Allahabad High Court
C/M Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad Education ... vs Assistant Registrar Firms Societies ... on 24 August, 2022
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A. F. R. Judgment reserved on: 18.08.2022 Judgment delivered on: 24.08.2022 Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20596 of 2022 Petitioner :- C/M Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad Education Society And Another Respondent :- Assistant Registrar Firms Societies And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anshu Chaudhary Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri G. K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anshu Chaudhary, leaned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent No. 3. The learned Standing Counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 2.
2. The challenge laid in the writ petition is to an order dated 2.6.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh / respondent No. 1 whereby and whereunder, the claim of the petitioner No. 2 to hold the post of President of the Committee of Management has been negated while the claim of the respondent No. 3 has been approved.
3. The facts shorn of unnecessary details, necessary for the purposes of adjudicating the controversy involved in the instant writ petition, briefly, stated are that there is a Society in the name and style of "Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad Education Society, Gram Aadedhi, Post Umapur, Tehsil Sadar, Janpad Mau" duly registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Society has its approved bye laws and the Certificate of Registration is renewed from time to time. The Society has established and runs an educational institution in the name of Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad Alpsankhayak Shikshak Prasikshan Sansthan, Pardaha, Mau which is duly recognized under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and is managed by recognized Committee of Management whose term is five years. The Certificate of Registration of the Society was lastly renewed vide order dated 16.10.2019 by the Assistant Registrar/ respondent No. 1 for a period of five years on the proceedings submitted by Shri Mohd. Javed as Manager and Shri Amit Kumar Singh, as President of the Committee of Management of the Society.
4. The General Body of the Society in its meeting held on 7.2.2021 presided over by the President Amit Kumar Singh resolved to induct at least two new members and in furtherance thereof an Advertisement dated 9.2.2021 was published in the News Daily "Devbrat", Azamgarh. The petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mridula Mishra and one Nisha Khan are stated to have been inducted as Life Members of the General Body of the Society. Meanwhile, Shri Amit Kumar Singh, the recognized President is stated to have died on 16.4.2021. The Vice President, Shri Wahadullah is stated to be residing in a foreign country. A meeting of the General Body is stated to have been held on 3.10.2021 and the petitioner No. 2 is stated to have been elected as President against the casual vacancy occurred on the death of the President Shri Amit Kumar Singh, for the remaining term of the Committee of Management of the Society. The petitioner No.2 is stated to have submitted the proceedings along with an application dated 12.11.2021. Another set of proceedings were submitted by one Gulam Nabhi alleging himself to be Manager and Ajit Kumar Singh, as President with the Assistant Registrar / respondent No. 1.
5. The Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh/respondent No. 1 issued notices to both the rival claimants and after hearing them reserved the judgment on 12.5.2022. By the impugned judgment dated 2.6.2022, the respondent No. 1 has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner No. 2 and has approved the proceedings submitted by Gulam Nabhi. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order dated 2.6.2022 principally on the ground that:-
the respondent No. 1 even after reserving the judgment after hearing the parties on 12.5.2022 has relied upon documents submitted by the rival claimant Gulam Nabhi on 20.5.2022 even without serving a copy of the same upon the petitioners.
the petitioners had submitted written arguments with certain documents and application on 19.5.2022, but the respondent No. 1 failed to consider the same in a prospective manner.
the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
the impugned order is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assistant Registrar is not vested with powers under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to adjudicate any doubt or dispute with regard to the office bearers of the Society and the dispute was liable to be referred under Section 25 (I) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Indra Raj Singh in order to buttress his arguments has placed reliance upon the decisions in case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Junior High School Sikandra District Manpur Dehat and another Vs. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow and others reported in 2010 (3) UPLBEC 2522 (Paras 7, 8 & 9) and in case of Ramadhar Shashtri & Anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Education, IV Region, Allahabad & Ors., reported in 1987 UPLBEC 14 (Paras 2, 3 & 4).
8. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner No. 2 describing herself as the President of the Committee of Management has been raised by Shri G. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3. The objection proceeds on the premise that under the approved bye laws of the Society proceedings in a Court of Law on behalf of the Society can be maintained on behalf of the Manager of the Society and the President is not authorized to maintain the proceedings.
9. Considering the aspect of the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the Court finds that Clause 14 of the approved bye laws of the Society which have been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition provides that the pairvi of the legal proceedings for and against the Society is to be done by the Manager.
10. In the opinion of the Court, the word "pairvi" in common parlance implies that all proceedings including institution of legal proceedings in a Court of Law is to be done by the Manager and as such, there appears to be some force in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. However, the Court finds that the President of the Society has arrayed herself as petitioner No. 2 and even if the writ petition is held to be not maintainable by the Committee of Management through its President, it is certainly maintainable by the President in his/her individual capacity. In such view of the matter, the preliminary objection raised about the non maintainability of the writ petition is overruled. The writ petition is held to be maintainable.
11. Now coming to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner No. 2, on the merits, the Court finds that the Assistant Registrar in the impugned order has clearly recorded the factum that arguments of the parties were heard on 12.5.2022 and the judgment was reserved. It was agreed between the parties that they would submit written submissions and original documents by 20.5.2022. In pursuance to the order dated 12.5.2022, Shri Gulam Nabhi submitted the original documents pertaining to the proceedings while Smt. Mridula Mishra failed to produce any original documents and only submitted her written arguments. The Court is not impressed with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No. 1 even after reserving the judgment, after hearing the parties on 12.5.2022 relied upon documents submitted by Gulam Nabhi on 20.5.2022 inasmuch as it had been agreed between the parties to do so. The respondent No. 1 had permitted the original records to be filed. Shri Gulam Nabhi filed the original records, but Smt. Mridula Mishra, petitioner No. 2 failed to filed any original documents and pleaded that the documents had been stolen as an after thought. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel reported in Ramadhar Shashtri's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts as in that case the Deputy Director permitted both parties to file documents after hearing the case on his own, but in the case at hand, the parties had themselves agreed to submit the original records by a particular date. The impugned order cannot be said to have been passed in violation of principal of natural justice as ample equal opportunity had been given to the petitioner No. 2 to establish her case.
12. It has also been argued that the impugned order dated 2.6.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar/respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as instead of referring the rival claims set up before him under Section 25 (I) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Assistant Registrar proceeded to adjudicate the doubt or dispute with regard to the office bearers of the Society. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti's case (supra). There can be no quarrel about the law laid down by Their Lordships in the decision reported in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti's case (supra). However, the Court is of the opinion that only genuine rival claim / disputes or doubts about the office bearers of the Society are required to be referred for adjudication by Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (i) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits while referring the dispute is not to function as a post office/rubber stamp. Sufficient, prima facie, material must be produced before the Registrar before he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute.
13. In the case at hand, the Assistant Registrar while, prima facie, considering the existence of a bona fide dispute regarding the office bearers of the Society has recorded in his order that in the typed copy of the proceedings submitted along with her application / objection dated 12.11.2021, the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mridula Mishra, the details of the number of members of present are not mentioned. It has also not been mentioned as to who convened the meeting of the General Body and who informed the members. The said aspect has neither been clarified nor any evidence has been filed in support thereof. In the absence of proof of convening the meeting as per the registered bye laws of the Society, the proceedings submitted by Smt. Mridula Mishra appears to be doubtful. Besides the above, the Assistant Registrar has in its order recorded the factum that in respect of the meeting of the General Body on 3.10.2021 in which the vacant post of the President Shri Amit Kumar Singh has been filled up by Smt. Mridula Mishra. Much prior to the said date on 15.4.2021, the President Shri Amit Kumar Singh is stated to have expired and in terms of Rule 10, the then Manager Mohd. Javed was authorized to convene the meeting of the General Body on 3.10.2021 and send information to the members. No statement has been made by Smt. Mridula Mishra that the meeting had been convened by Mohd. Javed nor any document to that effect has been presented. In contrast to the above, much before the submission of the proceedings on 12.11.2021 i.e. 28.5.2021, the proceedings of filling the casual vacancy of the post of President has been submitted by Mr. Mohd. Javed on 29.4.2021. The Assistant Registrar has on this basis returned a finding that the meeting of the General Body convened on 3.10.2021 was convened unauthorizedly and is void since the beginning. In contract to the above, the proceedings presented by Shri Gulam Nabhi and available in the office file have been found to confirm to the original records and as per the approved bye laws, the Assistant Registrar thus concluded that the application/objection dated 12.11.2021 submitted by the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mridula Mishra as President and the proceedings attached with the objections are not found in accordance with the registered bye laws of the Society. In substance the Assistant Registrar has found that the rival claim set up by the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mridula Mishra is not bona fide and accordingly has declined to refer the dispute to the prescribed authority under Section 25 (I) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and has ordered for proceeding under Section 4 (1) of the Act in respect of the proceedings submitted by Gulam Nabhi.
14. The Court finds no error in the view taken by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits in refusing to refer the rival disputes for adjudication to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (I) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 so as to warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The view of the Assistant Registrar is in consonance with the ratio of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Committee of Management, Rashtriya Junior High School (Society), Babhaniyaon, District Jaunpur versus The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others, 2005 (61) ALR 74 decided on 11.8.2005. The relevant paragraph 4 of the aforesaid decision is being reproduced hereunder:-
"4. It is the standard law that if any bona fide dispute as to two rival Committees of Managements is shown to be in existence to the Registrar or Assistant Registrar, a reference by him of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority follows as a matter of course. But a bona fide dispute does come into existence merely because one member, even if he is a founder member, chooses simply to he has say or assert that he has a rival Committee and therefore, a bona fide 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 merely sending litigations before the Prescribed Authority, without there being even a shadow of real cause for litigation."
15. In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.08.2022 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)