Allahabad High Court
Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth ... vs State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy ... on 17 January, 2022
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved on 30.07.2021 Delivered on 17.01.2022 A.F.R. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4156 of 2017 Petitioner :- Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Th.Secy Tej Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Institutional Finance Lko & Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Kartikey Dubey,Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Akhilesh Kalra,Alqa Samreen,Apoorva Tewari,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Faiz Ali Khan,Puneet Chandra,Shailendra Kr Singh,Siddharth Vikram Asthana,Surendra Lal,Virendra Pd Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner which is a Society through its Secretary Tej Pratap Singh and one Pawan Kumar Singh son of Babban Singh, the President of the Society with the State of UP through the Deputy Registrar Faizabad and the SDM Ambedkar Nagar as respondents nos. 1,2 & 3 receptively and Narendra Pratap Singh, Raj Bahadur Vishwakarma, Vikramaditya Goswami, Rajkaran Verma, and Narendra Pratap Narain Singh as respondents no. 4 to 8 respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh (hereinafter referred to as ''the Society') was registered on 19.11.1965 under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act at File No. 15328 and at the time of its registration the General Body of the Society had 15 members and the strength has now increased to 44. The Elections of the Committee of Management of the Society were held on 30.11.1965, 30.11.1967, 30.11.1969, 30.11.1971, 30.11.1973, 30.11.1975, 30.11.1977, and 30.11.1979.
2. On 11.10.1980 the registered by-laws of the Society were amended and the Amendment duly registered on 29.11.1980 in the office of the respondent n. 2 by which the term of the Committee was increased to 5 years and periodical elections were thereafter held on 30.11.1983, 4.4.1988, 30.4.1993, 1.4.1998, 1.4.2003, and 1.4.2008 and the next elections were due in the month of April 2013. It has also been submitted that after registration of the Society its renewal has been done from time to time and the last renewal was done for a period of five years with effect from 10.10. 2005.
3. On 31.02.1985 one Hira Singh along with five others made a complaint before the opposite party no.2 against the amendment in the by-laws and Renewal Certificate being issued to the office bearers of the petitioner-Society. The complaint of Hira Singh and five others was rejected by the opposite party nos. 2 on 05.07.1986 with liberty to the complainant to file a case under Section 25 (1) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for redressal of their grievance. Hira Singh along with others filed a case under Section 25 (1) of the Act on 23.10.1986 but it was dismissed for non prosecution on 09.05.1988. No application for recall of the order was made thereafter and the order became final.
4. The Society continued to function since 1980 under the amended by-laws. One Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh son of Hira Singh, who was a stranger to the Society made a frivolous complaint before the opposite party no. 2 on 19.12.2009 and notices were issued by the opposite party no. 2 to the petitioners. The petitioners replied and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint and about the locus of Dinesh Pratap Singh. Thereafter, Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh again made a complaint on 24.4.2010 raising a question about the affairs of the petitioners- Society. The petitioners again raised objections regarding locus of the complainant. Thereafter for the first time the opposite party number 4 to 8 and three other persons Late Surendra Bahadur Singh, Late Thakur Prasad Singh and Late Udaybhan Singh filed an affidavit on 16.05. 2010 that they were life members of the Society right from the time of its creation and that no meeting was held in the Society after its establishment and forged proceedings were submitted for Renewal Certificates and the Deputy Registrar should declare the Managing Committee of the Society time-barred and recognise the applicants as valid members. On 15.4.2011, the opposite party no.2 erroneously declared all elections of the Society after 29.11.1967 to have been held by a Committee of Management which was defunct and that such elections could not be recognised.
5. The petitioners being aggrieved filed a writ petition before this Court namely Writ Petition No. 2816 (MS) of 2011 challenging the order dated 15.04.2011. The writ petition was dismissed. The Court directed the opposite party no. 2 to hold fresh elections under his supervision by its order dated 09.01.2012. Several applications for modification and review of the order dated 09.01.2012 were made and the order modified by the learned Single Judge several times which complicated the matter and Special Appeal No. 265 of 2014 and Special Appeal No. 84 of 2015 were filed thereafter by the parties.
6. In purported compliance of the order passed by the writ court dated 09.01.2012, it has been argued that the opposite party no.2 erroneously declared a list of eight persons as life members of the General Body of the Society on 17.03.2012 and requested the opposite party no. 3 to hold the elections. The petitioners assailed the order dated 17.3.2012 in a fresh Writ Petition No.1804 (MS) of 2012. There was no interim order and fresh elections as directed by the order dated 17.3.2012 were held. The petitioner amended the Writ Petition No. 1804 (MS) of 2012 and challenged the result of the elections so held. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that subject matter of the writ petition was pending adjudication in Special Appeal No. 265 of 2014. Another Special Appeal was, therefore, filed as Special Appeal No. 81 of 2015 challenging the order of the Writ Court dated 24.02.2015. All three special appeals,namely, Special Appeal No. 265 of 2014 , Special Appeal No. 81 of 2015 and Special Appeal No. 84 of 2015 were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment and order dated 31.08.2016.
7. The Division Bench of the Court allowed the three Special Appeals and quashed the various orders passed in Writ Petition No. 2816 of 2011 and the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1804 (MS) of 2012 by the writ court. The Court also quashed the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the opposite party no.2 which was challenged in the writ petition as also the orders dated 17.03.2012 and 26.04.2012 passed by the opposite party no.2, and directed the opposite party no. 2 to decide the dispute afresh and in case he found that the tenure of the Committee had come to an end, to proceed and finalise the membership of the Society in accordance with the by-laws and hold the elections if necessary within a period of three months.
8. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the opposite party no.2 erroneously proceeded in the matter and reiterated the earlier order dated 15.04.2011 by holding that the Committee of Management had become defunct since 1967. Opposite party number 2 issued a tentative list of eight members on 28.12.2016 which list was the same as had already been set aside by the Division Bench of the Court, and invited objections to finalise the list for holding elections. Objections were filed that three members of the list had already died. The opposite party no.2 was requested to examine the tentative list again but he proceeded in the matter and again finalised the list of five members on 09.02.2017 and directed the SDM, Ambedkar Nagar to hold elections on 02.03.2017.
9. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the Writ Petition No. 4156 (M/S) of 2017 praying for quashing of the orders dated 28.12.2016 (the tentative list) and 09.02.2017 (the final list), and also praying for a direction to the opposite party no.2 to renew the Registration Certificate of the Society with effect from 10.10.2010 for an extended period on the basis of last undisputed election of office bearers of the Committee of Management held on 01.04.2008, and also to conduct further election of office bearers of the Society after finalising the list of members of the General Body on the basis of list used in the last election held on 01.04.2008. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the opposite parties not to disturb the working and functioning of the petitioner-Society with the petitioner no.2 and 3 as its Secretary and President respectively.
10. It has been argued before this Court that it was observed by the Division Bench in its judgement dated 30.08.2016 that the term of the elected Committee of Management had expired long ago therefore the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide an infructuous dispute. It has been argued by the petitioners that the Division Bench in its judgement and order dated 31.08.2016 had referred to several issues that needed to be framed by the Deputy Registrar and considered again.
11. The Division Bench recorded the arguments raised by the counsel appearing for Pawan Kumar Singh and Tej Pratap Singh, and the grounds for challenge to the orders passed by the Writ Court. The learned counsel for the appellants Pawan Kumar Singh had argued that (1) if fresh elections of the Society were to be held then they were to be held from amongst members of the General Body as existing on 1.4.2008. Putting the clock back to 1967 and reducing the membership to the members as existing on that date was a totally illegal exercise undertaken by the Deputy Registrar. The election even if they were not held within time could now be held only under the existing list of members of the General Body and not on the strength of electoral college of 1967; (2) By the time the Deputy Registrar had decided the dispute it had become infructuous; (3) the election and their status in 1967 could not have been the subject matter of consideration by the Deputy Registrar as the provisions of Section 25 (2) were incorporated in the Statute only with effect from 06.10.1975, any elections held prior to that date could not have been made subject matter of adjudication; (4) the Deputy Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction with regard to decision on disputed elections as that power had been specifically conferred upon the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act; (5) if earlier elections had been delayed it would not invalidate the same as no order was passed by the Deputy Registrar or any other authority declaring the Committee of Management defunct in the meantime. The Committee of Management continued to function in the absence of any order passed under Section 25 (2) and validly held elections initially after two years and then after an interval of five years regularly; (6) the Deputy Registrar could not have gone into the issue of membership of the General Body on the strength of observation with regard to amendment in the by-laws and Memorandum of Association. There was no power of the Registrar to review or cancel an amendment after its registration as the said power can be exercised only under Section 12 of the Act. The annulment could not have been made by the Deputy Registrar as the erstwhile Deputy Registrar had approved the amendment of the by-laws earlier; (7) Dinesh Pratap Singh had no locus to move the application on 9.12.2009 and 08.02.2010 for reopening the question of elections held in the past after it had been carried out. Hira Singh his father had moved a complaint on 03.12.1985 which could not have been taken up for adjudication after 16 years in 2011; (8) the Deputy Registrar did not frame any issue regarding validity of the elections and there was no opportunity given to Pawan Kumar Singh and others to substantiate their claims that regular elections were being held. The Deputy Registrar after holding the amendments in the by-laws to be invalid assumed that the Committee of Management had become defunct as it was holding elections on the basis of the amended by-laws after every five years; (9) if the Deputy Registrar had any doubt regarding the elections and the continuance of office bearers he should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority for a decision under Section 25(1).
12. Shri Anil Tiwari had appeared for the private respondents in special appeal filed by Tej Pratap Singh and Pawan Kumar Singh, and had argued on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 15.04.2011 that the Deputy Registrar had discovered serious irregularities, in the amendment of the by-laws in 1980 and in Memorandum of Association in 2001, and he had not found any evidence of any elections having been held after 1967,therefore, the only option left with him was to direct fresh elections to be held under under Section 25 (2) of the Act.
13. The Division Bench after recording the submissions made by the counsel for the contesting parties adverted to the orders passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.2816 (MS) of 2011 which had challenged the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011. The writ petition was initially dismissed on 09.01.2012 but thereafter serious dispute arose with regard to the date of last undisputed election and the order dated 09.01.2012 was modified and reviewed at least four times by the writ court. The Division Bench disapproved the orders passed by the learned Single Judge from time to time on the ground that the writ court did not advert at all to the merits of the Deputy Registrar''s order dated 15.04.2011. The Division Bench observed that the Deputy Registrar while passing the order dated 15.04.2011 framed only three issues for deciding the matter namely, (1) the status of amendment in the original by-laws of 1965, (2)whether the Principal of the Institution established by the Society can also be the founder member of the parent Society and (3) the status of members and membership. Regarding the original bye-laws as against the amended by-laws of the Society, the Division Bench observed that the Deputy Registrar while discussing the validity of the amendment and membership went on to observe that all elections after 29.11.1967 had become invalid , consequently , in the absence of valid elections after 1967, the committee had become defunct and,therefore, the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 25 were invoked. The Division Bench gave a finding that the date of 01.04.2008 recorded by the learned Single Judge in his order can nowhere be found in the entire order of the Deputy Registrar pertaining to the elections of the Society.
14. The appellant in the Special Appeal had mentioned the dates of periodical elections allegedly held on 30.11.1969, 30.11.1971, 30.11.1973, 30.11.1975, 30.11.1977, 13.11.1979, 30.11.1983, 04.04.1988, 03.04.1993, 01.04.1998, 01.04.2003. According to the contesting respondents all these dates were fake as no records/documents supporting the holding of any such elections could be found in the office of the Deputy Registrar. The Division Bench gave a finding that from the perusal of the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011 at least two elections were found to have been referred to in the correspondence. One that was intimated through registered letter of the Committee of Management dated 11.12.1985, and the other related to the list of office bearers and election proceedings dated 29.11.1981. However, the Division Bench observed that neither the Deputy Registrar nor the Writ Court had examined this issue to find out about the status of such elections, therefore there was no basis for the Writ Court to have arrived at the conclusion that no elections were held after 01.04.2008 or that they had been held periodically prior to that date. The Deputy Registrar in fact had not even framed an issue with regard to elections. The Division Bench set aside the orders passed by the Single Judge on 09.01.2012 and other orders modifying the original judgment. It also set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 15.04.2011 and allowed the Special Appeal Nos. 81 and 84 of 2015. It held that the order dated 15.04.2011 could not be sustained for the reason that it had not framed any issue pertaining to the holding of periodical elections. Secondly, the validity of such elections if held, the term thereof had expired long ago, could not have been gone into by the Deputy Registrar as otherwise it was within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority. Also the elections or status of Committee of Management prior to 16.10.1975 could not have been gone into as the provisions of Section 25 came into effect only after 1975 and therefore the proceedings of 1967 could not have been made the subject matter of the decision of the Deputy Registrar.
15. The Division Bench rejected the argument raised by Shri Anil Tiwari that issue of the validity of amendments and its consequences could be looked into if the entire exercise was fraudulently done, on the ground that the Deputy Registrar had not adverted at all to the issue as to whether he had the power to review earlier orders passed by his predecessor approving such amendment in the by-laws. It also observed that there was no finding as to whether the said amendments had been obtained by fraud so as to invoke the power of review. If the amendments were indeed invalid and the renewal granted on the basis thereof was also invalid then a person had a right to question the same by raising an appropriate challenge. Such a challenge was in fact raised by Shri Hira Singh and others in 1985, but was defeated. The Division Bench observed that it is beyond comprehension as to why such persons kept quiet for sixteen years and it was ultimately Dinesh Pratap Singh son of Hira Singh who moved two applications one in 2009 and one in 2010. The question of locus of Dinesh Pratap Singh was also therefore required to be examined. The Division Bench observed that if the Deputy Registrar was of the opinion that there was no document pertaining to the holding of any election after 1967, he should have framed such an issue calling upon the parties to submit the documents to establish as to whether valid periodical elections had been held or not and duly intimated to the authorities. The Deputy Registrar also did not take notice of the fact that he did not have the authority to enter into any factual dispute of Committee of Management when the tenure thereof had come to an end. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011 was therefore set aside and that Writ Petition No. 2816 (M/S) of 2011 was allowed. The Division Bench thereafter observed that the "Deputy Registrar should now proceed to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made hereinabove after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and after noticing their contentions and framing issues arising out of the dispute raised before him."
16. The Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge dated 09.01.2012. The Division Bench also set aside the writ Court's orders dated 17.01.2012, 20.09.2012, 04.12.2012 and 08.05.2014. Having set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011, consequential actions like the order dated 17.03.2012 finalising the list of 40 members was also set aside, as also the order dated 26.04.2012, recognizing the new Committee of Management. A further direction was issued to the Deputy Registrar that in case he finds that the tenure of the Committee of Management had come to an end, he should proceed to finalise the membership in accordance with law and then proceed to hold elections under Section 25(2), if necessary.
17. In response to the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed by the official respondent, the respondent no.2, and counter affidavits have also been filed by respondent nos.4, 5 and 6. The respondent no.4 is being represented by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi and respondent no.5 is being represented by Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apoorva Tiwari and Sri Prakhar Mishra. Respondent no. 6 is being represented by Sri Puneet Chandra.
18. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 the Deputy Registrar, it has been stated that no elections were held according to the earlier registered by-laws or even in accordance with the amended by-laws. After list of five members of the General Body was finalised by the respondent no.2, the elections of the Society were held on 08.03.2017 and Shri Raj Bahadur Vishwakarma was elected as President and Shri Narendra Pratap Singh was elected as Manager. The respondent no.2 further submitted that the Society did not furnish copies of election proceedings allegedly held on 30.09.1979 which date was later on changed to 30.11.1979. According to the amended by-laws the tenure of office bearers of the General Body was to be five years and that of the Committee of Management was to be two years. In case the ammended by-laws were accepted then after 1979, elections to the Committee of Management were to be held in 1984 but the petitioners were showing elections to be held in the year 1983. The respondent no.2 in his counter affidavit has also emphasised that after the judgement of this Court in the Special Appeals on 31.08.2016, office orders dated 15.04.2011 as well as 17.3.2012 were cancelled. With regard to the hearing before the Deputy Registrar, it has been specifically stated that notice was issued to the parties on 15.09.2016 and 07.11.2016 was fixed as the date of hearing. Later on, another notice was issued on 30.11.2016 after hearing the parties some of whom appeared in person while others through counsel the order was issued on 28.12.2016. Similarly, when the tentative membership list was published, objections of both the parties were considered and the list finalised only on 09.02.2017. Elections of the Society were held in pursuance of the order dated 09.02.2017 and no challenge has been raised in respect of such elections therefore the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.
19. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.4 it has been averred that the strength of the General Body at the time of initial registration of the Society was 27 and that of the Managing Committee elected on 30.11.1965 was 15. Such Managing Committee became time-barred after 29.11.1967, therefore, no member could have been added in the General Body by such Managing Committee nor could they have held any election. The elections that were held were forged and manipulated elections, only on paper. There was no observation of the Division Bench that undisputed elections were held on 01.04.2008. It has been submitted that the alleged election proceedings held on 30.09.1979 and 13.08.1981 were not produced in their original before the Deputy Registrar. Photo copies of election proceedings of the Society with effect from 1967 till 1979 were submitted by Tej Pratap Singh along with his application for the first time on 09.07.2010. It has also been stated that renewal of the Society was lastly made on 09.11.2005 and thereafter renewal certificate has been granted to the respondent nos.4 and 5 on 15.10.2015 which is operative till 2020. The grant of renewal certificate is only for the benefit of the Society and does not confer any rights on any of the members. Moreover, in the order passed by the Division Bench on 31.08.2016 there was a specific direction to the Deputy Registrar to grant renewal certificate in time. Therefore, the same has been granted. Dinesh Pratap Singh had died in 2014 before the judgement dated 31.08.2016. His locus to file any complaint therefore could not be seen after his death. Independent and separate complaints were filed by the respondent no.4 along with several other life members which could validly be looked into by the Deputy Registrar. The respondent no.4 has specifically stated that he had filed a separate written statement on 07.11.2016 and also submitted original documents on 11.11.2016 for perusal of the Deputy Registrar. It has further been submitted that the Division Bench had directed the Deputy Registrar to decide the dispute and at the time of deciding such dispute Section 25 had become operative and there was no prohibition, for the Deputy Registrar to act in accordance with Section 25 in the judgement and order dated 31.08.2016. The Deputy Registrar therefore rightly considered the issues raised before him with regard to whether any valid elections were held after 1967. The Division Bench in its judgement dated 31.08.2016 had made no observations with regard to the alleged amendment of the by-laws of the Society by the petitioners. The court had left it open to the Deputy Registrar by issuing him a direction to consider all aspects of the matter. The Deputy Registrar therefore framed four issues on 30.11.2016 and after considering papers produced both by the petitioners as well as the opposite parties, and the records maintained in his office, has come to the conclusion that earlier orders passed by the Deputy Registrar were passed on the basis of fabricated documents. The members who were signatories in the Memorandum of Association of the Society were not given any notice or information with regard to termination of their membership on failure to deposit subscription with Babban Singh, nor were they given any notice of the proposed amendment in the by-laws of the Society. The proceedings dated 11.10.1980 submitted before the Deputy Registrar showing that life members names were deleted and the names of other persons who had not been validly inducted by the General Body had been mentioned. The Deputy Registrar rightly came to the conclusion that since papers regarding General Body of the Society were submitted by Babban Singh and not by the alleged Committee of Management elected in the periodical elections proved that no elections were held in time. The application for renewal therefore was also not in accordance with Section 3A of the Act.
20. The respondent no.4 in paragraph 16 of his counter affidavit states that the name of Dinesh Pratap Singh is mentioned in the list of members of the Society that has been filed as an annexure 21 to the petition. Name of the respondent no.4 can be found at serial number 16 in the said list of life members and that of respondent no.5 Raj Bahadur Vishwakarma can be found at serial number 24 of the same list. The name of respondent no.6 Vikramaditya Goswami can be found at serial number 25, the name of respondent no.7 Raj Karan Verma can be found at serial number 22, the name of respondent no.8 Narendra Pratap Narain Singh can be found at serial number 27 of the list filed as annexure 21 to the writ petition. Out of 27 life members of the Society in 1965, 15 were elected on 30.11.1965 as the Committee of Management.
21. The respondent no.5 in his counter affidavit has repeated most of the contents of counter affidavit of respondent no.4 and has also raised the question of the amended by-laws being registered fraudulently in 1980 and also the issue of no elections being conducted according to the registered by-laws before the passing of the order dated 28.12.2016. In pursuance of the order dated 28.12.2016 and 09.02.2017, elections were held on 08.03.2017. It has also been submitted by the respondent no.5 that there were 21 members originally when the Society was constituted and the respondent nos. 4 to 8 are all life members. No Agenda was circulated amongst the members of the General Body by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest before the amendment was carried out and forged proceedings have been submitted by the petitioner no.3. No elections as have been mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, were ever held and no proceedings were submitted before the Deputy Registrar. The respondent nos. 4 to 8 had filed their separate applications challenging the right of the petitioners to hold elections. Such a complaint by life members was rightly looked into by the Deputy Registrar. He gave proper opportunity of hearing by issuing notices. The petitioners appeared and took time to file documents. They did not file documents in their original but only photo copies were submitted.
22. With regard to alleged amended by-laws, it has been submitted by the respondent no.5 that they were forged documents and earlier order dated 05.07.1986 had been passed by the Deputy Registrar on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation of the then Committee of Management, and therefore the current incumbent was authorised to look into the matter again by the Division Bench in Special Appeal. Since the earlier orders dated 15.04.2011, 26.04.2012 and 17.03.2012 had been set aside by the Division Bench, it was open for the Deputy Registrar to consider the matter afresh after framing issues as had been observed in the judgement and order dated 31.08.2016. The Division Bench did not express any opinion with regard to the date of last undisputed election. The order of the Writ Court which had referred to elections being held lastly on 01.04.2008 was also set aside by the Division Bench. It has also been reiterated that the elections held in pursuance of the order dated 9.2.2017 on 8.3.2017 have not been challenged by amending the writ petition. The petitioners were raising a dispute which died its natural death after fresh elections were held in pursuance of the order dated 09.02.2017.
23. In the counter affidavit of respondent no.5, it has also been stated that Sushila Devi wife of Babban Singh had submitted the papers for registration of amended by-laws through her letter dated 30.10.1980 without annexing a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the General Body allegedly held on 11.10.1980. Only a copy of the Resolution was submitted that the amended by-laws had been unanimously adopted by the General Body. However, the Resolution did not state what amendments were being proposed and adopted in the original by-laws. The amended by-laws were got fraudulently registered on 29.11.1980. The Deputy Registrar therefore in the impugned order dated 28.12.2016 has recorded a categorical finding of fact that no amendment to the by-laws was ever made by the General Body of the Society in the alleged meeting held on 11.10.1980. The Deputy Registrar has recorded a finding also that along with the letter dated 30.10.1980 a list containing 21 names, alleged to be members of the General Body of the Society who had attended the meeting on 11.10.1980, was filed but the said list did not contain the names of 13 out of 15 original signatories to the Memorandum of Association. The respondent no.5 has also pointed out in his counter affidavit that the Agenda for a meeting proposed to be held on 30.04.1972 is alleged to have been issued on 18.04.1972, under the signature of Babban Singh as Sansthapak/founder. In the said alleged meeting held on 30.04.1972, Resolution no.7 was passed resolving that deposit of subscription by the original members at the time of registration of the Society was mandatory and until the aforesaid members deposited the subscription they would not be sent intimation of future meetings. It was alleged that through letters dated 01.05.1972 and 16.08.1972, nine members had been directed to deposit their subscription with the Sansthapak Babban Singh, but they failed to deposit the same and another meeting was held on 10.09.1972 wherein through the Resolution no.6 it was resolved that membership of such nine original members be terminated as they had not deposited the subscription in spite of written intimation given to them through the two letters sent by Babban Singh. It has been pointed out that Babban Singh was declared to be the Sansthapak of the Society and given special rights through the amended by-laws allegedly adopted on 11.10.1980 hence Babban Singh could not have acted as Sansthapak of the Society in 1972 nor could he have convened the alleged meeting on 10.09.1972 nor could he have issued notices to the life members of the Society on 01.05.1972 and 16.08.1972 as Sansthapak.
24. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that Clause 2A of the original by-laws of Society defines ''Life Members' as those members who were associated with the Society prior to its registration, or those who deposited Rs.1001/- as subscription after its registration. The use of the word "OR" meant that either one had to be associated with the Society since its inception or who had deposited one thousand and one rupees as membership fees. Those signatories to the Memorandum of Association like the respondents herein would not be required to deposit subscription in violation of the original by-laws before such amended by-laws were actually adopted on 11.10.1980 and registered on 29.11.1980. The Deputy Registrar therefore has categorically held in the impugned order that the alleged termination of membership of founder members was in violation of the by-laws and was therefore unacceptable. The Deputy Registrar has also held that the amendment to the by-laws were registered by deliberately producing forged and fabricated list of members of the General Body wherein the names of 13 out of 15 original members were removed. Notice/Agenda for the alleged meeting held on 11.10.1980 was never circulated among the members of the General Body. When original members made complaint in respect of the alleged amendment and notice with regard to said complaint was issued by the office of the Deputy Registrar on 23.12.1985, the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest filed statements in the proceedings, contrary to the existing by-laws and false assertions was made with regard to the alleged amendment which was approved on 11.10.1980 by the General Body. Subsequently, also forged documents were filed for justifying the Resolution dated 11.10.1980. Such an amendment which was vitiated by fraud was nonest in the eyes of law.
25. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no.5 that in the reply submitted by Shri Pawan Kumar Singh to the notice issued by the Deputy Registrar he had stated that election in the year 1979 was held on 30.11.1979 but the records in the office of the Deputy Registrar submitted by Shri Jata Shankar Singh stated that the elections were held on 30.09.1979. The Deputy Registrar therefore held that no elections were held in 1979 and both proceedings were fabricated. As per Clause 22 of the alleged amended By-laws dated 29.11.1980, the office bearers of the General Body were to be elected for a period of five years however as per Clause 25, the term of Committee of Management elected in accordance with Clause 23 was to be two years only. The members of the Committee of Management elected under Clause 23 are also the office-bearers of the Society, and therefore they could be said to be the Governing Body of the Society under Section 16 of the Societies Registration Act. The Deputy Registrar in his order dated 28.12.2016 has also observed that all election proceedings from the year 1983 to 2008 which were filed along with the written statement of Pawan Singh dated 14.12.2016, were for the first time submitted on 09.07.2010 by Tej Pratap Singh and were never filed in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. The Deputy Registrar rightly came to the conclusion that in fact no elections were held and all the documents that were submitted were fabricated. Since no elections were held, there was no election dispute which could be referred to the Prescribed Authority. The Committee of Management was never elected and no list of office bearers was ever filed in time in his office.
26. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 that findings of fraud, forgery and attempted manipulation and fabrication of records indicated that the petitioners have attempted to grab the Society in an unscrupulous manner and any benefit acquired by fraud cannot be allowed to continue through orders of the Writ Court and every public authority is vested with the inherent jurisdiction to correct its record if it had been fraudulently manipulated. Moreover even in the writ petition there was no pleading to specifically controvert the findings of fact recorded by the Deputy Registrar in his order dated 28.12.2016. By the order dated 28.12.2016 the Deputy Registrar issued a tentative list of members of the General Body and asked for objections. The respondents as well as the petitioners filed their objections which were considered and Electoral College was finalised. The petitioners did not challenge the order dated 28.12.2016 in time and chose to participate in the election process by filing their objections in respect of tentative membership of the Society. Objections were decided by the order dated 09.02.2017. The petitioner having participated in finalising the Electoral College therefore participated in the election process and now were precluded from challenging the same. It has been reiterated that the petitioners filed only photo copies of their records despite Deputy Registrar's order to produce the original records.
27. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.5 wherein he has brought to the notice of the Court that Sri Babban Singh the father of the petitioner no.3 was the Principal of the Intermediate College established by the Society since 1965 and retired on 01.07.2009. As per the Original Bye-Laws of the Society, the records of the Society were to be kept in the custody of the Principal Babban Singh, who taking an advantage of this, manipulated the records and prepared forged proceedings with regard to elections and other meetings of the Society. Sri Babban Singh being Principal removed the original Proceedings Register and Agenda Register from the school office. He prepared the Agenda and Proceeding Register excluding the original founder members of the Society and inducting his near and close relatives as members of the General Body which included his sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, brothers-in-law, cousins, uncles, etc. Shri Babban Singh being Principal of the School could not attend any of the proceedings of the Committee of Management of the Society as there is a statutory bar under Rule 5 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. The petitioner no.3 Pawan Kumar Singh, son of Babban Singh alleged himself to be the President of the Society for the past several years in the list submitted before the Deputy Registrar. However, he did not disclose that he was an Assistant Teacher in Janta Inter College, Ambedkar Nagar which is a recognized aided college. The District Inspector of Schools Ambedkar Nagar in his reply dated 05.09.2014 to an application under Right to Information Act 2005 had disclosed this information. Sri Pawan Kumar Singh being an Assistant Teacher in a recognized and aided school, could not hold any office in the Committee of Management of any other recognized School in view of Rule 5 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act. The learned Counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon Committee of Management, Janta Shiksha Niketan Intermediate College Vs. Deputy Registrar Basti 1979 ALJ 314, (DB), where the Division Bench Considered the language of Regulation 5 which provided that no member of the teaching staff or the Principal or Headmaster shall act as an office bearer of the Committee of Management of any recognized institution, to argue that Regulation 5 of Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act places a complete embargo on the right of a person to be an office bearer of the Committee of Management, who is employed in a recognized institution irrespective of the fact whether it is the Committee of Management of the same institution or of some other institution. It has been argued that Babban Singh was the Principal of the same College And Pawan Kumar Singh was employed as an Assistant Teacher in another institution and simultaneously became Secretary of Khemraj Smarak Sanskrit Vidyapeeth.
28. A copy of the list of General Body members for the year 2014-15 submitted by the petitioner no.3 in the office of the Deputy Registrar has been filed along with the supplementary counter affidavit which shows that Babban Singh was the Principal of the College since 11.01.1965 till 01.07.2009. It shows the exact relationship of majority of members of the General Body with Principal Babban Singh.
29. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for respondent no.5 that the services of Pradeep Kumar Singh, Santosh Kumar Singh both sons of Babban Singh, Smt. Kundala Singh daughter of Babban Singh and Smt. Rekha Singh daughter-in-law of Baban Singh, were terminated in furtherance of directions issued by the Educational Authorities. An order of recovery of salary has been also issued by the District Inspector of Schools Ambedkar Nagar on 26.10.2017 against Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Smt. Kundla Singh, and Smt. Rekha Singh. The submission in the supplementary counter affidavit raised during the argument has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
30. The petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavits of respondent no.2, respondent no.4 and respondent no.5 have stated that the five persons shown in the list finalised on 09.02.2017 by the respondent no.2 were never members of the General Body and strangers to the Society. The locus of such members has never been addressed. The affairs of the Society were being managed by the petitioners for more than 45 years. Renewal certificates had been granted on the applications made by the Manager of the Society from time to time. The respondent no. 2 cannot now turn around and deny any election before the year 1980. The respondent no.2 cannot also deny the original records that were produced before him at the time of hearing by the petitioners for his perusal. The respondent no.2 did not initiate any proceedings under Section 25 (2) of the Act after 1975 which goes to show that he was recognising all elections that were held in between 1967 to 1980 by the Society. The elections conducted by the respondent no.2 on 18.03.2017 were against the provisions of Sections 1, 13A and 13B of the Act as no Society can be validly formed with only five members. The Division Bench in its order dated 31.08.2016 had also stated that prior to the coming into force of the amendment in the Act on 16.01.1975, the Deputy Registrar could not have exercised the powers under Section 25(2) to look into the status of the Committee of Management and the validity of elections if held and the term of such Committee of Management. Even after coming into force of Section 25(2), such jurisdiction lies with the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1).
31. Even if the papers submitted by the petitioners were suspected to be false and fabricated by the Deputy Registrar, he could only have submitted the dispute for decision of the Prescribed Authority. The order dated 28.12.2016 was without jurisdiction.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the death of Dinesh Pratap Singh in 2014, has submitted that the Division Bench had nevertheless observed that it was necessary for the Deputy Registrar to consider the locus of Dinesh Pratap Singh to file the complaint. The Deputy Registrar failed to consider the issues that were directed to be considered by the Court, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The Deputy Registrar was also required by the Division Bench to take into account the challenge raised to the validity of the amendments by Hira Singh under Section 25(1) of the Act and the subsequent rejection of such challenge by the Prescribed Authority in 1988.
33. The petitioners have denied Annexure 21 of the petition saying that it was a self attested list by Dinesh Pratap Singh. It was also stated that a minimum of seven members can constitute a valid Society. If the Deputy Registrar had found that there were only five valid surviving members, he had to issue notice of dissolution to such members, but in this case the Deputy Registrar ignored the statutory provisions and held elections on the basis of the list of five members finalised by him on 09.02.2017. Incidentally these five members also became office bearers of the Society in the elections held on 08.03.2017. It has also been submitted that petitioner Pawan Kumar Singh had submitted original records for perusal of the Deputy Registrar at the time of final hearing but he had not submitted these original documents in the office of the Deputy Registrar for his perusal. This argument has been made orally and it is not in the pleadings of the writ petition therefore the respondent no.2 had no occasion to deny or accept the same in his counter affidavit.
34. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Society was conceived by the family of Sri Khemraj Singh who was the great grand father of the Petitioner No.3, and was a very respected person in the village Khemapur which was named after him. The Society was established to perpetuate the memory of Late Khemraj Singh by his family and was registered with the Registrar of Societies on 19.11.1965. At the time of registration there were 15 members of the Society who were named in the Memorandum of Association of the year 1965 itself. The list of 15 members were as follows : - (i) Sati Prasad Singh, (ii) Jantri Singh, (iii) Hira Singh, (iv) Raghupati Singh, (v) Taluqdar Singh, (vi) Jayaram Verma, (vii) Devi Prasad Singh, (viii) Satyanarayan Singh, (ix) Vishwanath Verma, (x) Trilok Chandra Jaiswal, (xi) Bhawani Baksh Singh, (xii) Shiv Karan Singh, (xiii) Hashim Beg, (xiv) Bhagwati Prasad Shukla and (xv) Shamsher Bahadur Singh.
35. It has been submitted further that Hira Singh having been advised to file a petition under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act filed the same before the Prescribed Authority and in Paragraph-3 and 6 of his plaint, had categorically mentioned that there were 15 founder members at the time of registration of the Society on 23.11.1965, and the names were mentioned in Annexure-A to the plaint. The names of the Respondents Nos.4 to 8 were nowhere mentioned in the list filed by Shri Hira Singh, even though the respondents claim to have been made members by Sri Hira Singh himself on 01.11.1965.
36. This Court has however also noticed that Hira Singh had also mentioned that out of the 15 members mentioned in the Memorandum of Association at least 11 members were alive till 11.10.1980, and some of them were still alive at the time of filing the plaint however, no agenda was circulated to them of any meeting proposed to be held to amend the bye-laws. The amendment in the bye-laws having been carried out by Baban Singh only to monopolise all power in the Society in the hands of few of his family members.
37. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after filing of the complaint by Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh, son of Hira Singh, the petitioners had made an application under Right to Information Act to the Deputy Registrar asking whether the complainant is a member of the Society and also whether renewal of the petitioner Society had been done from time to time. In the reply sent by the Deputy Registrar on 29.07.2010 it was stated clearly that the complainant had not disclosed any document proving his membership of the Society. In the list of General Body Members of Socieity maintained in the office of the Deputy Registrar the names of the complainants could not be found. The reply dated 29.07.2010 has been filed as an Annexure 19 to the writ petition which has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit.
38. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contesting respondent had never participated in any meeting for 47 years with effect from 1965 to 2012. Only in 2010, they filed complaints to supplement the complaint made by Dinesh Pratap Singh and asserted themselves to be life members of the Society. The contesting respondents are complete strangers having no locus and they came in only to rake up an infructuous dispute.
39. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the elections held in 1979 have been admitted in the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and also in the counter affidavit in Paragraph 25 of the Opposite Party No.5. The Deputy Registrar has conveniently ignored elections held in 1979 only on account of difference in dates saying that Jata Shankar Singh had disclosed the date of elections to be 30.09.1979 and the petitioners claimed the elections to be held on 30.11.1979. Such observation could not have been made by the Deputy Registrar as it related to an election as has been held by this Court in Sarafa Committee, Panchayati Dharam Kanta, Mathura Versus State of U.P. and others, 2011 (2) ADJ 262. The Deputy Registrar could not have held that no elections were validly held after 1967.
40. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order has far exceeded his jurisdiction as he could not have decided the dispute regarding holding of elections and continuance of office bearers in view of the judgements of Division Bench of this Court in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Junior High School Sikandara, 2010 (7) ADJ 643. It has also been argued that the Deputy Registrar was in collusion with the contesting respondents and this fact is evident by the conduct of the Deputy Registrar who having found that there were less than seven members in the Society, did not take any action under Sub Clause (A) of Section 13 of the Act wherein the Deputy Registrar is duty-bound to issue notice for dissolution of the Society if any of the grounds as mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 13-B existed.
41. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon judgement rendered by the Supreme Court regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court in considering findings of fact recorded by the lower courts. Reference has been made to Chandigarh Administration versus Manpreet Singh 1992 (1) SCC 380, paragraph 21; State of Andhra Pradesh versus Chitra Venkata Rao 1975 (2) SCC 557, para-21; and Syed Yaqoob versus K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477, paragraph 7; to say that the High Court exercises a jurisdiction of supervisory nature. One of the main objectives of this jurisdiction is to keep the government and several other authorities and Tribunals within the bounds of their respective jurisdiction. The Supreme Court had observed that the Court must determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice were not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold enquiry has accepted, and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that it has arrived at, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
42. The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon Allahabad High school Society versus State of U.P. 2011 (3) ESC 2034, paragraph 20; to argue that the Deputy Registrar may examine the validity of the meetings relating to amendments of the Rules of the Society. This Court had relied upon Division Bench observations in Sanatan Dharma Sabha vs. Registrar AIR 1989 All 189, with regard to Section 4A of the Act. The Division Bench had observed that the Deputy Registrar could always examine as to whether the meeting for passing such a Resolution relating to Amendment in the Rules of the Society had or had not been validly convened in accordance with the existing Rules of the Society and the provisions of the Act. In paragraph 13 and 14 of the report the Division Bench had observed - "however the second question which arises in the present case and which has been raised on behalf of the respondent is that the aforesaid Resolution dated 21.04.1985, was not passed at all and the said meeting was not validly called and further even if it is held it was called and a meeting was held the Resolution amending the by-laws was only passed after the meeting was adjourned and thus there is no question of amendment of the by-laws in fact and on this ground the election held by the petitioner on 23.08.1987, on the basis of said amendment in the by-laws could not be said to be valid. - - - but no adjudication was made - - after careful consideration we are of the opinion that this question requires consideration by the authority concerned. Since this was a question specifically raised even before by the respondent No.4 and if a conclusion is drawn on the basis of record that there was no such Resolution passed, that there was no such meeting held, or if it was illegal, then there would be no question of any Amendment of the bye laws. Since this is pure question of fact it would not be right for this Court exercising Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to adjudicate the same. We therefore, direct the respondent to decide afresh the latter question, after giving opportunity to the parties on the basis of relevant records of the case. - - - "
43. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has argued that the Division Bench in Allahabad High School Society (supra) observed that even if there was no requirement of registration of the Amendment in the Rules under Section 4A of the Act, the effect of such registration had to be considered as binding. The Deputy Registrar would not have any power to adjudicate on the merits of the Amendment. The only power vested in the Deputy Registrar under Section 4 A the Act was to determine the fact as to whether a meeting of the Society had been validly held in accordance with the provision of the Act and the Rules of the Society. The only scope of this aspect would be to make a factual verification as to whether the meeting was validly convened, due notice was given, quorum was complete, and it was passed by the required majority. Beyond that, the Assistant Registrar would not go into the question of the merits of the amendments and adjudicate upon the same while exercising powers vested under Section 4A of the Act.
44. With regard to the Deputy Registrar's power under Section 25 (2) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two Division Bench judgements rendered in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Junior High School Sikandra Kanpur 2010 (7) ADJ page 643, and the judgement rendered in Anjuman Khairul Almin Allahganj v State of U.P. 2014 (1) ADJ 44; where the observations of the Division Bench in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti (supra) as also the observations of the Division Bench in Adarsh Krishak Junior High School 2009 5 ESC 3506 were considered and the Division Bench observed that the Deputy Registrar should have referred the objection to an election or continuance of office bearers as a dispute under Section 25 (1) to the Prescribed Authority. In Adarsh Krishak kr Junior High School (supra), no doubt the Division Bench had observed that the office of the Deputy Registrar is not a post office for referring any and every dispute, nevertheless the Division Bench held that since more than three years had passed after holding of an election, there was no reason to entertain a petition at a belated stage. When an application for taking on record the names of office bearers was filed and an objection to the validity of the elected office bearers was placed before the Deputy Registrar, he 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 Deputy Registrar had clearly transgressed his jurisdiction.
45. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon judgment rendered by this Court in Darul Uloom Ahle Sunnat Gulshan Taiyyaba Banthewa Versus Deputy Registrar 2016 (11) ADJ 844, paragraphs 20 to 22 to argue that Section 25 (1) of the Act provides a statutory remedy wherever there is a dispute regarding elections and the continuance of office bearers. The Proviso and the Explanations available therein will be put to service by the Prescribed Authority while deciding the question regarding doubt or dispute in relation to elections, however such Proviso would not be applicable in respect of a dispute or doubt raised in respect of continuance in office bearers of the Society. For resolving a dispute or doubt in respect of continuance of office bearers recourse may be had to weighing of evidence led by the parties form against the continuance of such office bearers. The Deputy Registrar himself should not decide such a dispute. He ought to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority who would, after leading of evidence by either parties and by weighing such evidence, decide the dispute.
46. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon judgement rendered in Sarafa Committee, Panchayati Dharam Kanta Mathura vs. State of U.P. and others 2011 (2) ADJ 262, paragraphs 8 to 11 to say that even if the Deputy Registrar was directed by the Division Bench to consider the questions regarding which observations had been made in the judgement dated 31.08.2016, it would not mean that he could act against the provisions of law. The Deputy Registrar should have proceeded to hear the objections of the nature raised by the parties to the dispute, and was required to satisfy himself on the issues, and then should have determined as to whether he could proceed to decide the same. The Deputy Registrar in this case annulled the membership of several persons on account of non-production of certain documents leading to suspicion being raised regarding their authenticity. The Deputy Registrar proceeded to hold the elections to be invalid, which jurisdiction he did not possess, in view of the law laid down by this court in various decisions like Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti (supra). The matter could have been decided only upon a reference under Sub Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act. Once the elections had been held, if any doubt or dispute had been raised, then the said dispute should have been decided by the Prescribed Authority and could not have been scrutinized by the Deputy Registrar.
47. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds it appropriate first to refer to the Memorandum of Association and Bye-Laws of the Society. This Court finds that annexure-4 to the writ petition is the original handwritten Certificate of Registration issued by the Registrar of Societies. The Bye-Laws, Memorandum of Association are dated 19/23.11.1965. The Memorandum of Association says that the Committee of Management consists of the following Members whose signature were appended to it. It mentions the names, addresses and occupations of 15 members. It mentioned (i) Sati Prasad Singh as Adyaksha, (ii) Jantri Singh as Upadhyaksh, (iii) Hira Singh as Prabandhak, (iv) Raghupati Singh as Mantri and (v) Taluqdar Singh as Up-Mantri. The names of other members being (vi) Jai Ram Verma, (vii) Devi Prasad Singh, (viii) Satyanarayan Singh, (ix) Vishwanath Verma, (x) Trilok Chand Jaiswal, (xi) Bhawani Baksh Singh, (xii) Shiv Karan Singh, (xiii) Hashim Beg, (xiv) Bhagwati Prasad Shukla, and (xv) Shamsher Bahadur Singh. The signatures of all the 15 members were attested by the Block Development Officer on 01.11.1965.
48. Clause 2A of the bye-laws refers to life members as either those members who had associated themselves with the Society before its registration or who had deposited Rs.1001/- as subscription to the Society. Ordinary members were those who would deposit a subscription of Rs.101/- every third year with the Society.
Clause 4 of the Bye-Laws defines General Body as consisting of all members and Committee of Management as consisting of elected members who would look after the administration of the Society, it also talks of patron members being inducted, as those persons who were of extraordinary talent and had risen to high ranking office and one Auditor was also to be appointed by the General Body who would look after the accounts and submit a report to the Committee of Management.
49. Under Clause-7, the Committee of Management and it's Office bearers were to be elected by the General Body. Under Clause-8, the General Body had to meet at least once every year in the first week of April and it was to be convened by the Adhyaksh by notifying a definite place and time, or at any time on the request of at least seven members. The Annual meeting held in April would be called a General Meeting whereas any other meeting called on the request of seven members, was to be referred to as a Special Meeting. Under clause 11, five days Notice had to be given mentioning the date and place as also the time of holding the General meeting. If any member was left out from being communicated such date, the proceedings of such meeting would become invalid.
Under clause 12, three days prior notice was to be given for holding a special meeting. Under clauses 14 and 15 , it was specifically provided that in the absence of quorum the proceedings of the General Meeting would be considered invalid and the Quorum was defined as one third of the General Body members, the quorum for a special meeting was to be one fourth of the General Body members.In the absence of Quorum the Meeting was to be postponed to a later date duly notified to all the members. Under clause 13, were listed those matters which were to be considered by the General Body which included the election of Committee of Management, the election of office bearers of the Committee of Management and of "patrons", the consideration of the budget, the appointment of an Auditor and consideration of his report, Consideration of the report of the Committee of Management of the activities of the Society undertaken the past one year, to decide the policy of the Society and to consider any other important matter which is brought to its notice with the permission of the President who was to chair the meeting; the Vice President was to chair the meeting in the absence of the President; It was further provided that if a meeting is postponed for more than 10 days for any reason then the manner of communicating the date, place and time of the meeting was to be the same as given earlier for holding a general meeting.
Under clause 22-A it was provided that no person would remain an office bearer for more than two consecutive terms i.e. for more than four years, unless there was a consensus amongst all members for his continuance. The office bearers have been mentioned as Adyaksha, Upadhyaksh, Prabandhak, Mantri and Up-Mantri.
50. Clause 23 further provides that the Committee of Management shall not exceed 15 which shall include the office bearers also. Under clause 24 power was given to the General Body of the Society to either increase or decrease the members of the Committee of Management in its Annual General Meeting. Under clause 25 the tenure of the Committee of Management was given as two years, the Committee of Management was to meet at least three times a year or even more.
Under clause 36 the Mantri or Secretary had to keep all documents with him and the Proceedings Register was to be written by him on which signatures of all the office bearers were to be taken. A Register of Membership of the General Body was also to be maintained clearly mentioning the names, address and occupation of the members, and any other document of importance which the General Body asked the Mantri to keep in his custody.
Under Clause 39, the Manager of the Society would also be the Manager of the Institution, Khemraj Raj Smarak Vidhya Peeth, and was to look after the affairs of the institution in compliance of the Education Code and the Intermediate Education Act.
Under clause 44 all the papers relating to the Sangh/ Society would remain in the custody of the Principal and under the control of the Manager and would remain open for inspection for any member of the Society after approval of the President.
Under Clause 45, the society's bye-laws could be amended from time to time. However, the Procedure to make such amendments was not given in the bye-laws.
51. This Court has also perused the order dated 28.12.2016 impugned in this writ petition. It is apparent from the same that the Deputy Registrar has first considered the facts relating to the registration of the Society in 1965 and the list of office bearers at the time of its initial registration. Sati Prasad Singh was the President and Hira Singh was the Manager. Deputy Registrar has observed that total membership including office bearers of the Society was 21. After the amendment in the statute in 1975 the first renewal of the Society was done on the basis of an application dated 4.10.1979 sent by Jata Shankar Singh as the Manager of the Society with effect from 10.10.1977 initially for a period of two years, thereafter Jata Shankar Singh kept on sending applications for renewal and each time renewal was done for a period of two years. Later on, Smt. Sushila Devi showing herself to be the Mantri of the Society sent an application on 30.10.1980 bringing to the notice of the Deputy Registrar the proceedings relating to amendment in the bye-laws in the meeting held on 11.10.1980. The amended bye-laws were registered. The Society came to be renewed every two years till a second amendment in the Statute was notified in 1984 and thereafter renewal certificate had been granted for five years at a time. The last such renewal certificate was with effect from 10.10.2015. The Petitioner No.3 acting as President filed an application on 14.06.2001 communicating that the Memorandum of Association of the Society had also been amended. Such amendment was registered on 12.07.2001.
52. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar in his order has referred to the complaint made by Hira Singh, the plaint filed before the Prescribed Authority being rejected in 1986, and Amarnath Singh and Dinesh Pratap Singh sons of Hira Singh filing complaints in 2009. Later complaints were made by several others in 2010 claiming to be life members, and the order passed thereon being challenged in writ petitions, and orders passed by learned Single Judge being challenged in Appeal before the Division Bench.
53. The Deputy Registrar has thereafter referred to proceedings taken after judgment and order dated 31.08.2016. In the order dated 31.08.2016, the Division Bench directed the Deputy Registrar to decide the matter afresh. In compliance of this judgement the office of the Deputy Registrar initially issued a notice on 15.09.2016 fixing date for appearance of the parties and for producing evidence on 7.11.2016. Sri Narendra Pratap Narain Singh submitted the Proceedings Register Starting from 26.04.2012 onwards, and Agenda item Register starting from 21.04.2012 onwards, a Membership Register verified by Hira Singh describing the Names, Addresses and occupations of the members with effect from 1965-66, a cashbook verified by Hira Singh with effect from 1.11.1965 till March 1980, one cashbook verified by Narendra Pratap Narain Singh with effect from 1.09.2012, and two Membership Fee Registers, starting from Sl.nos.1 to 50 and the other starting from Sl.Nos. 51 to 77 with effect from 23.09.2012 up to 8.04.2015. Pawan Kumar Singh took time but did not file any documents in their original. A Letter dated 30.11.2016 was issued framing specific issues and fixing date for hearing as 14.12.2016.
54. Pawan Kumar Singh submitted six replies dated 08.09.2016, 27.09.16, 13.10.2016, 18.10.2016, 7.11.2016 and lastly on 14.12.2016. All of these replies have been described in detail. Only photo copies of election proceedings dated 30.11.1965, taking place every two years till 1979 and thereafter from 30.11.1983 every five years up to 21.04.2015 were submitted. The General Body Membership list of 1979-80, Agenda notice dated 11.10.1980, minutes of the meeting dated 11.10.1980, office order dated 29.11.1986 recognising the bye-laws, office order dated 05.7.1986 rejecting the complaint made by Hira Singh and the Prescribed Authority's order dated 9.5.1988 , were all filed along with a copy of the plaint filed by Heera Singh before the Prescribed Authority. In the reply submitted by Shri Pawan Kumar Singh along with Tej Pratap Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh, they had contended that the Society was running an Intermediate College and there was no dispute for the past 45 years. Only because of political interference of The then MLA, a sham dispute was raised which resulted in the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 15.04.2011 declaring the Committee of Management to have become time barred from 29.11.1967.
55. Sri Pawan Kumar Singh had repeatedly emphasised in his reply that after setting aside of the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011, 17.03.2012 and elections held in pursuance thereof on 26.04.2012, and the writ petition being allowed by the Division Bench, the Committee of Management elected on 01.04.2008 was entitled to continue till 01.4.2013. On 1.4.2013 Pawan Kumar Singh and other office bearers were again elected and the proceedings of the election and the names of members of the Committee of Management were submitted in the office of the Deputy Registrar which deserved to be recognised. The Committee of Management elected on 01.04.2013 was entitled to continue till 01.04.2018. Request was made for issuance of renewal Certificate on the application dated 05.10.2015 made by the office bearers of the newly elected Committee of Management.
56. In the replies submitted by Narendra Pratap Narain Singh dated 27.09.2016 and 7.11.2016 Narendra Pratap Narain Singh referred to the observations made by the Division Bench directing the Deputy Registrar to frame issues and to decide the whole controversy afresh. Hence, it was open for the Deputy Registrar to consider the validity of the elections held after 1967, the validity of the amendment in the bye-laws and the Memorandum of Association, the membership of the General Body, and the issue of the Committee of Management becoming defunct on failure to hold elections in time as per the provisions of the bye-laws, and to pass appropriate orders thereafter under Section 25 (2) of the Act. It was contended that the founder members of the Society were not given any notice of any meeting proposed to be held on 11.10.1980. Smt. Sushila Devi wife of Babban Singh the then Principal of the Inter College acting as Mantri of the Society had corresponded with the office of the Deputy Registrar showing her residential address only. As a result, all correspondence with the office of the Deputy Registrar remained out of the knowledge of the members of the Society. In the garb of the amendment made in the bye-laws the then Principal of the college Baban Singh had been successful in monopolising all power by inducting his own family members and other blood relatives. At least six surviving life members with the help of Hira Singh has filed a complaint that the proceedings relating to elections, alleged amendment in the bye-laws, their registration and induction of new members on the basis of the amended bye-laws and Memorandum of Association were held to be behind the back of the original 27 life members of the Society. The complaint was rejected without any opportunity of personal hearing given to Hira Singh and other complainants. A recall application was filed which was pending disposal in the office of the Deputy Registrar. No notice of any elections was ever given to the life members of the Society.
57. Narendra Pratap Narain Singh had also stated that there was no notice given of intention to remove the life members from the General Body on the basis of amended bye laws which required deposit of Rs.1001/- as membership fee even by those persons who had initially associated themselves with the Society before its registration. The amended bye-laws were got registered through fraud similarly, the registration was also got renewed from time to time on the basis of fraud. It was alleged that no elections had taken place after 1965. It was contended that the letters dated 1972 onwards produced in the office of the Deputy Registrar allegedly referring to meetings of the Committee of Management of the Society resolving to remove all members who failed to deposit their subscription of Rs.1001/- despite repeated letters being issued to them by the Sansthapak were all forged.
58. It was contended that the post of Sansthapak was introduced for the first time in the amended bye laws in 1980 and therefore the alleged letters signed by Babban Singh the Principal of the Inter College referring to himself as Sansthapak showed the malafides of Baban Singh and others to somehow take control of the Society. It was also alleged that Baban Singh had never been inducted as member of the General Body of the Society as according to the Regulations attached to the Intermediate Education Act the Principal of the college being run by the Society could not become a member of the Society.
All the 27 members' list that had been submitted by Narendra Pratap Narain Singh had been attested by Hira Singh who was the then Manager. Original Receipt Book was also produced by Narendra Pratap Narain Singh and others to show the timely deposit of Subscriptions by them.
59. After recording in detail all submissions made by Pawan Kumar Singh and Narendra Pratap Narain Singh in the various replies made to the office of the Deputy Registrar, the Deputy Registrar proceeded to record his findings on the basis of documents in the office record. He referred to elections being held on 30.09.1979 being communicated by Jata Shankar Singh, the Manager, to the office of the Deputy Registrar, and also referred to the fact that as per the amended bye-laws the next elections were due in 1981. No elections were held in 1981. The amendment in the statute came in 1975 with the addition of Section 25 (2) in the Act. The Deputy Registrar could have gone into the validity of the alleged elections held on 30.09.1979 as communicated by Jata Shankar Singh the then Manager, and the elections set up on 30.11.1979 by Baban Singh communicated to the office of the Deputy Registrar as Sansthapak. A fraudulent amendment was carried out in 1980 increasing the tenure of the office bearers of the Committee of Management to 5 years. The Deputy Registrar after examining the documents submitted in his office on 9.7.2010 by Tej Pratap Singh and later by Pawan Kumar Singh came to the conclusion that all the election proceedings communicated with effect from 1981 onwards were on the basis of the Scheme of Administration of the Inter-College and were for the Committee of Management of the College and not for the Society.
60. The Deputy Registrar with respect to Issue No.1 framed by him as to (a) "whether periodical elections were held on time in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and the papers submitted in time to the office after coming into force of the amendment in the Act in 1975?" came to the conclusion that original documents were not submitted by Pawan Kumar Singh. He had only stated that elections were held initially after every two years and thereafter on amendment of the bye-laws, after every five years. Proceedings of the said elections were submitted in photo copies in the office of the Deputy Registrar. In the reply dated 14.12.2016 by Pawan Kumar Singh it was never stated by him as to whether and when these proceedings were forwarded to the office of the Deputy Registrar. The records maintained in the office of the Deputy Registrar showed that before the amendment in the bye-laws was registered, there was a letter sent by Jata Shankar Singh Mantri indicating that elections were held on 30.09.1979. However, in the reply submitted by Pawan Kumar Singh it was alleged that elections were held on 30.11.1979.
61. After looking into the reply submitted by Pawan Kumar Singh on 14.12.2016 and also the letter of Tej Pratap Singh dated 9.07.2010 and comparing the same with the papers submitted by Shri Jata Shankar Singh of election having been held on 30.09.1979, the Deputy Registrar expressed his doubt as to which of the two dates - the one mentioned by Jata Shankar Singh or by the petitioners could be said to be correct? He compared the names of office bearers of the Society said to have been elected in these elections and came to the conclusion that there were different names altogether and therefore the assertion that elections had in fact taken place in 1979 itself became doubtful. The Deputy Registrar therefore held that no elections were held in between 1965 and 1980, and the papers that was submitted by Tej Pratap Singh initially in 2010, and later on by Pawan Kumar Singh in 2016, being only photo copies could not be believed.
62. It was also observed by the Deputy Registrar that as per the amended bye laws dated 29.11.1980, Clauses 22, 23, 24 and 25, relating to the tenure of office bearers of the Society and of the Committee of Management, it could be safely assumed that the office of bearers of the Society were the President, the Vice President, the Treasurer, Secretary and Deputy Secretary. The Committee of Management said to be elected by Pawan Kumar Singh had such office bearers as President, Vice president, Manager, Deputy Manager, Treasurer, and the Principal as well as two Assistant Teachers as ex-officio members. As per the Bye-Laws, the Committee of Management was to consist of 15 members and it tenure was two years. On the other hand, the tenure of office bearers of the General Body was to be five years. As per Section 16 of the Societies Registration Act, the Governing Body of the Society was to be elected every five years and would be different from the Committee of Management of the Inter-College which was to be elected after every two years. The Deputy Registrar also considered the fact that Sushila Devi acting as Mantri (Secretary) of the Society had submitted two applications dated 03.10.2000 and 05.10.2005, annexing there with election proceedings dated 01.04.1998 and 01.04.2003. The members of the Committee of Management said to be elected in the said election proceedings were different from the members of the Committee of Management allegedly elected in the proceedings the photo copies of which was submitted by Tej Pratap Singh and Pawan Kumar Singh.
63. It was also found that after the elections held in 1979 the bye-laws of the Society were amended in October 1980. The Committee of Management elected in November 1979 should have conducted the election in November 1981. As per settled law, the very same Committee of Management which had got the bye-laws amended and extended its tenure, could not get the benefit of the extension of term. In this case however instead of holding elections in November 1981, the said elections were held in November 1983 and thereafter in November 1988, in 1993, in 2003, in 2008 and in 2013. However the Committee of Management should have been elected as per the amendment of the Bye-Laws on 30.11.1981, thereafter in November 1986, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016. The Deputy Registrar observed that it was apparent that elections allegedly held by the Committee of Management presided by the petitioners were not held in time. Also, it was undisputed that all election proceedings right from 1980 to 2008 was submitted all at once in photo copies by Tej Pratap Singh through his letter dated 09.07.2010.
64. In response to issue number 2, regarding "whether any amendment was carried out validly in the bye-laws and in the Memorandum of Association by the first Manager Babban Singh and his Committee of Management?", the Deputy Registrar in his order dated 28.12.2016 says that Pawan Kumar Singh in his letter dated 29.09.2016 had stated that he would produce all documents in the original but wanted them to be verified and returned the same day by the office. The Deputy Registrar considered the arguments that at least 18 out of 21 members had participated in the General Body meeting held on 11.10.1980 to amend the bye-laws and also that the such amendment in the bye-laws had been accepted by the then Deputy Registrar by his order dated 29.11.1980 thereby extending the tenure of the Committee of Management from 2 years to 5 years. The Deputy Registrar observed that if the amendment to the bye-laws is to be accepted as having been carried out in October 1980, providing that even life members had to deposit Rs.1001/- as Membership fee, there was no occasion to remove life members on the failure to do so before such amendment was actually carried out.
65. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh in his six replies to the notices issued by the Deputy Registrar did not file any documentary evidence to show that Agenda Notice was circulated and all persons informed of the meeting that was supposed to be held on 11.10.1980 for amendment in the bye-laws. Pawan Kumar Singh in his letter dated 29.09.2016 had stated that he was submitting the original copies of the proceedings relating to the amendment in the bye-laws and that he wished that all such papers be looked into and verified and returned the very same day, which request was quite unreasonable, and therefore not accepted by the Deputy Registrar. In the office records, the letter of Smt. Sushila Devi dated 30.10.1980 was found wherein she had informed that the General Body of the Society in its meeting dated 11.10.1980 had amended the bye-laws. She along with the said letter had enclosed a copy of list of the office bearers of the Society, as also the office bearers of the School. In response to the letter dated 30.10.1980 sent by Smt. Sushila Devi, the office of the Deputy Registrar had recognised such amendments by its order dated 29.11.1980. Referring to clause 45 of the bye-laws of the Society, the Deputy Registrar discussed the papers that were available in his office as submitted by Smt. Sushila Devi, and found that Agenda items to be discussed in the meeting related to a proposal by Jata Shankar Singh, the Manager, to amend the bye-laws and get them approved by the Registrar of Societies. There is also reference of letter sent by the Deputy Director of Education, Ninth Region, Faizabad, dated 19.10.1973, annexing therewith the approved Scheme of Administration of the Inter-College, and it was decided that instead of the earlier registered bye-laws the "following" amended bye-laws be informed to the Deputy Registrar which would be effective henceforth. Right after such mention in agenda Item No.2, the signatures of Smt. Sushila Devi Mantri, and Guru Baksh Singh President of the Society, have been appended. There was no mention of any resolution which actually described the amendments that were carried out in the Bye-laws. Although the resolution adopted said it was making the "following" amendments.
66. The Deputy Registrar referred to the resolution and says that although there is a mention that in place of the earlier registered bye-laws the "following" bye-laws would be adopted, but the actual resolution amending the bye-laws and the language of the amended bye-laws had not been discussed anywhere. The Deputy Registrar came to the conclusion that in fact there was no Resolution enumerating in the proposed amendment, and therefore it could not be said that such amendment was validly adopted in the meeting held on 11.10.1980. On the basis of correspondence undertaken by Smt. Sushila Devi with the then Deputy Registrar the approval order dated 29.11.1980 was issued which could not have been issued, but for the misrepresentation and fraudulent assertion made in the correspondence undertaken by Smt. Sushila Devi. In the letter sent by Smt. Sushila Devi dated 30.10.1980 there was a mention of the Approved Scheme of Administration of the Inter-College dated 19.10.1973 and the need for making corresponding amendments in the bye-laws but actually what amendments were made in the bye-laws was never disclosed in the letter. The list of 21 names of members of the General Body annexed along with the letter dated 30.10.1980 also did not specify clearly the date or the year of such membership of the General Body. The Deputy Registrar says in the impugned order that on full examination of this list of 21 names, it showed that at least 13 out of the 15 original signatories to the Memorandum of Association had been removed from the said list.
67. The Deputy Registrar has further observed in his order dated 28.12.2016 that as per his office records when the complaint of Hira Singh and six others was received in the office objecting to the alleged amendment in the bye-laws, the office of the Deputy Registrar had issued a notice on 23.12.1985. In reply to the same Satya Dev Singh had submitted three letters dated 26.01.1986 and 27.02.1986 and 24.06.1986. In these letters it was communicated that in the absence of depositing the membership fees, the original signatories of the Memorandum of Association had been removed in an urgent meeting held on 30.04.1972, of which notice was circulated on 18.04.1972, the said notice was said to be sent under Certificate of Posting (U. P. C.) to only 10 members. In the Agenda Item No.7 of the meeting dated 30.07.1972, it had been stated that on the proposal of Surendra Singh it had been decided unanimously that the members who had not deposited the subscription fees despite repeated requests, would not be given any notice of any forthcoming meetings of the Committee of Management and they shall not henceforth be eligible to attend such meeting till such subscription is deposited by them. In the letter dated 27.02.1986 sent by Satya Dev Singh there is a reference of a letter dated 16.08.1972 which was sent to 9 members and which stated that despite written notice being sent to them such members had not deposited the subscription fee of Rs.1001/-, and as such it had been resolved by the Society that they would not be allowed to participate in the meetings of the Society and their membership would be terminated. It had also been stated in the said letter dated 16.08.1972 that such members should deposit the fee latest by 10.09.1972 with the Sansthapak of the Society or else the membership would be terminated. Similarly, along with the letter dated 27.02.1986, letter dated 01.05.1972 had been annexed which was again sent to only nine members of the original 15 signatories of the Memorandum of Association, communicating to them that in the meeting 30.04.1972 the deposit of Membership fee of Rs.1001/- with the Sansthapak had been made compulsory even for those persons who were associated with the Society before its registration, and till such time that such subscription fee was deposited by such members, they would not be given any notice of any forthcoming meeting and they would also not be allowed to participate in such meetings. There was also annexed with the letter dated 27.02.1986, an alleged Resolution passed by the General Body of the Society on 10.09.1972. At Agenda item number 6, it had been stated that despite repeated reminders being sent to such members they had not deposited the subscription fee, and therefore a proposal was made by Shri Dev Nath Singh that the membership of (i) Hira Singh, (ii) Hashim Beg, (iii) Trilok Chand, (iv) Vishwanath, (v) Devi Prasad, (vi) Bhagwati Prasad, (vii) Taluqdar Singh, (viii) Satyanarayan Singh, (ix) Shamsher Bahadur Singh, and (x) Jai Ram Verma be terminated. Along with the letter dated 27.02.1986 a notice signed by Guru baksh Singh as president of the Society dated 25.09.1980 informing of the meeting to be held for amendment in the bye-laws on 11.10.1980 had been circulated to 21 members.
68. It was observed by the Deputy Registrar that the letter dated 27.02.1986 sent by Satyadev Singh had only photocopies of all the documents referred to therein, and original documents mentioned in the letter dated 27.02.1986 were not produced by Pawan Kumar Singh during the course of hearing.
69. The Deputy Registrar observed that notice dated 18.04.1972 of the meeting to be allegedly held on 30.04.1972, had been signed by Shri Babban Singh as Sansthapak. Similarly, the letters dated 1.5.1972, 7.2.1972, 08.09.1972 and 10.09.1972 were issued under the signatures of Babban Singh as Sansthapak. This was even before the post of Sansthapak was introduced in the amendment allegedly carried out on 11.10.1980. The Deputy Registrar came to the conclusion that all the papers filed along with Satya Dev Singh''s letter dated 27.02.1986 had been fabricated and antedated to meet out the objections raised by Hira Singh and other life members before the Deputy Registrar in their complaint that the amendment in the bye-laws, in the absence of the original signatories of the Memorandum of Association, was invalid and fraudulently done and therefore liable to be ignored. The Deputy Registrar therefore said that the bye-laws as originally registered in 1965 would continue to operate as the order dated 29.11.1980 had been obtained by fraud and was liable to be ignored. Also, such amendment was liable to be ignored because it was carried out by a Committee which had become defunct on account of non-holding of elections in time after Section 25 (2) became effective in 1975, and also that original signatories to the Memorandum of Association had not participated in such amendment in the Bye-Laws.
70. In response to the third issue framed by the Deputy Registrar as to "whether at the time of renewal of the Society in 1982, documents relating to duly elected office bearers of the Society and valid election proceedings had been submitted in the office of the Deputy Registrar, and in case they were not so deposited, the effect thereof?; The Deputy Registrar on the basis of office records states that in 1982 three letters were sent by Shri Durga Singh as Manager of the Society dated 3.06.1982, 30.07.1982 and 04.10.1982, in pursuance thereof the Society's registration was renewed on 10.10.1982, for a period of two years. In the application submitted by Durga Singh, Manager, he had filed election proceedings dated 29.11.1981 and copy of list of the members of the Committee of Management for the years 1980-81 and 1981-1982. The contents of the election proceedings held on 29.11.1981 clearly showed that it related to Khem Raj Smarak Rashtriya Vidya Peeth Inter College whose Committee was elected for a period of two years. The list submitted of the members of the Committee of Management was for the year 1981-82. Shri Durga Singh had submitted papers for renewal of registration of the Society in 1982 but had not submitted with this letter any copy of election proceedings for electing of office bearers of the Committee of Management. The Deputy Registrar therefore said that such proceedings were doubtful.
71. The fourth issue dealt with The Deputy Registrar was the effect of earlier orders passed by the office of the Deputy Registrar and the objections by the parties to such orders. The Deputy Registrar referred to the reply submitted by Pawan Kumar Singh on 14.12.2016, wherein mention has been made that the objectors were neither members of the Society earlier nor at present, and that they had no locus to raise any complaint against the validly elected Committee of Management and its office bearers. The Deputy Registrar observed that the Committee of Management elected on the basis of alleged amendment in the bye-laws undertaken in 1980, and amendment in the Memorandum of Association undertaken in 2001, had no valid existence, as the amendment itself was found to have not been made validly. Bye laws as originally registered in 1965 were effective and the Committee of Management had not been elected in accordance with the provisions of these unamended bye-laws. The Deputy Registrar quoted the directions of the Division Bench that in case the Deputy Registrar finds that the tenure of the Committee had come to an end, he must proceed to finalise the membership in accordance with law and then proceed to hold elections, if necessary. The Deputy Registrar thereafter observed that since no valid elections had been held after 29.11.1967 and no valid amendments had been made in the bye-laws in 1980 and even if such elections were held after 1980 by the Committee of Management taking benefit of the amendment in the bye-laws, such action would be invalidated and the Committee of Management could be declared as defunct and not entitled to conduct the elections of the Society. The Deputy Registrar went on to observe that out of the 27 members' list attested by Shri Hira Singh, only eight members were found to be alive and therefore a tentative list of eight electors was issued, inviting objections with supporting documentary evidence to be given by each of the parties.
72. This Court has gone through the records which have been referred to in the impugned order. Volume-I of the record produced from the office of the Deputy Registrar and presented to this court by Sri J.P. Maurya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, has correspondence made by Jata Shankar Singh, the Manager of the College regarding election of Committee of Management and Renewal of Society. The correspondence undertaken by Jata Shankar Singh shows two seals affixed under his name. One as Manager of the School and the other as Deputy Secretary or Up Mantri of the Society. The lists of elected members submitted from time to time refers to election of Adhyaksh, Upadhyaksh, Prabandhak, Up- Prabandhak and Koshadhyaksh and also contain names of Principal Babban Singh and two Assistant Teachers, which clearly make out that they were lists of office bearers of Committee of Management of the School.
73. It is not clear as to how Babban Singh being Principal and Member Ex-officio in the Governing Body of the Society, is also referred to as Sansthapak of the Society in 1980 in the said lists. The lists also show two seals being affixed under the name of Jata Shanker Singh as Manager of the Inter College and Dy. Secretary, Up-Mantri of the Society.
74. This Court has found also from the record that the letters have been routinely written by Shri Jata Shanker Singh and Durga Singh showing themselves as Manager of the Inter College, enclosing the list of Committee of Management for the year 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. All these letters also have the signatures of Babban Singh as Principal of the Inter College and not as Adhyaksh or Sansthapak of the Society.
75. In Volume I of the record at Page No.94 is a letter dated 27.02.1986 sent by Satyendra Deo Singh to the Deputy Registrar saying that the complaint that has been made by six members of the Society, cannot be proceeded with as these six persons are not the members of the Society any more and they were removed much earlier. Along with this letter certain enclosures can be found from Page 85 onwards till Page 93. They show the alleged notices issued through UPC and signed by Babban Singh as Sansthapak on 18.04.1972, 01.05.1972, 16.08.1972 informing the members that it had now been decided that the Membership fee has to be deposited periodically by the Founder Members who were the original signatories to the Memorandum of Association, and also by those who were Life members as per Bye-laws of the Society originally registered in 1965. The notice of termination of membership dated 15.09.1979 as well as notice regarding change in Bye-laws making it compulsory for even Founder Members to deposit the Membership Fee dated 25.09.1980 are all signed by Babban Singh as Sansthapak and Guru Baksh Singh as Adhyaksh. On Page No.85 of Volume-I can be found of list of 24 members of the General Body of the Society signed on 10.11.1975 by Guru Baksh Singh as Adhyaksh and Babban Singh as Sansthapak. Babban Singh is shown to have been allegedly inducted as Member of the General Body of the Society while serving as Principal of the School run by the Society, in 1969, and thereafter is shown to have been elected as Sansthapak in a meeting allegedly held on 30.11.1973. But he has signed the notices sent allegedly through UPC to all the original members in 1972 itself Sansthapak.
At page 56 of the Record can be found a list of 22 members of the General Body of the Society dated 17.10.85.
76. A complaint is also found at Page No.335 of Volume-II sent by Surendra Bahadur Singh and 10 others for taking action against the Society under Sections 23 and 24 and to declare the Committee of Management of the Society as defunct under Section 25 (2) of the Act, and affidavits filed in support of such complaint are all of the same date i.e. 06.05.2010 and in the same language, and they say that the deponents are life members of the Society. After the Society was established it started a School which was being run by Babban Singh as Principal. No meetings were held of the Society since the date of its registration, the then Principal Babban Singh used to note down the proceedings in the Proceedings Register regarding election etc. and the other members having faith in the conduct of Babban Singh used to sign the said Proceedings Register bonafide. These members came to know from Dinesh Pratap Singh that the Principal, Babban Singh has converted the Society into a family enterprise, and removed several life members from the General Body list and got the Society registration renewed from time to time, therefore action be taken against the office bearers of the Society under Sections 23-24 as aforesaid.
77. There is a letter dated 05.07.1986 in Volume I issued by one Shri R.S. Vishwakarma, the then Deputy Registrar, Funds, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow. It refers to renewal of registration certificate being issued on 30.11.1985 and the complaint sent by Hira Singh, Trilok Chand Jaiswal, Sati Prasad Singh, Vishwanath and others, and notices having been issued and parties being heard. Since the complaint of Shri Hira Singh was not supported by documentary evidence, it was rejected and Hira Singh was directed to approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) with at least 1/4th members of the General Body of the Society with regard to any complaint about the conduct of the current Committee of Management of the Society.
78. The record also has the lists of the year 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 being submitted under the signatures of Satyendra Deo Singh, Up-Mantri, Sushila Devi as Mantri of the Society. All these documents were submitted in original as the signatures of these persons can be found on such documents in Blue Pen/Ink whereas the documents/list are all typed in Black ink. Documents have also been submitted in original with regard to list of members of the Committee of Management of the year 1991. At Page No.114 of the Record is the list of the year 1995-96 showing a General Body of 28 members and Guru Baksh Singh as Adhyaksh, Satyendra Deo Singh as Upadhyaksh, Sushila Devi as Mantri, Deo Nath Singh as Up-Mantri and Babban Singh as Sansthapak amongst others. The records of Registrar's office show that originals had been filed informing him of elections held from time to time of the Committee of Management of the Inter College. The numbers of members of the Committee of Management of the Inter College invariably is 15.
79. There are two membership registers found in the Records. One membership Register on the first page says that it has 114 pages and it has been signed by (i) Hira Singh, (ii) Vikramaditya Goswami, (iii) Uday Bhan Singh, (iv) Raj Bahadur Vishvakarma, (v) Hashim Begand, (vi) Dinesh Pratap Singh. The cash register shows the names of 27 persons as having deposited Rs.1001 each. The total that was received was Rs.27,027 which was utilised in buying building material and furniture for the School.
80. The college record that was sealed earlier in 2017 by this court has also been perused by me. In this record there is another Membership Register. The first page of the Register marked as Membership Fee and Cashbook Register 1965 onwards, has the signatures of (i) Sati Prasad Singh, (ii) Raghupati Singh, (iii) Jantri Singh, (iv) Taluqdar Singh and (v) Hira Singh on the first page and also A certification that it has 76 pages. It starts from 26 August 1966 and mentions one Ramlal Srivastava as depositing Rs.1001, which was transferred on the same day to the College account. The second name mentioned is that of Babban Singh son of Guru Baksh Singh who deposited fees of 1001/- on 31.01.1968. All these members deposited Rs.1001/-, which was shown to have been transferred to the bank account of the College by Sati Prasad Singh and Hira Singh Prabandhak.There were 23 members Who deposited Rs.1001/- on various dates in between August 1966 to June 1972. On the next page the names of Shivnath Singh and Rajdeep Singh have also been mentioned to have deposited Rs.1001 in June 1972. In between there are several names of persons who deposited Rs.101/- only for becoming ordinary members of the society. After serial number 35 there is a line drawn and the signatures of Sati Prasad Singh, Guru Baksh Singh and Hira Singh can be found. From serial number 36 onwards the list mentioned different names in a different handwriting using a different pen, showing the name of Lalan Singh, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Pawan Kumar Singh, Tej Pratap Singh and others up to serial no. 47,all having deposited Rs.1001/- in between April 1980 up to May 1991, it seems that such deposits were received by Babban Singh. From serial number 48 onwards up to serial number 59 names of several persons have been mentioned as having deposited Rs. 101 only with Babban Singh. There is a noting on the said register dated 22.6.2010 signed by Pawan Kumar Singh, Babban Singh and Tej Pratap Singh, that till the said date only 28 members survived. This noting does not say whether some members had been removed. It only says that the others had died. From page number 7 another list ,in a different Handwriting and pen, shows the deposit of Rs.1001/- from serial number 60 to serial number 81. The said list has been signed by Pawan Kumar Singh and Tej Pratap Singh and it mentions that on 14.06.2011 there were 48 members of the Society, the others had died. It does not mention anyone as having been removed. Names of three other persons have been shown on the next page at serial number 82,83, and 84 who had deposited rupees hundred as ordinary members. There is a noting dated 21.04.2015 saying that on the said date there were 44 members of the Society.
81. In the records that were sealed by this Court in 2017, there is a Proceedings Register of the General Body of the Society also, having on the first page the signatures of Babban Singh as Sansthapak, Satyendra Dev Singh as Deputy Secretary, Sushila Devi as Secretary, and Guru Baksh Singh as Manager and a certification that there were 62 pages in the said register. On the second page itself there is a mention of the proceeding that took place on 11.10.1980 on the basis of Circulated Agenda with regard to amendment in the by laws. The entire proceedings are handwritten in ballpoint pen and the bear the signature of Guru Baksh Singh. From page 2 to 6, the amended bye-laws have been noted. On page 7 is the proceeding of a meeting held on 29.11.1981 which is in a different handwriting and with a different pen. There are proceedings of meetings since 1983 to 2005. A few of such meetings show that they had been held for the purpose of election of Committee of Management but in most of the meetings the Agenda is routine.
82. There is one file in the Records produced by Sri J.P. Maurya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, containing certified copies of papers which have been obtained from the office of the Deputy Registrar. It has certified photocopies in it. A copy of the plaint filed by Heera Singh, Devi Prasad Mishra, both former Members of the Legislative Council , along with Vishwanath Verma and Hashim Beg can also been found in this file. The plaint was filed on 23.10.1986 before the Prescribed Authority arraying Babban Singh, Gurbaksh Singh, Sushila Devi, Lallan Singh and several others , i.e. a total of 29 persons as defendants. The Committee of Management of the Society had been shown as defendant number 30, in the said plaint. A perusal of the said plaint shows that Hira Singh had approached the Prescribed Authority against the constitution of a duplicate Society by the same name of Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidya Peeth Sangh, and in paragraph 4 & 5 of the said plaint Hira Singh said that the original Society was registered on 1.11.1965 containing 15 members only whose list is enclosed as Annexure A. Such 15 persons were life members who could not have been removed on any ground except that of moral turpitude. On 23.11.1965 the said Society was registered but the defendants number 1 to 25 constituted a duplicate Society on 11.10.1980 and allegedly passed a resolution for amending the bylaws of the original Society. The Life members were never informed of any meeting that was allegedly held on 11.10.1980 The defendant nos. 1 to 5 conspired amongst themselves and inducted close family friends and relatives in the Society, who have been shown as defendant nos. 6 to 25. The defendant no. 26 in the said list of defendants includes the name of Jairam Varma a former minister and MLA. There is a mention in the plaint of inspection done of the File in the office of the Deputy Registrar on 06.11.1985 and filing of a complaint on 03.12.1985 and that the proceedings were decided ex parte on 24.07.1986 by the Deputy Registrar. In paragraph 14 of the said plaint there is a mention of no elections being held after 1965 onwards, and all proceedings held thereafter by the defendants number 1 to 25 being fraudulent, including fraudulent elections held on 1979, 1981, 1983, and 1985. It has also been mentioned that Records are in the custody of Baban Singh and the defendant number 1 to 5 have manipulated such records and forged the signatures of other life members. No Agenda was circulated for holding of any General Body meeting for inducting new members by Babban Singh and others. The Society has 7 acres of land which had been dedicated to the Inter-College.
83. The Society Records submitted by the petitioners have some Receipt Books. In one of the Receipt Books, there are 44 counter foils only having serial no. 1 to 48. This court has carefully examined these counter foils signed by Raghupati Singh. There are only 44 of these counterfoils, but the serial numbers of Receipts issued show numbers 1 to 48. At least four of such counterfoils are missing or have been removed intentionally.
84. This Court having perused the original records also finds that there was no actual removal of the life members. The Resolution filed at page 164 of the writ petition dated 30.11.1970 is only a proposal. Babban Singh had suggested to request the life members again to deposit the subscription and to wait for a few days. Similarly, at page 166, the meeting dated 30.11.1973 mentioned Babban Singh as Sansthapak and his father in law, Guru Baksh Singh as Adhyaksh. The meeting at page 168 shows the date of 30.11.1975 which is also worded as proposal. Similarly at page 170 and 172, in the meetings dated 30.11.1977 and 30.11.1979, no actual termination of membership was ever done. It was only a proposal to terminate a few out of the original 27 members, that is, only 10 members. At page 162 there is a copy of proceedings of 1969 where proposal no.2 contains the Agenda item regarding induction of four persons as members who had deposited the fee. The Resolutions relied upon by the petitioners do not terminate the membership of the life members. None of them were actually removed, but they were deliberately kept out of the meetings by not circulating the date of the meeting or the Agenda to them.
85. Proceedings that have been submitted as photocopies before the Deputy Registrar by Pawan Kumar Singh have a uniform date of 30th November, and elections being held on the same at after every two years upto year 1983. The original bye-laws contained a provision for only five office bearers i.e. Adhyaksh, Upadhyaksh, Prabandhak, Mantri and Up-Mantri, whereas these meetings allegedly held in 1973, 1975, 1977 show election of seven members as office bearers including Koshadhyaksh and Sansthapak. These two posts of Koshadhyaksh and Sansthapak were not mentioned in the original Bye-laws and the Bye-laws came to be amended allegedly only in 1980.
86. No member could be elected as office bearers for more than two consecutive terms of two years without unanimous consent of all the other members but in the alleged election proceedings that were filed as photocopies before the Deputy Registrar by Pawan Kumar Singh repeatedly the very same members have been shown to be elected as office bearers of the Society.
87. If such amended Bye-laws were actually so amended as alleged then the Committee of Management should have been elected every two years and the office bearers should have been elected every five years. The Committee of Management however was not elected after every two years. After the election meeting held on 31.11.1979, election has been shown to be held on 01.04.1983 and thereafter every five years on 04.04.1988, 03.04.1993, 01.04.1998 and so on but the same persons have been shown to be elected, and the number of members in the General Body have been shown to be either 24 or 25. The question that would arise in such a case before the Deputy Registrar would be, as to when these persons became members because out of original 15 members also the Founder/Life members, nine were said to have been removed on 10.09.1972? Incidentally, 10.09.1972 proceedings have been referred to in the letter sent by Satyendra Deo Singh but the same are not on record, and no copy of such proceedings of 10.09.1972 has been filed even in the record that is before this Court.
88. In the original Bye-laws there was no mention of the post of Treasurer, however, in the elections that were allegedly held by the petitioners, Treasurer was also said to be elected for the Society even before the post was introduced.
89. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the initial term of the Committee of Management was two years and it could have held elections any time as there was no amendment in the Act before 1975 adding Section 25 (1) and 25 (2) in the Act is taken on its face value and that the petitioners have regularly held elections initially after every two years, and then after the amendment in the Bye-laws after every five years; the Deputy Registrar has also observed that the proceedings of elections do not conform to the original by-laws.
90. This Court has carefully perused the Original by-laws, there was no provision in the by-laws regarding who was to conduct the elections. There was also no provision regarding the person who would be competent to induct new members. There was only a mention that those who associated themselves with the Association before its registration would be treated as life members. A provision had been made for induction of new members after the registration of the Society by depositing membership fee of Rs.1001/- but to whom such fee was to be given is not mentioned. The logical conclusion would be that only the General Body had the power to induct new members. There were five posts initially available Adhyaksha, Upadhyaksha Mantri, Up-Mantri and Prabandhak. No other posts were mentioned in the original by-laws. Since 15 members originally signed the Memorandum of Association they may be treated as members of the Committee of Management, whereas 27 members constituted the General Body of the Society as there is proof available in the records of subsequent deposit of fees by a few.
91. In Shailendra Singh 2017 (3) UPLBEC 2035, the Division Bench of this Court referred to the observations made in Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sudhar (supra) which took the view that the Assistant Registrar is not a post office, he has to apply his mind and only a bona fide dispute can be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) and not a frivolous dispute. It also referred to Division Bench judgement in Committee of Management, Rashtriya Junior High School, Bhabhaniyaon Jaunpur versus Assistant Registrar, where the Court had observed:-"it is standard law, that if any dispute as to two rival Committees of Management was shown to be in existence to the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar, reference by him of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority follows as a matter of course. But a bonafide dispute does not come into existence merely because one member, even if he is a founder member, chooses simply to say so or assert that he has a rival committee and therefore, a bonafide dispute as to management exists sufficient prima facie material must be produced before the Registrar before he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute. He must, simply put, be satisfied that there is something to refer and he is not really sending litigation before the Prescribed Authority, without there being even a shadow of real cause for litigation." The Division Bench in the case of Committee of Management Vs. Adarsh Krishak Junior High School, took the view that the Assistant Registrar while exercising power in respect of filing of list of office bearers under Section 4A of the Act or granting renewal of a society, does not act as a mere post office and he is not bound to refer any and every dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act and only a bonafide and genuine dispute would be the subject matter of reference and not otherwise.
92. The Division Bench in Shailendra Singh (supra) also considered the observations made by Division Bench of this Court in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti versus Registrar 2010 (7) ADJ 643 and Committee of Management Anjuman Khairul Amin Allahganj and another 2014 (1) ADJ 44 to the contrary, and also the observations made by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Malati Devi versus State of U.P. and others 2016 (4) ESC 2146 where it was observed that the question whether Malti Devi had resigned from the post of Manager of the Society/Institution and that in her place respondent Munna Rajbhar, had been elected as Manager for the remaining period needed to be examined under Sub Section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, and observed that in each case the facts and circumstances have to be carefully examined. The Court observed in paragraph 20 in Shailendra Singh (supra) as follows:- We, at this juncture, approve the view taken in the case of Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti, District Etah and another Versus Deputy Registrar 2007 (9) ADJ 262 where in this court held as follows:-
"13. On the basis of statutory provision, which covers the field and the viewpoint of this Court the inevitable conclusion is, that whenever issue is raised before the Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, that an incumbent is valid member or not within the scope and ambit of Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the said question can be very well looked into and decided by the Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar as the case maybe, in view of the wide amplitude of Authority vested under Sections 22, 23, 24 of the Societies Registration Act 1860. Registration and renewal of registration of Society is the exclusive domain of the Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar as the case maybe under Section 3 and 3A (a) of the Societies Registration Act 1860. The authority to accept, annual list of managing body, is also the exclusive domain of the Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar as the case maybe. While proceeding to exercise authority vested under Sections 3A or 4 of the Societies Registration Act 1860, in case an election dispute or a dispute in respect of continuance of office bearers is raised, then Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar may in his/her discretion, refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority if he/she is satisfied that a bonafide, genuine dispute has arisen, in respect of election or continuance of office bearers, and in case dispute totally lacks bonafide and is not a genuine dispute, then reference is not at all required, and there is no impediment in the exercise of authority vested under Sections 3A and 4 of the Societies Registration Act 1860. This action of the Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, can always be tested on the parameters of judicial review. Apart from this, the group of persons on the list being accepted under this Section are not remedy less, as they can always prove the validity of the said list, after mustering support of one fourth members of the Society, before the Prescribed Authority. Prescribed Authority gets jurisdiction to decide the dispute in respect of election, or continuance of office bearers, either on a reference or on being moved by one fourth members of the General Body. In entertaining a dispute, on behalf of one fourth members of the General Body of the Society, the Prescribed Authority must satisfy himself that dispute has been raised by one fourth members of the General Body of the Society, who are members in terms of Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act 1860, and once satisfaction is recorded on this score, then dispute can be adjudicated in a summary manner, and in the event of negative finding being there, the Prescribed Authority will have no jurisdiction. The parties are thereafter free to approach the civil court."
(emphasis supplied)
93. The Division Bench in Shailendra Singh (supra) observed that the authority has been conferred upon the Deputy Registrar to accept the list of members and office bearers of the Managing Committee under Section 4 of the Act, and anyone aggrieved against the acceptance of the said list of members and office bearers can approach the appropriate forum. In the State of U.P. a Proviso has been inserted under Sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the U.P. Act which requires that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signature of the old members shall be obtained on the list and if the old office bearers do not countersign the list, the Deputy Registrar may issue a notice to such persons inviting objections from them and decide all the objections received within the specified period. In view of the said Proviso, if any objection is filed by Ex members and they raise the dispute of the election, it cannot be said that the Deputy Registrar cannot decide such dispute and he is bound to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. The Deputy Registrar in every case cannot be forced to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority and based upon evidence adduced Deputy Registrar has to take a call as to whose list of office bearers and members is required to be taken on record. In the State of UP, dispute or doubt pertaining to election and continuance of office bearers has to be decided by the Prescribed Authority on receiving reference from the Deputy Registrar or, alternatively on reference being made by one fourth of the members of the Society. Section 25 (1) provides for settlement of dispute in summary manner and it does not all together oust the authority of the Deputy Registrar to accept the list of members. If such interpretation is accepted, then the power conferred on the Deputy Registrar by the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 4 will become redundant and otiose and if reference is made mandatory in every case, the second part that provides for reference by one fourth members shall also become a meaningless provision. The said interpretation would also be against the true intent of the legislature, which has empowered the Deputy Registrar to decide the objection raised before him and accept a list of office bearers and members of the Managing Committee and the said orders will always be subject to the provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act or alternatively the civil court. The Division Bench in Shailendra Singh (supra) in paragraph 23 further observed thus -
"Under Societies Registration Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., Registrar has been given wide power, such as, under Section 3A of the Act, for renewal of certificate of registration; under Section 4 to Register the annual list of Managing Body; under Sections 4A (UP amendment) intimation to the Registrar regarding change et cetera in the Rules; under Section 12 A a power to approve change in the name of the Society; under Section 12 B in respect of change of name and objects of Society; and under Section 12D, power to cancel registration in certain circumstances. Under Section 22 the Registrar is empowered to call for information, and under Section 23 he can direct the Society to furnish its account or copy of the statement of receipts and expenditure for any particular year, duly audited by the Chartered Accountant. Section 24 also empowers the Registrar in directing the investigation of affairs of the Society and under Section 25 he has power to refer the dispute of the election or for continuance of office bearers to the Prescribed Authority".
The Division Bench further observed in para 24 :-
"the powers conferred under the aforesaid Sections clearly demonstrate that the Registrar is the principal Executive Officer to exercise his power in respect of affairs of the Society. Thus, his power under Section 4 cannot be divested only on the ground that under Section 25 he has the authority to refer the dispute pertaining to election and continuance of office bearers and, accordingly, even if some frivolous dispute is raised in respect of elections or continuance of office bearers, the same should be mandatorily referred. If there is a dispute of two parallel groups of the Society, the Registrar can always examine whether the persons of rival group, who have raised the dispute, are members of the Society or not. He can record his prima facie satisfaction in this regard as to who has the authority to convene the meeting and hold elections; persons who have participated or valid members of the Society; elections have been held as per by-laws of the Society, and if he is satisfied that the dispute is genuine and it is a dispute inter-se between the members of the Society, then he can refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority."
(emphasis supplied)
94. A Division Bench in T.P. Singh Vs. Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, 2019 (132) ALR 480, has considered the powers of the Registrar under Section 4B of the Act. The facts of the case were that the writ petitioner T.P. Singh had been removed from the membership of the Kayastha Paathshaala Society by a Resolution passed by the Governing Council. The petitioner challenged such a Resolution before the Assistant Registrar who observed that the dispute raised before him was not within the purview of Section 4B of the Societies Registration Act. The question that was being considered by the Division Bench has been formulated in paragraph 17 of the report as follows : 17.- "First question up for consideration before this court is, whether the objections raised by the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar are within the ambit of the enquiry under Section 4B of the act 1860 or not?" The Court observed the various amendments carried out in the Act of 1860 by the U.P. Legislature. In Section 4 Sub Section (1) and (2) were inserted with effect from 10.10.1975. Further amendment it was made with effect from 30.4.1984 in Sub Section (1), and a Proviso was inserted. Section 4 as it stands amended from time to time, presently reads as under:
"4-Annual list of managing body to be filed - (1) once in every year, on or before the 14th day succeeding the day on which according to the rules of the Society, the Annual General Meeting of the Society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an Annual General Meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society .
Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signature of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office bearers do not countersign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a public notice or notice to such persons as it thinks fit, inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period.
(2) Together with the list mentioned in Sub Section (1) there shall be sent to the Registrar a copy of the Memorandum of Association including any alteration, extension or abridgement of purposes made under Section 12, and of the Rules of the Society corrected up to date and certified by not less than three of the members of the said Governing Body to be the correct copy and also a copy of the balance sheet for the preceding year of account."
95. A new Section 4A was inserted by U.P. Act No.52 of 1975 with effect from 10.10.1975 which reads as under:
"4A. Changes etc in the Rules to be intimated to the Registrar - a copy of every change made in the Rules of the Society and intimation of every change of address of the Society, certified by not less than three of the members of the Governing Body, shall be sent to the Registrar within 30 days of the change."
96. A further Section 4B was inserted by U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013 with effect from 09.10.2013 and reads as under:
"4B(1) At the time of registration/renewal of a Society, list of members of the General Body of that Society shall be filed with the Registrar mentioning the name, father''s name, address and occupation of the members. The Registrar shall examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body of such Society on the basis of the Register of members of the General Body and the minutes book thereof, cashbook, receipt book of membership fee, and bank passbook of the Society.
(2) If there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the Society referred to in Sub Section 1, on account of induction, removal, resignation or death of any member, a modified list of members of the General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change.
(3) The list of members of the General Body to be filed with the Registrar under this Section shall be signed by two office bearers and two executive members of the Society."
97. The Division Bench in T.P. Singh (supra) observed in paragraph 23 to 26 of the judgment as follows: -
"The reason for insertion of Section 4B mentioned in the Statement of Objects and reasons of the U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013 is that there is no provision for filing of list of General Body of the Society and a large number of disputes in Societies are raised due to non-existence of correct list of General Body with the Registrar . In several cases an illegal person fraudulently produces before the Registrar incorrect list of General Body of the Society and claims to be the Member and office bearer of such Society.
24. In order to avoid such situation it was decided to amend the Act 1860 in its application to the State of U.P. and that is how Section 4B came to be inserted in the Act, 1860. A List of Members of General Body of Society has to be filed at the time of registration or renewal of the Society. The List must mention names, father''s name, address, and occupation of members. Registrar is under a statutory duty to examine correctness of list of members of General Body of such Society on the basis of register of Members of General Body and the minutes book, cashbook, receipt book of membership fee and bank passbook of the Society. Apparently, it shows that members included in the list, whether included correctly, has to be examined by the Registrar. If a member is not included in list, whether such non-inclusion can also be examined by the Registrar is not very clear from Section 4B (1) of the Act 1860, but this is made clear by sub Section (2) which says that if there is any change of list of members of the General Body of the Society referred to in subSection (1) on account of induction, removal, resignation or death of any member, a modified list of members of the General Body shall be filed with the Registrar within one month from the date of change.
(emphasis supplied) "25. A plain reading of the above provision shows that at the time of registration or renewal, a list of members of General Body of Society has to be filed before Assistant Registrar. Thereafter whenever there is any change in the said list, same has to be informed to the Registrar by submitting a modified list of members of the General Body. When such a modified list is submitted to Registrar , in our view, examination is allowed to be made by the Registrar in respect of correctness of list of members of the General Body in Sub-Section (1) and would also include removal of members for the reason, when the modified list is communicated to the Registrar, whether modification is on account of induction or removal in any manner, both aspects and correctness thereof can be and must be examined by the Registrar.
(emphasis supplied) "26. The incidental question which immediately crops up is the extent of the authority of the Registrar of such examination. Whether it is an in-depth examination which may be termed as adjudication of dispute or it is a summary enquiry subject to adjudication of dispute by a court of law."
98. The Division Bench in T.P. Singh (supra) thereafter considered several precedents that were cited before it both of Division and Single Benches of this Court. It referred to judgement rendered in Committee of Management A. S. Degree College Association versus State of U.P. 2016 (4) ADJ 207, and quoted with approval suggestion made by the Single Judge that the requirement that General Body list should be filed at the time of registration/renewal of the Society does not mean that if such a list is not in existence as the registration/renewal had taken place before insertion of Section 4B of the Act 1860, Deputy Registrar will have no power to decide a membership dispute subsequently. The adjudication of these questions by the Deputy Registrar would undoubtedly minimize the chances of a dispute in future and will thus effectuate the legislative intent. The Division Bench quoted with approval Anjuman Farogh E Islam versus State of U.P. 2014 (5) ADJ 673, where a Single Judge of this court was dealing with a challenge to the determination of electoral roll by the Deputy Registrar's order dated 23.12.2009. It was also claimed that pursuant to the electoral roll finalised by the Deputy Registrar election programme was notified on 29.12.2009 and election was held on 30.12.2009 though conduct of said election was clearly challenged by the petitioner in the said writ petition. The Court found that the Prescribed Authority had examined the matter and found by an order dated 27.09.2007 that there were only 11 valid members on the date when the last election was held in 2004. The Deputy Registrar by adding 13 members had failed to examine the fact, whether they were enrolled in terms of the by-laws of the Society or not. The court observed that the Deputy Registrar has been empowered to examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body on the basis of register of Members of General Body, Minutes Books, Cash Books, Receipt Book of membership fee and bank passbook etc of the Society. The intention of the legislature was to minimise the disputes of Society as in most societies these disputes are with regard to validity of enrollment of members and election held on the basis of disputed membership. If the Deputy Registrar examines the validity of the enrolment of members on the basis of the aforesaid documents, it would ensure that a rank outsider would not be able to control the affairs of the Society on the basis of fake documents.
99. In the case of Sri Jain Dharam Pravarardhini Sabha, Lucknow versus State of U.P. 2016 (34) LCD 503 a Division Bench was examining a dispute where the renewal of the Society was made for the last time in 1996 and was valid till 2000. After 13 years an application for renewal was filed in November 2013 and renewal was granted. An application for recall of order was filed which was rejected by the Deputy Registrar. This was challenged in writ petition and an interim order was passed directing Deputy Registrar to decide upon rival lists of members of the General Body and finalize the list of members. The Deputy Registrar thereafter finalized the list of members of the General Body in 2015. This order was set aside in a writ petition because of violation of principles of natural justice and the matter was remanded. The Division Bench while hearing the intra-court Appeal observed that Section 4 B had already come in October 2013 and the order of renewal was passed in December 2013 by the Deputy Registrar. The Court observed that Section 4B was applicable and passed an order accordingly directing the Deputy Registrar to examine the correctness of list of members in the light of the parameters given in Section 4B.
100. In Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya vs Committee of Management Ambedkar Nagar 2016 (9) ADJ 679 Division Bench was considering a complaint regarding false and fabricated documents being inserted in the office record of the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar had rejected such a complaint and treated the list as valid for holding fresh election. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar was challenged in writ petition. The writ petition was allowed and the Single Judge observed that the Deputy Registrar erred in not examining the correctness of membership of over 25 members of the General Body. Whereas this was the direction given by the writ court earlier.
101. In Syed Akhtar Hussain Rizvi vs. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 261 and 263 of 2015); decided on 07.01.2016 by Division Bench at Lucknow, the dispute related to the Board of Trustees of Shia College and School and other connected institutions. By an order passed in 2011 by the Governing Body of the Society the membership of three members was ceased. Such a Resolution was challenged before the Deputy Registrar who quashed such Resolution. The Deputy Registrar's order was challenged in writ petition but no interim order was passed. The General Body thereafter resolved to withdraw the writ petition and restored the membership of the three members in whose favour the Deputy Registrar had passed the order. The list of members of the General Body was later filed before the Deputy Registrar in June 2014. Objections were raised but they were rejected and the Deputy Registrar by an order passed in October 2014 accepted the list after including the name of one disputed member. A writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Deputy Registrar where no interim order was granted. In the meantime the General Body meeting took place in November 2014 and a list of members of Society was filed by the before the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar rejected objections and directed registration of the list in January 2015. The order was then challenged in a petition where Deputy Registrar's orders passed in October 2014 and January 2015 were set aside. The Writ Court dealing with the challenge set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and directed that membership as determined on 15.11.2009 be taken as basic membership and after excluding deceased members and members whose terms had expired, fresh elections be held and in the meantime a high-level committee comprising of five members be constituted to take charge of the affairs of the College. This order was challenged in intra court Appeal. The Division Bench observed that under Section 4B of the Act the Deputy Registrar is obliged to examine the correctness of list of General Body of the Society on the basis of Register of members, Minutes book, Cashbook, Receipt book of membership fee and Bank Passbook. The court held that subsequent elections and induction of members were two different issues and the Deputy Registrar was competent to consider the question of membership and any person aggrieved by his decision has remedy before the civil court. The Division Bench observed that the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 4B (1) and (2) was "that there should not be any loss of communication in regard to validity of members between the Registrar of the Society and so in its wisdom, the legislature in sub Section (2) laid down that a continuous exercise should be undertaken by the Society, informing the change in membership within a period of one month."
102. The Division Bench observed that if a list of General Body members is submitted at the time of registration/renewal only and thereafter subsequent change in membership is not communicated till the next renewal, it will defeat the purpose that bogus membership dispute should not be allowed to obstruct simple functioning of the Society. "Therefore, if any change in membership takes place within the period when the next renewal is due, it has to be informed to the Registrar and he is empowered to look into the correctness of such change. If there is no constant updation of information, the Registrar will be clueless and will be lacking information, if in the meantime, various members in the General Body are inducted by the Society, are not inducted in accordance with the provisions contained in the bylaws. The Registrar can place a check on illegal induction in this manner. Now the check, which is required to be placed, is to be placed in a continuous manner and if it is in piecemeal, it shall be of no avail and the intention of the legislature will be defeated. The introduction of Section 4 B was with the intention to remove mischief that was observed by the legislature resulting in frequent and frivolous litigation. If such mischief is required to be checked under Sub Section (2) of Section 4B, "it requires that a Society must inform the Registrar regarding the change in membership after registration or Renewal takes place up to the period of the next renewal." The Bench also observed that in making enquiry under Section 4B of the Act, the Deputy Registrar is not a post office but supposed to act administratively by applying his mind on the facts and documents placed before him. The Division Bench referred to judgement of the Supreme Court in A.P. Abubakar Musaliar Versus District Registrar 2004 11 SCC 247 and observed that when more than one returns are filed before the Deputy Registrar, he may not hold an elaborate enquiry but he is bound to satisfy himself prima facie as to which return is to be accepted. Deputy Registrar's inquiry is summary in nature and not final and the aggrieved party can always take up the matter before a competent court.
103. The Division Bench judgement made it clear that under Section 4B of the Act, the Deputy Registrar is not supposed to make adjudication of dispute of correctness of membership like a court, but whenever the list is submitted or there is any change in the list of members, and objection is raised or otherwise, Deputy Registrar has to prima facie satisfy himself that change has been made in accordance with the provisions of the bylaws and is prima facie genuine.
104. In Allahabad High School Society versus State of UP 2011 (4) ADJ 341, a Coordinate Bench considered the correctness of the decision taken by the Assistant Registrar and the Resolution passed by the governing body of the Society regarding the validity of the amendment made in the by-laws. It was observed that the office of the Deputy Registrar is not a post office but can examine whether the alleged Resolution making amendment in the bylaws is forged, fictitious or otherwise patently illegal. The court also said that the amendments in by-laws except for change in the name do not require to be intimated to the Deputy Registrar, but all changes in the Rules are mandatorily required to be intimated to the Deputy Registrar, who has to maintain record and hence when it is brought to its notice that there is any manipulation, etc, he can examine the said issue. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench in appeal against the said judgement, reported in 2011 (4) ADJ 887. The judgment in Appeal was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed such challenge. The judgement is reported in 2011 (6) SCC 118.
105. After referring to judgment of Single Judges and the Division Benches on the issue, the Division Bench in T.P. Singh (supra) observed in paragraph 53 and 54 -
"53. The discussion made by us and facts stated above show that Society in question, in the present case, held a meeting with Agenda to consider letters of the petitioner and thereupon read those letters as constituting a misconduct, justifying termination of membership and resolved to terminate membership of the petitioner. This resulted in change in the list of members of the Society and hence was communicated to the Assistant Registrar. The petitioner filed objection raising various issues including issue of membership of some other persons as well as some office bearers of the Society. It may be noticed that a person, filing objection before Assistant Registrar, will raise a whole gamut of issues before the Assistant Registrar which may be a combination of issues, some within jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar and some beyond, but then the Assistant Registrar can always decide on substantive issues which are within the scope of scrutiny and within his jurisdiction and can respond to those aspects. It is to be seen by the Assistant Registrar /Registrar who is the statutory authority supposed to look into the matter, in exercise of statutory powers conferred under Section 4B of the Act 1860. It is true that the inquiry of Registrar /Assistant Registrar may not go into a detailed adjudication of a disputed question of fact like a civil court and the remedy obviously would be available to the party concerned to take recourse to civil court, but the mandate contained in the statute regarding scrutiny, to the extent it is provided, has to be observed and discharged. Registrar /Assistant Registrar is obliged to examine the question of correctness or alteration or change or modification in the list of members when an objection is raised. Cancellation/termination/removal of membership is a mode of alteration of list of General Body of the Society. Section 4B of the Act of 1860 talks of correctness of list of members, which can be examined by the Registrar /Assistant Registrar. Documents, which are supposed to be furnished to the Registrar, Assistant Registrar are also specifically mentioned and from those documents whatever fact situation maybe, he is to find out whether the Society, in bona fide manner has followed its own procedure laid down in the bye-laws. For example, if abruptly a Resolution is passed without there being any Agenda on a particular issue and by-laws require circulation of Agenda to the members before meeting is held, it is apparent that action taken by the Society is not in accordance with the bylaws, and thus its decision would not be correct and can be interfered with by the Registrar /Assistant Registrar. Similarly, from documents relating to fee, if it is found that requisite fee has not been paid by a person inducted as a member and to deposit a fee is one of the conditions to become a member of Society, the Registrar /Assistant Registrar can interfere and declare induction of such member to be illegal and declare the Resolution to this effect, bad in law. Similarly, if Society claims that fee has been deposited but from Bank Passbook, this claim is not found correct, Registrar /Assistant Registrar can again interfere. These are few illustrations only. This interference includes declaration of Resolution as bad or illegal, and mere fact that request has been made that Resolution should be cancelled or be declared illegal by itself, would not deprive Registrar from entering into the scrutiny to the extent it is mandated by Section 4B of the Act, 1860, otherwise the very objective and purpose of insertion of Section 4B of the Act , 1860 would stand defeated.
"54. The legislature intended to curtail litigation on account of frivolous induction or removal of members and alteration in the list of members of the Society, being aware of the fact that remedy available in common law is time-consuming and if disputes remain pending for a long time, interest of the Society in many cases suffer seriously. To give effect to the intention of legislature completely, Registrar / Assistant Registrar is authorized to examine the correctness of any inclusion , alteration, change et cetera in the membership of the Society particularly when an objection is raised. It must examine relevant records and find out the facts evident from record as to whether decision has been taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the bylaw, is bonafide and genuine."
(emphasis supplied)
106. This Court has considered the argument of counsel appearing for both parties and finds that besides the complaint of Dinesh Pratap Singh there were two other complaints of 11 life members which were pending before the Deputy Registrar at the time of decision in the Special Appeals. The Deputy Registrar in his order impugned has referred to the Membership Register which was placed before him in its original by Narendra Pratap Singh on 11.11.2016. The petitioners, on the other hand, had not produced any documents in original but had only produced photo copies. The list submitted earlier in original by Satyendra Singh were found to be lists of the Committee of Management elected for the Inter College. The list of members inducted in 1965 and found surviving thereafter till 1986, also does not have the names of the petitioners. The order dated 29.11.1980 had been passed on the basis of fraudulent papers. This can be determined from the fact that the expulsion of members had been done wrongly in between 1972 to 1980. Moreover, the Committee of Management had already become time-barred before the amendment was done in the by-laws in 1980. A tentative list of 21 members was notified by the Deputy Registrar of which only eight were found alive.
107. It is evident from the letter dated 30.09.2016 filed at page 252 of the writ petition that the Deputy Registrar had framed four issues. The parties were informed. None of the parties raised any objection praying for framing of additional issues for example that of locus of the complainant. The reply of the petitioner only stated that the Committee of Management be recognised straightaway as the Division Bench had set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and also earlier orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, locus of other life members, who had also filed complaints was never raised before the Deputy Registrar and was also not considered by the Division Bench. It is true that while filing the writ petition before the learned Single Judge the locus of Dinesh Pratap Singh had been challenged however in Special Appeal the argument was not pressed.
108. If a Statutory Authority takes one of the two possible views and both views are possible, such finding can only be assailed by the petitioners with a positive pleading. No positive pleading is there in the writ petition with regard to alleged perverse findings of fact by the Deputy Registrar.
109. Even from the contents of the writ petition no serious challenge to the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order can be made out. From paragraph 3 to 25, petitioners have mentioned the previous rounds of litigation. In paragraph 26, they have mentioned submitting of a copy of judgement and order dated 31.08.2016 in the office of the Deputy Registrar and Annexure 24 is a letter dated 14.12.2016, the reply of the petitioners, which is incomplete. In paragraph 23 of the writ petition mention has been made of various replies submitted by the petitioner but no copies of any of the replies have been annexed except the reply dated 14.12.2016. In the reply dated 14.12.2016 they have only requested the Deputy Registrar to recognise them without submitting any documents in support of the case. From paragraph 28 to 31 again the petitioners have mentioned the observations made by the Division Bench. In paragraph 36, it has been mentioned that the opposite party no.4 filed his objections on 16.01.2016 to the tentative list and in paragraph 38, it has been mentioned that all the 15 original members are already dead and now only five are alive. In paragraph 39, it has been mentioned that no dissolution proceedings were undertaken by issuing notice under Section 13 of the Deputy Registrar. The petitioners have not disclosed who were these five members who were alive either in the writ petition nor have they mentioned their names before the Deputy Registrar. They repeatedly stated that periodical elections were being held of the Society but did not disclose the details with regard to the members constituting the General Body nor have they disclosed the names of office bearers. In the entire writ petition there is no foundation to assert that findings of fact recorded in the order impugned are erroneous. No ground has been taken to challenge the findings of fact recorded by the Deputy Registrar. The only ground taken for challenging the order is that the Division Bench had left it open to the Deputy Registrar to consider the locus of the complainant which was not done and therefore the order impugned is violative of the order passed by the Division Bench, hence, it should be set aside by this Court.
110. This Court having gone through the order dated 28.12.2016 feels that even if the contention of Pawan Kumar Singh was accepted that the Deputy Registrar could not look into elections held prior to the introduction of Section 25 (2) in the Act, it would still be open for the Deputy Registrar to look into all the elections held allegedly after the 1975 amendment to the Statute. It was found that no elections were held in 1979, or thereafter, as there was no timely communication of such elections to the office of the Deputy Registrar. There was also failure to produce papers relating to the elections proceedings in their original.
111. The order impugned in substance covers all the issues framed by the Division Bench except the issue of locus which was not necessary to be decided as the complaint initially filed by Dinesh Pratap Singh had abated as he was no more. On the other hand, there were two more complaints pending filed by 11 life members. When issues were framed, the petitioners could certainly have complained regarding non-framing of issue with regard to locus of the other complainants. The locus of respondent nos. 4 to 8 was never challenged before the Registrar.
112. The proceedings before the Deputy Registrar are summary proceedings and are not conclusive findings of fact. Any person aggrieved must go to the civil court where the Presiding Officer has the training to sift grain from chaff. When the petitioners have not raised any questions before the Deputy Registrar, they cannot be now allowed to raise the same in the writ petition. The petitioners have submitted six replies before the Deputy Registrar. Only one reply dated 14.12.2016 has been brought on record. The reply filed as annexure no.4 to the writ petition is also incomplete. If original records are filed in the office of the Deputy Registrar then the receipt is given of such filing and they are returned only when such receipt is shown. There is no receipt filed along with the writ petition to show that original records were filed but were ignored by the Deputy Registrar.
113. Also, Babban Singh has been shown to have been elected as Sansthapak in 1977 whereas the amendment to bring in the post of Sansthapak was incorporated only in 1980. The Deputy Registrar had not undertaken any adjudication when he directed registration of the amended bye-laws, nor did he act as a quasi-judicial authority, whose orders cannot be reviewed unless the Statute provides for the same. The Deputy Registrar had acted in an Administrative Capacity in determining the question of amendment to the Bye-Laws and changes in membership of the Society and as per the law settled by the Supreme Court in R.R. Verma versus Union of India, 1980 (3) SCC 402, an Administrative Authority can certainly review its orders.
114. This Court does not sit in appeal and its role is limited to a Secondary Review. The Registrar had returned a finding of the documents being forged which constitutes a fraud. Babban Singh was the Sansthapak as well as serving as Principal of the School till his death. He had inducted all his family members in the General Body of the Society, and this Court has also gone through the judgements rendered by the Division Bench of Shiksha Prasar Samiti versus Deputy Registrar, 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1866, and to the judgement rendered in Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2012 AWC 2930, regarding power to review/ recall an order passed on misrepresentation. No dispute regarding elections or continuance of office bearers was before the Deputy Registrar. Therefore, the parties could not have been relegated to avail the remedy provided under Section 25 (1) of the Act. In fact, the Deputy Registrar in the order impugned was not concerned only with elections. The dispute was with regard to the amendment allegedly made in the by-laws and also with regard to membership. The Deputy Registrar found that the amendments were carried out in the absence of notice to Original Life Members. The General Body Members who were inducted by the petitioners were only on the basis of an amendment which amendment in the by-laws it self could not have been made in the absence of life members counter signing the Resolution dated 11.10.1980, the provision of Section 4B came on the statute book in October, 2013. The question of membership can now be seen by the Deputy Registrar after the induction of Section 4B as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of T P Singh v Deputy Registrar, 2019 (132) ALR 480.
115. In Allahabad High School Society Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (3) ESC 2034, the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 20 that all things incidental to decide membership could be looked into.
116. The petitioners have failed to make out any case to show interference in the orders impugned dated 28.12.2016, the order dated 09.02.2017. The writ petition is dismissed.
117. The respondents nos.4 to 8 have been elected in 2017. The office bearers' tenure is two years which got over and elections were held again in 2019. The elections were due in March 2021, which may or may not have been held, this court cannot say as there are no pleadings on record. The subsequent elections of 2017 and 2019 or 2021 have not been challenged.
118. Since the Society has admittedly only five surviving members, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Faizabad Region, Ayodhya to consult the District Magistrate Ayodhya and the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, and the five surviving members within four weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him and induct at least 30 life members from amongst eminent educationists and Social workers of the Ayodhya Division. The Divisional Commissioner, Ayodhya, and the District Magistrate Ayodhya, shall be Patron Members of the Society and the Deputy Registrar shall ensure elections of Committee of Management of the Society as and when it falls due. If the respondent nos.4 to 8 have inducted life members or ordinary members in the General Body of the Society, in the meantime the Deputy Registrar shall call for the proceedings and verify the membership in accordance with Section 4B of the Act and proceed accordingly.
Order Date: 17/01/2022 Rahul [Justice Sangeeta Chandra]