Allahabad High Court
Prabhu Narayan Union Club And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2095
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10742 of 2020 Petitioner :- Prabhu Narayan Union Club And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Singh,Sushma Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashwaini Mishra,Vishnu Dutt Tiwari Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
By means of the present writ petition, petitioners are seeking amongst other the following relief:
"Issue writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.5.2020 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, district Varanasi".
The facts of the case are that the petitioners are a registered society. A list of Managing Committee was submitted before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, district Varanasi on 20th May, 2018 having members of 1124. On 16.5.2019 in the meeting of General House with the consent of 1/4th members of the Society passed a resolution for conducting election in June, 2019. A list of 1124 members was sent to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, district Varanasi under section 4 of the Societies Registration Act ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) for conducting election in June, 2019. On 14th August, 2019 a complaint was made by one, Sanjay Khare, respondent no.4. On the basis of the said complaint the impugned order has been passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, district Varanasi, respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order on two counts; firstly, that the respondent no.2 has exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining such complaint and deciding the issue as the respondent no.2 cannot decide the question but he has to make a reference to the Prescribed Authority under section 25(1) and secondly, neither any notice nor opportunity was given to the petitioners to submit its objections to the complaint made by respondent no.4 on 14th August, 2019 and, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated and liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principle of nature justice.
Learned counsel for the respondents have tried to justify the order impugned.
Heard Sri Manish Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashwani Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
In the present case list of members was submitted by the petitioners to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, district Varanasi under section 4 of the Act. The list was objected. There was rival claim between the petitioners and the respondent no.4. The respondent no.2 instead of deciding the issue ought to have referred the dispute before the Prescribed Authority under section 25(1) of the Act.
A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 1286 of 2013 (C.M Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and another vs. State of U.P. And 2 others decided on 18.12.2013 has clearly held as follows:
"In the judgment of the Division Bench in All-India Council (Supra) where it was held as follows:-
"Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as amended by the State Legislature enacts a comprehensive code and creates a designated forum or tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society. It also provides the grounds upon which the election of an office-bearer can be set aside. The procedure to be followed for filling up of the vacancies arising from the decisions rendered by the Prescribed Authority under Sub-section (i)of Section 25 has also been laid down(Section 25(2).)
7.It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh are concerned, the Legislature has created a specific forum and laid down an exhaustive procedure for determination of the same under Section 25. There is no other provision, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the statute, such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed Authority being subject to the result of a civil suit."
The judgment of the Division Bench came up for consideration in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti (Supra). In the subsequent judgment the Division Bench held that the earlier judgment has harmonized the provisions of both Sections 4 and 25 and what can be inquired into under Section 25 of the Act, cannot be gone into under the proviso to Section 4. In that case, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside an order of the Registrar dated 11 July 2010 and ought to have directed the Registrar to refer the objection to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1). The Division Bench held that once an application for taking on record the name of the office bearers and an objection as to the validity of the office bearers who were duly elected has been filed, the Registrar considering under Section 25(1) ought to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. Undoubtedly, in the subsequent decision in the Committee of Management (Supra) it has been held that the Registrar "is not a post office for referring any and every dispute". The Division Bench there held that more than three years after the holding of an election there was no reason to entertain a petition at the belated stage.
In the present case, a list was submitted by the third respondent, of office bearers under Section 4 for 2013-14. The list was objected too. The Deputy Registrar had conflicting claims between the appellants on the one hand and the third respondent on the other hand. Hence when an application for taking on record the names of the officer bearers was filed and an objection to the validity of the elected office bearers was placed before him, the Registrar ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1). In entertaining the dispute himself and going into merits of the rival claims, the Deputy Registrar has clearly transgressed his jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election of the office bearers of the Society lies with the Prescribed Authority and the Registrar ought to have made a reference to the Prescribed Authority.
The learned Single Judge is right in holding that the Prescribed Authority would have to decide under Section 25(1) upon the dispute which is raised. To that extent the observations of the learned Single Judge are justified. However, we find merit in the contention of the appellants that the petition could not have been dismissed merely with liberty to move the Prescribed Authority. The appropriate direction to pass, was to set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar which is an order without jurisdiction since the Deputy Registrar has decided an issue which fell within exclusive domain of the Prescribed Authority."
On perusal of the facts of the case, it is clear that list of members submitted by the petitioners was objected by the respondent no.4. Admittedly the Assistant Registrar had conflicting claims between the petitioners and respondent no.4. When an application for taking on record the list of members was filed an objection to the said list was placed before him. The Assistant Registrar ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under section 25(1) of the Act. In entertaining the dispute himself and going into the merits of the rival claims, the Assistant Registrar has clearly transgressed his jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to decide any dispute in respect of the list of members or dispute in respect of application of office bearers of the Society lies with the Prescribed Authority and the Assistant Registrar ought to have made a reference to the Prescribed Authority.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case, the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2020 is hereby quashed being without without jurisdiction and the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, district Varanasi, respondent no.2 is directed to make a reference under section 25(1) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Dt. 15.10.2020 samz.