Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Dr. Lohiya ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary Basic ... on 13 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(1)AWC946
Author: Rajes Kumar
Bench: Rajes Kumar
JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. By means of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow by which he has given the approval to the committee in which Sri Surjit Singh was elected as Manager.
2. Heard Sri Rahul Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5.
3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that before the Registrar rival claims were made by the petitioner for the approval of his Committee of Management and by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. He submitted that the petitioner claimed that Sri Om Prakash Yadav was elected as Manager and Dr. Raja Ram Jha was elected as President in an election held on 1.9.2004. Sri Surjit Singh claimed that he was elected as Manager and Sri Shree Krishna Shakya was elected as President in an election held on 5.9.2004. The necessary documents were produced from both the sides. He submitted that in paragraph-18 of the counter affidavit, the Assistant Registrar has admitted the claim of the petitioner about the proceeding held on 1.9.2004 as correct. He submitted that since there was a dispute of the election and office bearers by the two rival committees, the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue and should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Karhal Education Society, Karhal, District Mainpuri and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra and Ors. reported in (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2271, Mahipal Singh v. State of U.P., through Secretary D.O.I.F. Government of U.P., Lucknow and Ors. reported in [2005 (61) ALR 223] and Committee of Management, Harijan Gurukul Dohri Ghat, Mau and Anr. reported in 2006 (63) ALR 862.
5. Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioner was not found correct and the claim of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was found correct and, therefore, the same was approved. He further submitted that since the claim of the petitioner was not found correct, the Assistant Registrar has rightly decided the issue in exercise of power under Section 4 of the Act. He relied upon Division Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Committed of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and Anr. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and Anr. reported in (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242 and Committee of Management, Ashok Educational Society Gram Barpar (Araipar) and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur and Ors. reported in 2004 (4) E.S.C. (All.) 2444 and a decision of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Sri Ram Laxmi Narain Marvadi Hindu Hospital, Godaulia, Varanasi and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Ors. reported in (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2063.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and counter and rejoinder affidavits.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has made a claim that in a proceeding of election held on 1.9.2004, a Committee of Management was formed in which Sri Om Prakash Yadav was elected as Prabandhak and Dr. Raja Ram Jha was elected as President. In this view of the matter, there were rival claims of two Committee of Managements for approval before the Assistant Registrar. This Court has consistently held in the cases referred herein above, namely Karhal Education Society, Karhal, District Mainpuri and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra and Ors. reported in (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2271, Mahipal Singh v. State of U.P., Through Secretary D.O.I.F. Government of U.P., Lucknow and Ors. reported in 2005 (61) ALR 223 and Committee of Management, Harijan Gurukul Dohri Ghat, Mau and Anr. reported in 2006 (63) ALR 862 that under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of the rival claims where the dispute relates to the two Committee of Managements. In case where the the dispute relates to the two Committee of Managements, the Assistant Registrar is under obligation to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 25 (1) of the Act.
8. I have gone through the decisions referred by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In the case of Committed of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, Distrit Basti and Anr. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and Anr. (Supra) the dispute before the Registrar was whether the person seeking election was member of the Society. There was no dispute of rival claims by the managing committees. In the case of Committee of Management, Ashok Educational Society Gram Barpar (Araipar) and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur and Ors. (Supra) though the Court held that it is only when there is a genuine dispute regarding the elections, the matter has to be referred by the Assistant Registrar to the Prescribed Authority but when the dispute appears to be frivolous in nature, the provisions of Section 25 of the Act will not be applicable. In the said case, the Division Bench further held that when two parties were staking their claims to have been elected as Managers in such a situation the matter will be referred to the Prescribed Authority. This judgement is no help to the respondent. Further in the case, of Sri Ram Laxmi Narain Marvadi Hindu Hospital, Godaulia, Varanasi and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Ors. (Supra), learned single Judge of this Court held that under Section 4 of the Act the Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide rival claims of rival committees regarding their valid election. Such dispute has to be referred to the Prescribed Authority. The learned single Judge further held that Registrar can only examine whether the claim is bonafide or not and in case if he finds that the claim is not bonafide in such a situation it may not be necessary to refer the matter. In the present case, the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow had not recorded any finding that the claim of the petitioner was not bonafide and frivolous.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Registrar dated 15.10.2005 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow, respondent No. 3 is directed to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order and the Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the matter expeditiously.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.10.2005 passed by respondent No. 3 Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, UP., Lucknow is set aside and the respondent No. 3 is directed to refer the matter to Prescribed authority.