Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Adarsh Mahabir ... vs Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies ... on 27 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(2)AWC1658, (2004)2UPLBEC1291
Author: Rakesh Tiwari
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. By means of this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.11.2001 passed by respondent No. 1 holding that previous election of the Committee of Management of Adarsh Mahabir Junior High School Samiti were held beyond time hence invalid and directed that fresh election be held. He also annexed a list of voters for the election. The petitioner challenges his order as without jurisdiction.
3. According to writ petition there is a society known as Adarsh Mahabir Junior High School Samiti, which has a school known as Adarsh Bajarang Junior High School, Rampur. It was registered under Societies Registration Act on 15.7.1986. According to bye-laws the election of office bearers has to take place every 5 years. There is no separate Committee of Management for school. The elections were held on 14.7.1994, 13.7.1996 and lastly on 8.7.2001 before expiry of 5 years. In all these elections petitioner No. 2 Sri Lalji Dubey is said to have been elected as Manager. It is further asserted that the petitioner No. 2 filed result of the election in time and filed list of office bearers along with necessary documents and each time the registration of society was done for 5 years. Last renewal being of 15.7.2001. It is further stated that Sri Pal Pandey member of society was expelled from Society on 25.7.1995,
4. It is alleged that Sri Pandey raised a dispute about election of 8.7.2001 and set up a case that elections were held on 15.7.2001 by filing forged papers. The Assistant Registrar issued notices to both the parties. After several adjournments Sri Pal Pandey produced some record on 6.10.1991 regarding alleged election of 15.7.2001. The petitioner requested time for filing documents in rebuttal but Assistant Registrar did not allow any time to the petitioner and passed the order on 21.10.2001, which is impugned in this petition.
5. The Assistant Registrar in the order impugned held that election of office bearers of the Society ought to have been held on 23.12.1990, 23.12.1995 and 23.12.2000 as the Samiti had been constituted on 23.12.1985 and on that date office bearers were appointed.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that order is illegal and without authority as the Assistant Registrar had no Jurisdiction to decide the dispute of election of office bearers and he had to refer it to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. He referred to the impugned order. In the first paragraph of the order it is stated that the Society was registered on 15.7.1986 and its renewal was done according to Section 3A of the Act, which is legal. Now another election has been set up by stating that election was held on 8.7.2001. Thus, there was no controversy about the election of 1991, 1996 and 2001 before the Assistant Registrar hence the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to consider the validity of any of these elections held earlier particularly when on the basis of those election the certificate of registration of Society had been done and held valid. No dispute of those election was under consideration in these proceedings. He further submits that for disputes regarding earlier election or renewal or registration, no notice was issued by the Assistant Registrar. Reference is made to notice dated 21.7.2001 (Annexure-ii) that dispute before him was confirmed to election of 2001 only hence order of the Assistant Registrar about elections of 1991, 1996 and 2001 is wholly without jurisdiction. He has not set aside the renewals already made on the basis of those elections. There was no dispute about the election of those years before him and he had no right to dwell upon the validity of elections or renewals of registration of those years.
7. It is not disputed that election in this Society are to be held after 5 years according to bye-laws.
8. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Assistant Registrar acted against principles of natural justice in refusing to grant time to the petitioner to produce documents for rebutting the documents filed by opposite party No. 3 after several dates. In view of fact that 3 dates were given to respondent No. 3 for filing documents to prove his case of election alleged to have been held on 15.7.2001, in all fairness time should have been allowed to the petitioner to produce evidence in rebuttal. This submission has force and respondents could not give any satisfactory reply to the argument.
9. It is further argued that Assistant Registrar has no power to go into validity of election of office bearer and he was obliged to refer it to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act. He has relied upon the case of the Society Ganesh Balia Shiksha Samiti v. Assistant Registrar. 1987 UPLBEC 60, in which order of the Registrar denying election of office bearers was set aside. He also relied upon the case of Committee of Management v. Assistant Registrar, 2000 (2) UPLBEC 1600. In his case the Division Bench held :
"The Assistant Registrar by the order dated 9.2.2000 held that the election of society had not been held within the specified periods prescribed under the Rules, it was not possible to recognise any one of the alleged.... By the same orders be directed that fresh election be held and in connection thereof be dated 11.3.2000 as date of deciding the issue regarding membership of society ultimately it held that the dispute referred to under this provision could arise only if the election had been held within period of three years and two rival groups claimed to have been held as office bearers which were admittedly held after more than five years. In these connections the Assistant Registrar was justified in issuing direction to hold fresh elections."
10. In this case election of office bearers was not held in prescribed period but after 3 years. In the present case election in 2001 was held within prescribed time of 5 years hence the dispute was between two groups.
11. The counsel also relies upon the case of Vijai Narain Singh v. Registrar Firms. 1981 UPLBEC 308. The Division Bench held that the Registrar himself has no Jurisdiction to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of a society. Therefore, any direction given by him in this regard will be wholly within Jurisdiction. He is in law bound to refer such dispute to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act.
12. Thus, the finding about earlier elections of this Society held in 1991, 1996 is beyond the scope of controversy raised and is set aside. The present dispute is confirmed to election of office bearers said to have been elected by two groups in 2001. The Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide this dispute nor can pass any order directing a fresh election. He ought to have referred the dispute about election said to have been held in 2001.
13. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 20.11.2000 is quashed. The Assistant Registrar Societies, Chits, Fund, Varanasi is directed to refer the dispute of election of office bearers for 2001-2006 of petitioner society to the prescribed authority within one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.