which was re-registered.
(3) The election conducted by both the parties are not in accordance with the bye-laws produced by themselves.
The State Government vide G. O. No. Adhi. 4446/10-87-603/89 dated February 16, 1990, has directed that re-registration of the old registered society shall not be made and only renewal of the same can be made.
12. On the basis of the above mentioned points, the Assistant Registrar has come to the conclusion that the re-registration made of the society already registered earlier and its renewal made on the basis of re-registration are liable to be cancelled and the old registration which was made vide No. 1-30554 dated 20.10.1973, is liable to be renewed. But before this, it is necessary that election should be conducted on the basis of the bye-laws registered at the time of registration of the society dated 20.7.1973 and all the valid members before dispute has arisen in the year 1983 and thereafter fees should be got deposited by the newly elected committee and renewal of the society registered on 20.8.1973 should be done. This should be got done by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur in pursuance of the order dated 2.4.1998. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur passed the order on 12.8.1998 to the effect that before dispute had arisen in the year 1983. It was found on the basis of the list of members, which was made available by the parties. That eleven members are common in both the lists and there are 118 members list which have been made available by parties for the purpose of election and the Assistant Registrar exercises its powers conferred to him under Clause (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.
13. This Court found no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, dated 2.4.1998 as he has acted in accordance with the directions of this Court dated 16.9.1997 and the G. O. dated 16.2.1990 by which the Government has restrained the re-registration of old society already registered and relied upon the registration made of the society on 20.8.1973 and also bye-laws submitted by the society at the time of registration. Certainly, if the subsequent action was illegal, it cannot be said that any valid election was held subsequently as only the registration which was already in existence on 20.8.1973 for a period of five years was to be renewed instead of getting re-registration of the society. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur has consequently passed order as this Court has held the order dated 2.4.1998 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi as valid, the consequential order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur cannot be said to be illegal or improper. In so far as the powers conferred under subsection (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, first of all the provisions of Section 25 (2) of the same are liable to be perused, which are quoted as under :
Section 25 (2).-- Where by an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or any officer authorized by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modification."
14. A perusal of the above quoted provision would show that it has been provided therein that where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of the office-bearer of the society has not been held within the time specified, he may call meeting of General body of such society for electing such office-bearers and such meetings shall be presided over and be conducted by he registrar or by any officer authorized by him in his behalf.
15. This Court has come to the conclusion that in view of the fact that re-registration of the society was not permissible and only renewal of the society was permissible while action done either by the petitioner or by the respondent Jata Shanker Singh on the basis of the re-registration of the society is illegal and on the basis of old registration of the society and the bye-laws submitted with the application for registration of the society which was registered were to be followed on the basis of the old registration of the society. Hence, it cannot be said that any election of office-bearers of the society was held within the time specified in the rules of that society.
16. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition No. 27548 of 1998 has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
17. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur, had authorized vide his order dated 12.8.1998. Deputy Collector Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar as election officer. But subsequently vide order dated 28.8.1998, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition No. 37612 of 1998 modified his order dated 12.8.1998 to the effect that in place of Up Zila Adhikari, Khalilabad, Up Zila Adhikari, Menhdawal, was nominated as election officer and consequently Up Zila Adhikari, Menhdawal declared the date of election and called meeting of General Body of the society for electing the office bearers.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Up Zila Adhikari. Menhdawal again called meeting of the general body for electing the office bearers. Only Registrar is empowered to call such meeting under the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.
19. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards the decision of this Court made by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1990, Ram Kumar Varshney v. Tehsildar Kol Aligarh-cum-Election Officer and another, in which it has been held that the meeting of general body of, the society can only be called by the Registrar and the officer authorized by the Registrar comes into picture only after the meeting has been convened by the Registrar and it was directed to the Assistant Registrar to issue notice fixing the date of meeting and also framing time table.
20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25, the meeting of the General Body is liable to be called by the Registrar for electing the officebearers of the society in question.
21. In view of the above, the order passed by the Up Zila Adhikari, Menhdawal calling meeting of General Body of the society in question and framing time-table for election is liable to be quashed.
22. In the result Writ Petition No. 37612 of 1998 succeeds and is allowed to the extent that the order calling meeting of general body of the society in question by the Up Zila Adhlkari, Menhdawal, vide, order dated 3.11.1998 is illegal and is hereby quashed.
23. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur to call meeting of the General Body of the society in question for electing office-bearer and frame time table, but the same may be presided and be conducted by the Up Zila Adhikari, Menhdawal, or any other officer authorized by the Assistant Registrar as the case may be.
24. The parties shall bear their own cost.