Allahabad High Court
C/M, Gram Sabha Sanskrit Pathshala And ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 June, 2022
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17864 of 2022 Petitioner :- C/M, Gram Sabha Sanskrit Pathshala And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Alok Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Shri Tarun Gour, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.3 be taken on record.
Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Tarun Gour, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
The present writ petition has been preferred inter-alia with following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash the impugned order dated 21.05.2022 passed by Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies, and Chits, Prayagraj-respondent no.2.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Assistant Registrar to permit the petitioner Committee of Management to manage day to day affairs of the society/institution after according recognition under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act."
Brief background of the case giving rise to the present writ is that there is a society known as Gram Sabha Sanskrit Pathsahla at Gehrauli, Post Sharai Shankar, District Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Society") duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The said society, in turn, has established an institution known as Gram Sabha Sanskrit Uttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, which is recognized uptil Secondary Education by the Board of Second Education. It is claimed that since the institution is a Sanskrit Pathshala as such, the society ipso-facto becomes Committee of Management of the institution.
It is alleged that periodically valid election of the Committee of Management of the society were held and papers whereof having been submitted in terms of Section 3-A for renewal and on the strength of Section 3A(4) the society has been renewed periodically. Last renewal was accorded on 31.01.2019 for five year w.e.f. 10.10.2015. It is alleged that by the order impugned the respondent no.2 has invalidated the elections held after the year 1999. Since then, in the year 2005 a valid election of the Committee of Management was held on 05.10.2005, wherein, Committee of Management headed by Shri Shiv Ram Dwivedi was elected. In the said election petitioner no.2 was elected as Executive Member at Serial no.18. List of office bearers were drawn for the year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and thereby renewal was sought after deposition of requisite fees. Thereafter renewal was accorded in favour of Committee of Management headed by Shri Shiv Ram Dwivedi as manager, wherein, petitioner no.2 was the Executive Member. Since the term of Committee of Management was five years, again election was held of 20.04.2010, wherein, petitioner no.2 was elected as manager and respondent no.3 was elected as Deputy Manager (complainant). The aforesaid election proceedings alongside request for renewal of society in composite compliance of Section 3-A and Section 3A(4) was submitted in the office of Assistant Registrar on 11.04.2011. Subsequently, renewal was accorded on 18.04.2011 w.e.f. 10.10.2010 for five years. Again valid election was held on 02.12.2015, wherein, petitioner no.2 was elected as Manager and respondent no.3 was elected as Deputy Manager. The relevant renewal certificate dated 31.01.2019 w.e.f. 10.10.2015 was issued under Section 3A and Section 3A(4) of the Act. Lastly, the valid election was held on 07.10.2020, wherein, petitioner no.2 was shown as elected Manager and respondent no.3 was shown as Deputy Manager.
On complaint being made by respondent no.3 to the effect that petitioner no.2 is not holding a meeting of committee of management and vague and evasive efforts are being made to carry out functions of the society. The Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Prayagraj has taken cognizance and passed order impugned holding that the elections of Committee of Management was held on 24.08.1999, which was valid upto 24.08.2004 and thereafter no valid elections as per relevant rules of the society were held as such, the Committee of Management of the Society becomes time barred under Section 25(2) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time, the respondent no.3 has questioned the primary membership of the petitioner. In most arbitrary manner, the order impugned has been passed without considering the fact that elections were held from time to time and the same were duly renewed by the office of Assistant Registrar under Section 3-A and 3A(4) of the Societies Registration Act 1860. The complainant himself is Deputy Manager of the committee of management and as such, it cannot be said that since 1999 no valid election has ever been held. He further submits that while passing the order impugned, the Assistant Registrar has transgressed and overstepped his jurisdiction as at no point of time, the dispute qua previous elections of the committee of management has been raised before the Assistant Registrar and he has failed to appreciate the renewal of the elected body from time to time. In this backdrop, he submits that the order impugned cannot sustain and the same is liable to be set aside.
Shri Tarun Gour, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that genuine dispute has been raised before the Assistant Registrar, however, after hearing to the parties and examining the record he has proceeded to make above observations, which is subject to scrutiny by this Court. He has placed the consequential order dated 21.06.2022, whereby, it is directed to held election of the committee of management.
Heard submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In order to appreciate the submissions, the Court proceeds to examine Section 4 as well as Section 25 of the Act.
"4. (1) Annual list of managing body to be filed- Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth 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 counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period.
(2) Together with 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 a correct copy and also a copy of the balance-sheet for the proceeding year of account."
The proviso to Section 4, as amended in the State of U.P., states 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 inviting objections and decide all the objections received within the said period.
Section 25(1) as applicable in the State of U.P. provides as follows:-
"25. Dispute regarding election of office-bearers.-(1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in the Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an officer-bearers of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit: [Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied-
(a) that any corrupt practise has been committed by such office-bearer; or
(b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or
(c) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society."
Admittedly, the complaint was made qua the functioning of the Committee of Management and at no point of time, the validity of the elections held since 2005 has been questioned. While passing the order impugned, the Assistant Registrar has pointed out various discrepancies in the documents produced by the Committee of Management specially while seeking renewal after every election. The proposition of law may not be absolutely correct as Section 4 of the Act provides that a list of members of the managing body of a Society shall be filed with the Registrar. That list is maintained by the Registrar for the purpose of performing his administrative functions as a Registrar. It is undoubted that from time to time renewal of Committee of Management was accorded by the office of Assistant Registrar, whereas, while passing the order impugned at no point of time, the respondent no.2 has discussed the factum that on what basis on each and every occasion, the renewal has been accorded by his office. However, in case prima facie the discrepancies are surfaced qua the election since 2005, the Assistant Registrar must refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act, whereas, in the present case, he himself has taken a decision and declared the elections of Committee of Management held since 2005 as null and void being time barred.
After deliberation of arguments, learned counsel for the parties, on instruction, jointly submits that the matter may be relegated to the respondent no.2 to decide afresh as per provisions contained under Section 25(1) and 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act 1860.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition stands allowed. The order impugned dated 21.05.2022 as well as consequential order dated 21.06.2022 are set aside. The matter is relegated to the respondent no.2 to decide the same afresh certainly in accordance with the above discussed provisions, after providing ample opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders.
Order Date :- 28.6.2022 A. Pandey