Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Raja Tej Singh ... vs District Inspector Of Schools, ... on 10 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)AWC1086, (2000)2UPLBEC993, AIR 2000 ALLAHABAD 350, 2000 ALL. L. J. 3206, 2000 (2) ALL WC 1086, 2000 (2) ESC 1207, 2000 (2) UPLBEC 993
Author: Yatindra Singh
Bench: Yatindra Singh
JUDGMENT Yatindra Singh, J.
1. This decision examines the scope, power, and jurisdiction of the Registrar Societies and Chits Funds, the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act, and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari in respect of Societies running Junior High Schools. Among these, in a controversy to decide about the recognition of its Committee of Management, whose decision will override the other? How should the different provisions, relating this controversy, be reconciled? in addition, it is recommended that the State may remove the anomaly between the Societies Registration Act, the Intermediate Education Act, and the first statutes of different Universities under the U. P. State University Act (heading 'Remarks : Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. and the First Statutes of the Universities' paragraphs 30-37). Here are the facts.
FACTS
2. There is a society known as Raja Tej Singh Vidyalaya Aurandh. district Mainpuri (the RTS society). It runs a Junior High School by the same name (the RTS school). The governing body (Committee of Management) of the RTS society also manages the RTS school, i.e., Committee of Management of the RTS society is the Committee of Management in the RTS School. There is only one election. (Reference to the Committee of Management of the governing body of the RTS society or election thereto means the Committee of Management of the RTS School or election thereto and vice versa in this Judgment).
3. Admitted elections to the Committee of Management of the RTS society were held on 19th November, 1995. In this election one Sri Awadh Kishore and Sri Ravendra Singh were elected as the President and the Manager of the Society. Every year, a society is required to submit a list of members of the governing body under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. Sri Ravendra Singh submitted a list some time in November. 1998. In this list instead of Sri Awadh Kishore, some one else was shown as the President. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra (the AR) issued notices to Sri Awadh Kishore to confirm it. In the meantime, fresh elections were held. There was dispute among the members :
(i) one faction held his election on 3rd December, 1998 electing Sri Lallu Singh as the Manager ;
(ii) second faction held election on 6th December, 1998 electing Sri Satya Pal Singh as the Manager ;
(iii) third faction also held election in which Sri K.K. Singh was elected as Manager. Sri K.K. Singh is no longer in picture and has gone out of contest.
Different sets of persons were allegedly elected as office bearers and members of Committee of Management in these elections. All submitted their papers to the AR under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act for information as well as to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mainpuri (the BSA) for their recognition.
4. The BSA by his order dated 20th January, 1999 recognised Sri Satya Pal Singh as the Manager. Sri Lallu Singh filed a Writ Petition No. 5611 of 1999 (the earlier writ petition) against the order of the BSA dated 20.1.1999. This writ petition was allowed on 24.2.1999 (the earlier order of the High Court] and the BSA was directed to decide the controversy again within 15 days from the production of a certified copy of the order. The BSA has again recognised Sri Satya Pal Singh as the Manager by his order dated 5th April. 1999. Sri Lallu Singh has again filed a Writ Petition No. 20017 of 1999 (the first writ petition) against the order of the BSA dated 5.4.1999. No interim orders were granted in this writ petition.
5. During pendency of the first writ petition, the BSA passed another order dated 23rd October, 1999 for single operation of the accounts under 2nd proviso to the U. P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 (the Payment of Salary Act). It is on, the basis of some letter of the Joint Director of Education (Basic), Agra dated 22nd April, 1999. Sri Satya Pal Singh has filed Writ Petition No. 50966 of 1999 (the second writ petition) against the order dated 23rd October, 1999 directing single operation of accounts.
6. The elections held were of the RTS society and all sides had also submitted their list of Committee of Management (governing body) to the AR under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. The AR by his order dated 30th October. 1999 has held that the Committee of Management of Sri Lallu Singh Chauhan was a valid Committee of Management. Sri Satya Pal Singh has filed Writ Petition No. 50290 of 1999 (the third writ petition) against this order. There are contradictory orders : the BSA has recognised Sri Satya Pal Singh, and the AR has recognised Sri Lallu Singh as the Manager of the Committee of Management though it is same for the RTS School and the RTS society.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
7. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare counsel for Sri Lallu Singh, Sri K. Ajit counsel for Sri Satya Pal Singh, and the standing counsel for the state officers. Following points arise for determination in these cases :
1. What is the role of the Registrar and the prescribed authority under the Societies Registration Act? What are their powers as regards each other?
2. What is the source of power of the BSA while recognising any Committee of Management? What is its relationship with the Registrar or the prescribed authority under the Societies Registration Act?
3. What was the nature of dispute before the AR? Who could decide this dispute : the AR, or the prescribed authority?
4. Did the BSA afford reasonable opportunity to Sri Lallu Singh before recognizing Sri Satya Pal Singh?
5. Is the order dated 23.10.1999 passed by the BSA, for single operation of accounts, legal?
1st POINT : JURISDICTION OF THE REGISTRAR AS REGARDS THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY Jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority
8. Section 25(1) of the Act confers powers and jurisdiction to the prescribed authority under the Societies Registration Act.
Powers of the Registrar
9. The Registrar under the Societies Registration Act includes Additional, Joint. Deputy or Assistant Registrar on whom the powers under the Societies Registration Act are delegated (Section 21). The Registrar, under the Societies Registration Act, can-
(i) register a society, consider objections against the same (Section 3) :
(ii) consider change in name and objects of a society (Section 12B) ;
(iii) cancel the registration of a society (Section 12D) ;
(iv) apply/refer for dissolution of a society (Sections 13 and 13A) :
(v) call for information for from a society (Section 21) ;
(vi) order for audit of a society (Section 23) ;
(vii) investigate any affair of a society (Section 24) ;
(viii) call for a meeting to hold election in case elected term is over (Section 25 (2));
(ix) call for objection and decide the same if the names of governing body is different than the previous one, if not certified by the previous members (Section 4) ;
(x) refer doubt or dispute regarding election to the prescribed authority (Section 25 (1)) ;
10. The Registrar, under the Societies Registration Act, has wide powers. He is the overall in charge-a final authority, except in the following circumstances :
(a) When any question arises if a society is to be registered or its registration is to be renewed. He has to refer it to the State Government (Section 3B).
(b) His order cancelling registration is appealable to the Commissioner (Section 12(2)).
(c) Only a Court can dissolve a society (Section 13D).
(d) The Registrar can neither decide any doubt, nor dispute regarding an election. He cannot decide continuance of office bearers. It is within the Jurisdiction of the prescribed authority (Section 25(1)).
11. In this case we will examine the powers of the Registrar particularly under clauses fix) and (x) of the paragraph 9 and Exception (d) of paragraph 10. A Registrar cannot dissolve a society ; a Court does it. He cannot decide a doubt about an election or an election dispute or about continuance of an office bearer in a society. The prescribed authority decides it under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. The Registrar cannot under the garb of exercising other powers, decide the aforesaid dispute indirectly.' Jurisdiction : The Registrar (Proviso to Section 4) as Regards the Prescribed Authority (Section 25)
12. Every society has a governing body (Committee of Management) entrusted with management of the affairs of the society. This governing body is known by different names in different societies. Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act contemplates that a society has to submit a list of its governing body (Committee of Management) with the Registrar. Section 4(2) of the Societies Registration Act contemplates that the memorandum of a society including alteration, extension or abridgement of purpose should also be filed along with the list of governing body ; it has to be certified by three members. The proviso to Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act states that in case any member in the list of governing body is different from the last submission of the list (which can happen only if a new election has been held), then old office bearers should also countersign the list- The purpose of Section 4 is that the correct list of governing body (Committee of Management) of a society should be maintained and it may not be disputed. Its proviso contemplates that in case old office bearers do not countersign the list then the Registrar may issue public notice inviting objections and decide the same. What is the purpose of such decision? What is the scope of his Jurisdiction?
13. The Jurisdiction of the Registrar under the proviso to Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act is to see if there is any dispute ; whether the dispute is a bona fide dispute or not ; whether it is a dispute for the sake of it. But. If there is a dispute, then his jurisdiction ends ; the matter has to be referred to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. He cannot in garb of deciding objections decide dispute within the jurisdiction of the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.
14. The prescribed authority can neither entertain a dispute by himself nor can he decide a dispute on reference by one member. He can only decide if it is referred by the Registrar, or by 1 /4th of the members (i.e., at least two members) of a society.
The Legislature thought that in case less than l/4th of the members of a society are raising a dispute, then it is not a bona fide dispute ; not worth investigating. In order to decide if there is a bona fide dispute, the Registrar may also decide :
(i) If the persons raising disputes are members of a society or not ;
(ii) or decide if a person presenting the papers is entitled to present the papers for renewal or not.' But he can do so only if he does not have to decide-
(i) a doubt, or a dispute about an election ; or
(ii) continuance of any office bearer.
In case he has to decide any doubt or dispute about election, or continuance of an office bearer, it becomes bona fide dispute and his jurisdiction ceases. He has to refer the matter to the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority has pre-emptive jurisdiction in this regard.
Secondly, the power of the Registrar to decide objections filed under the proviso to Section 4(1)~SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860~^ must be held to operate in a field not covered by Section 25 of the Act. Under the proviso to Section 4(1) the Registrar deals only such matters as may arise in the context of the submission of the annual list of the managing body. Further in the present case we are concerned here not with the election of the managing body but with the election of the office bearers of the society.....in any case insofar as the disputes relating to the election of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the same has to be decided only in the manner prescribed under Section 25 (1) on the principle that the 'special excludes the general'. This is the only way in which the proviso to Section 4 can be harmonised with Section 25.
2nd POINT : POWERS--THE BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI, THE REGISTRAR, AND THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY Powers of the BSA
15. There was no provision conferring any powers to any officer/authority, under the Acts relating to education institutions, to decide rival claims of a Committee of Management in any school or college though such disputes were often raised. This Court held that as a District Inspector of School (DIGS) and a Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) have to deal with the day-to-day functioning of educational institution, therefore, they could on administrative level decide which Committee of Management is entitled to manage them. The Legislature, in case of Intermediate Colleges, intervened and inserted Section 16A (7) in the U. P. Intermediate Education Act empowering the Regional Deputy Director of Education (now Joint Director of Education by a notification) to decide such disputes till decision of a competent court. But there is no such amendment for Basic and Primary Schools. BSA continues to recognise one or the other Committee of Management after complying with the principles of natural justice. BSA decides the matter at an administrative level ; his decision is subject to statutory determination of the dispute or by decision of a civil court.
Powers of the B.S.A. as Regards--The prescribed authority, and the Registrar
16. The prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act has been specifically entrusted with the powers to decide in a summary way about any doubt or dispute regarding an election. There is no such power with the BSA under any Act. BSA merely decides on administrative level, in the present case, there is no difference between the Committee of Management (governing body) of the RTS society and Committee of Management of the RTS school ; they are one. The office-bearers are one and the same. The decision of the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act-having statutory right to determine an election dispute-will override the decision of the BSA. The decision of a BSA permitting one or the other Committee of Management is till the prescribed authority under the Societies Registration Act decides the dispute. The BSA has to change and recognise other Committee of Management if the prescribed authority upholds the election of rival Committee of Management. He has to bow to the orders passed by the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Similarly, the Registrar also exercises statutory powers (jurisdiction) and the BSA has to alter its order suitably so as to accord to the order passed by the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act.
The Hindu College case
17. The counsels have cited a decision of a division bench in Committee of Management of Hindu Inter College v. DDE Agra, (the Hindu College case) to show that educational authorities are independent of the Registrar and the prescribed authority under the Societies Registration Act. They have pointed out following observations of this Court in the Hindu College case :
"The Societies Registration Act, on the other hand, deals, inter alia with the resolution of disputes with respect to the election of the office-bearers of a registered society. The power of the Registrar or the prescribed authority to determine disputes in respect of the election of the office bearers of the society, as distinct from the managing committee of the institution run by that society operates in an altogether different field from that with which the Regional Deputy Director is concerned. The two enactments, namely, the Intermediate Education Act and the Societies Registration Act to our mind, operate in different fields. There is no overlapping between the two. Even if there is, instant disputes pertaining to the management of a recognised institution or the co-operation of its Committee of Management are concerned, the Deputy Director of Education enjoys, in view of the scheme of the Act and the non-obstante clause used in Section 16A (1), and the clear provisions of Section 16A (7), exclusive powers save to the extent that the decision of the Deputy Director of Education under sub-section (7) shall operate only till a court of competent Jurisdiction directs otherwise."
Let's consider this if these observations are applicable to the facts of this case.
The Hindu College Case was a case of an Intermediate College--Does not apply to a Basic School
18. A society may run educational institutions at different levels namely primary. Basic, Intermediate, degree level. A society running an educational institutional has to conform to the Societies Registration Act as well as the Act dealing with that level of education. The Intermediate Education Act deals with Intermediate Institutions whereas U. P. Basic Education Act and U. P. State University Act deal with Basic and Degree level institutions. The provisions of these Acts are different resulting into different consequences. I have considered differences between an Intermediate College and a degree college in another case and have held that position of a Committee of Management of an Intermediate College is different than the position of a Committee of Management of a degree college. The position of a Committee of Management running a Basic School is similar to the position of a Committee of Management running a degree college ; same principles apply. Law in respect of Committee of Management an Intermediate College does not apply to a Committee of Management of a Basic School. In brief, reasons are as follows.
19. A society is governed by the Societies Registration Act. Its Committee of Management is elected and is governed by the Societies Registration Act and the Rules of that society : Whereas if that society is also running an intermediate college then it should have a separate scheme of administration for the Intermediate College. This scheme of administration has to conform to the Intermediate Education Act. A Committee of Management of an intermediate college is elected and is governed by the Intermediate Education Act and the scheme of administration of that college. Often there are two different bodies having different elections under different provisions of law. On the other hand this is not so in a society running a Basic School. In such a society there is one Committee of Management, which governs the society as well as the Basic School. There is only one election ; one office-bearers ; and election is governed by the rules of that society under the Societies Registration Act. In such a case, decision of the authorities under the Societies Registration Act will prevail over the education authorities :
(i) The Committee of Management of a Basic School and the society running it are the same ;
(ii) The elections of the Committee of Management are held under rules of that society and the Societies Registration Act.
(iii) The prescribed authority under the Society Registration Act has been specifically empowered to decide election disputes,
20. In the present case, there is no scheme of administration but only rules of the RTS society under which elections are held. There is only one Committee of Management, one office-bearers, and one set of elections for the Committee of Management for the RTS School and the RTS society. The Hindu College case was in respect of an Intermediate College under provisions for the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, which are different. It is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
3rd Point: PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY HAD JURISDICTION TO DECIDE
21. Sri Lallu Singh and Sri Satya Pal Singh claim to be elected in the elections held on 3rd December. 1998 and 6th December. 1998. Both of them claim that elections of other are fictitious. They raise doubts about the elections held by each other. This controversy was cognisable by the prescribed authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act and could not be decided by the AR under proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act.
Decisions holding AR had Jurisdiction-distinguishable
22. Sri Khare, counsel for Sri Lallu Singh has cited few decisions to show that the dispute was cognizable by the AR, and the AR had rightly held in favour of his client. These cases are distinguishable.
(i) This Court, in Committee of Management Naldeo Kaldeo v. Assistant Registrar, and Committee of Management Sarvoday Mandal Baranpur. Allahabad v. Assistant Registrar, held that there should be some dispute before a case can be referred to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act. If there was no dispute, then there is no occasion for the AR to refer it to the prescribed authority. Here, both sides have held elections on separate dates ; both sent their papers to the BSA and the Registrar. The BSA decided it one way on two occasions : first time it was set aside by this Court The AR decided it in favour of the other party. The officers of the State under different Acts have decided differently. To say that there is no dispute-would be an understatement.
(ii) In Shiksha Parishad, Ballia v. Deputy Registrar,2 the dispute was regarding one Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak. This Court held that the Registrar was competent to proceed with the renewal or registration of a society and the dispute regarding Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak was left to be decided by the prescribed authority. Here there is no dispute for registration for its renewal but for rival committees, which can be decided by the prescribed authority alone.
(iii) In K.K. Chaturvedi v. DIOS, renewal of certificate was obtained by committing fraud. The Registrar withdrew his order, which was obtained by fraud. It was challenged before this Court on the ground that there being dispute between the two rival parties, it ought to have been referred to the prescribed authority. The Court held that order of registration was obtained by committing fraud ; which vitiates everything. This is not the case here. Neither registration nor any order is alleged to have been obtained by fraud.
(iv) In Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. Assistant Registrar, the AR was concerned with renewal registration of a society under Section 3A of the Act and had not decided any election dispute.
None of the aforesaid cases are applicable to the facts of this case.
23. It is true that the AR, in respect of some of the members of the Committee of Management of Sri Satya Prakash Singh, has held that they are not members of the RTS society but this is not said for the office-bearers. The dispute is essentially a dispute between the two rival Committees of Management. The question for decision was, which of the two elections, held on 3.12.1998 and 6.12.1998, is valid one? it was a dispute regarding the election itself. The fact that a few are riot members of the society, does not take away the nature of controversy before the AR. The dispute is the doubt about the elections. It was the prescribed authority that could decide the dispute and not the AR, in view of this, the order passed by the AR dated 30th October, 1999 is illegal and is quashed. The AR should refer the dispute, within two weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order to the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority will decide the case at an early date and if possible within six months from receipt of reference from the AR.
4TH POINT : REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO SRI LALLU SINGH
24. The BSA had recognised Sri Satya Pal Singh as Manager on 20th January, 1999. This Court in the earlier writ petition set it aside on 24.2.1999 (the earlier order of the Court) and the case was sent back to the BSA to decide within fifteen days. The certified copy of this Judgment was filed before the BSA on 17th March. 1999. It is on this that the BSA fixed 23rd March, 1999 and then 30th March, 1999. On 30th March. 1999. Sri Lallu Singh submitted a letter authorising his Assistant Manager Sri Ravendra Singh to appear on his behalf. But on these two dates, the case was not heard, as the BSA was not present. A notice was given to Sri Lallu Singh on 31.3.1999 that the case will be taken up on 31st March. 1999. On that date Sri Lallu Singh did not appear but Sri Ravendra Singh his Assistant Manager appeared and was heard. Sri Khare, counsel for Sri Lallu Singh, submitted that the notice for appearance on 31.3.1999 was served on 31st March, 1999 itself with no documents and as such no reasonable opportunity was afforded to his clients on the following two grounds :
(i) firstly, Sri Lallu Singh was the Manager and he was not heard ;
(ii) secondly, no documents were made available to his client.
25. Sri Lallu Singh had earlier obtained an order from this Court directing the BSA to decide the case within 15 days from the date of filing of the certified copy of the order before him. This Court, in its earlier order, had not permitted relaxation in time. It is for this reason that the BSA fixed early dates. Sri Lallu Singh had authorised Sri Ravendra Singh Assistant Manager to appear on 30th March. 1999. On 23rd March. 1999 and 30th March, 1999. Sri Lallu Singh also filed representations. Sri Ravendra Singh appeared on 31st March. 1999 and did not file any representation to fix another date. This shows that he was fully prepared with the case on 31st March. 1999 and was representing Sri Lallu Singh. The impugned order of the BSA cannot be faulted on the first ground. Apart from it. Sri Ravendra Singh is the Assistant Manager in the Committee of Management of Sri Lallu Singh. He represented him as well as his Committee of Management.
26. In support of his second ground. Shri Khare, counsel for Sri Lallu Singh, pointed out paragraph Nos. 35 and 36 of the first writ petition to show that the documents filed by Sri Satya Pal Singh were neither made available to Sri Lallu Singh, nor was Sri Lallu Singh given any opportunity to rebut the same. According to him in view of this no reasonable opportunity was affordable to his client.
27. Sri Ravendra Singh was Assistant Manager in the Committee of Management of Sri Lallu Singh. He represented him before the BSA. All documents were placed before the BSA in his presence. He had knowledge about alt documents. If he wanted to object to any document, he should have objected then and there. Merely because copies of the documents were not given, but the BSA examined them in front of parties ; it is sufficient compliance of natural justice in view of the earlier order of this Court, which granted fifteen days time only to decide the case. There was urgency at the Instance of Sri Lallu Singh himself. The order of the BSA shows that Sri Ravendra Singh was heard and was present. There is no assertion in the writ petition that this statement by the BSA is incorrect. In these circumstances. It cannot be said that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to Sri Lallu Singh.
28. The order of the BSA dated 5th April. 1999 is merely an administrative decision and is subject to decision by a competent authority, namely, the prescribed authority. I have already directed that the election dispute be referred to the prescribed authority. He will decide, whether the elections of Sri Satya Pal Singh. or of Sri Lallu Singh are valid. The BSA had complied with the principles of natural justice. He will also abide by the order of the prescribed authority, a statutory authority investigating the claim of Sri Lallu Singh. At present Sri Satya Pal Singh is working as a Manager ; no interim orders were granted in the first writ petition. No useful purpose will be served in sending the matter to the BSA especially when Sri Lallu Singh has a remedy before the prescribed authority.
5th POINT : THE ORDER OF SINGLE OPERATION IS ILLEGAL
29. The BSA had passed the order for single operation on 23rd October, 1999 under the second proviso to Section 5 of the Payment of Salary Act. This was in pursuance of some letter of the JDE dated 22.4.1999. It is admitted that neither the copy of the letter of the JDE was supplied to Sri Satya Pal Singh, nor was he heard before passing of the impugned order. He was recognised by the BSA. It is admitted that no order for single operation of accounts can be passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the Committee of Management. The order of the BSA dated 23.10.1999 for single operation is illegal. It is quashed.
REMARKS : SECTION 25 OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, SECTION 16 A (7) OF THE INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, AND THE FIRST STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITIES
30. 1 had discussed the Hindu College case in paragraphs 17 to 20 of this Judgment and have distinguished it. The observations made in that case are confined to those cases where the Committee of Management (governing body) of a society is different than the Committee of Management of College, But apart from it, I wish to say few words.
31. It is only a registered society, which can run an educational institution. An unregistered society cannot run a recognised educational institution. One would not like to run an educational institution that is unrecognised such an educational institution would be worthless. Its students cannot get recognised degrees. It cannot get aid from the State. A Committee of Management of an educational institution is part of a society. If different authorities under different provisions (Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Section 16A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, and first statutes of different Universities) have independent powers regarding same controversy namely elections, then it is not in the best interest of administering Justice. This is not the way to serve Themis.
32. The question, 'whose decision will prevail, when elections to the governing body of a society and the Committee of Management of an educational Institution are the same ; is not involved in this case. But in a suitable case 'It may have to be decided whether the decision of the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act will prevail or that of the DDE under Section 16A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act or the Vice-Chancellor under similar provisions in the first statutes of different Universities. In such a situation the Hindu College case may not apply. Let's examine the provisions under which educational authorities have power to decide about elections.
Section 16A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act
33. Section 16A (7) Intermediate Education Act has been subject-matter of Interpretation in many cases. The Courts have taken a view that validity of elections may be seen indirectly or incidentally. Though the question that 'whether the elections are relevant or not' at present has been referred to a larger Bench.3 Section 16A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act permits the Regional Deputy Director of Education (now the JDE by a notification) to recognise a Committee of Management, which is in actual control of its (institution's) affairs'. The Explanation mentions that the JDE shall consider following factors while deciding the actual control of the affairs of an institution :
(i) control over the funds of the institution ;
(ii) control over the administration ;
(iii) control over the receipt of income from its properties ;
(iv) the approved Scheme of Administration ; (v) other relevant circumstances.
Section 16A (7) states five factors but does not mention election specifically. Still, should we or rather can we consider validity of elections?
34. Generally dispute arises Immediately at the end of term of Committee of Management when two disputing parties held separate elections. There is no indication as far as the first three factors are mentioned. In absence of these, the Courts have been leaning towards the Committee of Management whose elections were valid, reading such condition under the fourth and the fifth factors previously mentioned. It is for this reason that the Courts have been insisting that validity of elections can be seen incidentally or indirectly, rather than directly. The scales of Themis are slanted. They lean towards- what is legal and not that is illegal. Except for this provision, there is no specific provision for looking into validity of elections for Intermediate Colleges : though some times a scheme of administration may also contain the same. But in case of the Degree Colleges there is a specific provision.
First statutes of the Universities
35. The first statutes of every university under States University Act have been framed. They include a Chapter headed 'Affiliated Colleges'. It is normally Chapter XI or XII or XIII in the first Statutes of different Universities. Statutes 12.052 and 12.34 of that Chapter empowers a Vice-Chancellor to decide individual disputes, and disputes of rival Committees of Management. The Statute of a University is a subordinate legislation. It cannot be contrary to the Act under which it is framed or any other Act of a competent Legislature.
The State may remove the Anomaly
36. The prescribed authority under the Societies Registration Act is invested with the powers to decide election disputes whereas the JDE is not specifically so invested. Even if a scheme of administration contains specific provision, it is merely a scheme of administration for that college. A Vice-Chancellor may be so invested but that is only under a subordinate legislation. It cannot be contrary to the Act under which it is framed or any other Act of a competent Legislature. In a case where elections to a Committee of Management (governing body) of a society and Committee of Management are same or one is ex officio the other and elections of a society can be directly seen under Section 25 of the Act, then a difficulty may arise. Apart from it investing different authorities to look into validity of the same elections may not be proper : perhaps it was not intended. The State will do well to intervene and remove this anomaly.
This Court may harmonise
37. This point does not arise in this case. But in a suitable case.
(This Court) may. ask the question : if the makers of (these Acts) and themselves (came) across this ruck in the texture.....how would they straightened it out?....
(This Court) must do as they would have done.....(A Court if it cannot) alter the material of which the ....(Acts are) woven but can and should iron but (this) crease.
The Court may and should harmonise Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Section 16A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act. and the first Statutes of the Universities under the State Universities Act.
CONCLUSION
38. The dispute between the parties was which of the two elections, namely, one held on 3.12.1998 and the other held on 6.12.1998, is valid. This dispute was cognisable by the prescribed authority and the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide it. The order of the Assistant Registrar dated 30th October, 1999 is illegal and is quashed. The Assistant Registrar will, within two weeks from the date of service of certified copy of this order, refer the dispute to the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority will expeditiously, if possible within a period of six months, decide the dispute. The Writ Petition No. 50290 of 1999 (the third writ petition) is allowed.
39. The BSA grants approval to a Committee of Management as administrative measure. In the circumstances of the case, namely :
(a) the earlier order of this Court;
(b) the fact Sri Ravendra Singh, Assistant Manager was present on behalf of Sri Lallu Singh ;
reasonable opportunity was afforded to Sri Lallu Singh. The order of the BSA dated 5.4.1999 cannot be set aside on this ground. This order of the BSA is subject to decision of the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. If the need be, it may be suitably modified to conform with the order of the prescribed authority. The Writ Petition No. 20017 of 1999 (the first writ petition) is disposed off with the aforesaid observations.
40. The order of the BSA dated 23rd October, 1999 for single operation of accounts has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the Committee of Management. It is illegal and is quashed. The Writ Petition No. 50966 of 1999 (the second writ petition) is allowed :
1. Let a copy of this Judgment be kept on the record of
(i) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50966 of 1999, Committee of Management Raja Tej Singh Vidyalaya u. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Mainpuri and another.
(ii) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50290 of 1999, Satya Pal Singh Chauhan v. Assistant Registrar and others.
2. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the persons mentioned below to consider the difficulty pointed out in the heading 'Remarks : Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, Section 16A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act. and the First Statutes of the Universities' (paragraph Nos. 30 to 37). It will be useful to read it with the heading '2nd Point : Powers of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari as regards the Registrar, and the prescribed authority' (paragraph Nos. 15 to 20).
(i) The Chairman. State Law Commission. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
(ii) The Secretary (Legislation), Government of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow.
(iii) The Legal Remembrancer, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.