Allahabad High Court
Sri Janki Higher Secondary School, A ... vs Sri Radhey Lal Son Of Late Madhav Prasad ... on 19 May, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(4)AWC3356
Author: Tarun Agarwala
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits under the Societies Registration Act, intimating the petitioner that the papers filed by him with regard to the renewal of the registration of the Society has been rejected and that the renewal of the Society has been made on the basis of the papers submitted by Radhey Lal, Manager on the ground that the renewal of the Society was made in favour of Radhey Lal on 20.12.1980 and on that basis the renewal is now again being made in his favour.
2. For the last 40-45 years, there has been several rounds of litigation between the parties headed by the petitioner on one hand and the contesting respondent No. 1 on the other hand, with regard to the actual control of the affairs of the Society and its educational institution.
3. It transpires that on 22.12.1980, the Registrar granted renewal of the registration of the Society in favour of Madhav Prasad, the father of the respondent No. 1. Against the said order, the Committee of Management headed by the present petitioner through its erstwhile Manager, filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 508 of 1981 challenging the order dated 22.12.1980. The said writ petition was eventually dismissed on 13.9.96 against which Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 was filed. This Special Appeal was dismissed as infructuous by an order dated 22.3.2001. The Court held that the adjudication made in the writ petition would have no effect at this stage. Based on the dismissal of the Special Appeal, the impugned order has been passed renewing the registration of the Society in favour of Radhey Lal on the sole ground that the registration of the society was earlier renewed in his favour on 22.12.1980.
4. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.K. Gupta and Sri Pankaj Mitthal for the respondents.
5. Admittedly, the Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. At the time of the registration, the names addresses and occupations of the members of the governors council, directors, committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted was indicated in the Memorandum of Association.
6. The registration of the Society is renewed under Section 3-A of the Act for a period of 5 years on an application made to the Registrar. Section 3-A (4) of the Act stipulates that every application for the renewal of the certificate shall be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body elected after the registration of the Society or after the renewal of certificate of registration.
7. Once the application for renewal of the registration of the Society is allowed, the list of members of the Managing Body elected is impliedly authenticated by the Registrar. The acceptance of the list of office bearers by the Registrar while renewing the registration of the society impliedly indicates that the persons shown in the list are valid members of the Committee of Management or the Managing Body, as the case may be.
8. Therefore, before renewing the registration of the society, it is imperative for the Registrar to investigate and prima facie come to a conclusion as to which person or governing body is in actual effective control of the society. In this regard, certain provisions of the Act are required to be considered. Section 4 of the Act contemplates that once in every year the annual list of the members of the managing body of the Society is required to be filed before the Registrar which should contain the name, address and occupation of the governors council members, directors, committee or other governing body interested with the Management of the affairs of the Society. The proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act stipulates that where a fresh list of the members as contemplated in Section 4(1) is sent, in that case, the old office bearers or the members shall as far as possible place their counter signature on the said list. The purpose of placing the counter signature is to authenticate the new set of office bearers. If the counter signatures are not there in the list, in that case, the Registrar is given a discretion to issue a notice to such person or persons or issue a public notice inviting objections and thereafter decide the objections, if any. Section 4(2) further provides that alongwith the annual list that has to be supplied, a copy of the balance sheet for the preceding year shall also be supplied.
9. Section 24 of the Act contemplates that if the Registrar is of the opinion that the affairs of the society was being conducted so as to defeat the objects of the society or that the society o(sic) its governing body or any other officer in actual effective control of the society was mismanaging the affairs, the Registrar may himself or through any person appointed by him inspect or investigate the affairs of the society. Under Section 25 of the Act the Registrar, either on his own motion, or on application by at least 1/4th of the members of the society, refer the matter to the prescribed authority with regard to any dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such society.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the Registrar before renewing the registration of the certificate is required to consider as to whether the list of the members of the managing body is in consonance with the provision of Section 4(1) of the Act or not and, if the said list is not in consonance with the said provision, in that case, the Registrar was obliged to issue notices to such person or persons or issue a public notice inviting objections within a specified period and was required to decide such objections, if any. Further in a situation where two rival factions apply for renewal of the registration, the Registrar was obliged to conduct an investigation under Section 24 and see which party was in actual effective control and, if it was not possible for him to decide it in a summary manner, he was required to refer the dispute under Section 25 of the Act.
11. In the present case, the renewal of the registration of the society has been granted in favour of Radhey Lal on the sole ground that the Registrar had earlier renewed the registration of the society in the year 1980 in his favour. Much water has flown from 1980 till the passing of the impugned order in 2001 and several elections of the Committee of Management in the meanwhile had taken place. The list of the office bearers as contemplated under Section 3-A(4) of the Act should have been verified as per Section 4(1) of the Act before passing the order. Since an objection was filed by the petitioner, such objection should have been investigated under Section 24 of the Act.
12. Since none of the aforesaid was considered by the Registrar, the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore, the order dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Assistant Registrar is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made above after considering the objections of all the parties within 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.