Allahabad High Court
C/M Sri Ram Achal Singh Purva Madhyamik ... vs The State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 February, 2020
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14987 of 2019 Petitioner :- C/M Sri Ram Achal Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Deepak Kumar,Sri Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapoor Chandra Vishwakarma,Vijay Kumar Ojha Connected with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40225 of 2019 Petitioner :- C/M Sri Ram Achal Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ved Mani Sharma And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37254 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Sri Ram Achal Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Ashok Khare,Senior Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapoor Chandra Vishwakarma,Vijay Kumar Ojha And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18851 of 2019 Petitioner :- C/M Sri Ram Achal Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnakar Upadhyay,Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi,Sri Radha Kant Ojha Senior Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhai Raj Singh,Prabhakar Awasthi And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32445 of 2019 Petitioner :- Abhay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Wilson Singh,Yogendra Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi,Vijay Kumar Ojha Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This bunch of petitions relates to the dispute relating to election of office bearers of the Committee of Management of Ram Achal Singh Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bahadurganj, Sarai Inayat, Allahabad. The educational institution herein is a junior high school and is being managed by a registered Society in the same name. The Society was initially registered in the year 1975 and has been renewed from time to time. It has its bye-laws containing rules for its management, which are on record of the writ proceedings. As per the bye-laws the term of elected office bearers is three years. It appears that in the year 1998 elections were held on 9.8.1998 and two factions emerged as being the contestant to the office of Manager. One faction was led by Smt. Kewali Devi while the other faction was led by Ram Suchit Singh i.e. respondent no.3 in the leading writ petition. The elections of the year 1998 with Smt. Kewali Devi was recognized and challenge laid by the other faction was rejected. It appears that subsequent elections were also held and initially Smt. Kewali Devi and thereafter one Ram Kailash Singh claiming through her came to be elected as Manager. This position continued from 1998 upto the elections of the year 2016. In between, a claim was also raised by one Abhay Kumar Singh and his objection was also rejected on 26.11.2012. The Writ Petition No.6582 of 2013 filed against such order also came to be dismissed with liberty to institute a civil suit, which is reported to be pending.
It appears that Ram Suchit Singh raised an objection against registered list of office bearers of Society pursuant to election held on 21.7.2016 primarily on the ground that there existed only 20 members in the Society, whereas the elections held by Smt. Kewali Devi and her successors was on the basis of a list of 60 members who were never inducted as members of the Society as per its bye-laws. This complaint/objection was entertained and notices were issued to Ram Kailash Singh. The Assistant Registrar has taken note of the respective plea of the parties and has also noticed that the primary dispute is as to whether there are 20 members constituting the general body of the Society as claimed by Ram Suchit Singh or there are 60 members, as is claimed by Smt. Kewali Devi and her successors. The Assistant Registrar has observed that the first elections were held in the year 1998 on the basis of list of 20 members and has disbelieved the claim of Ram Kailash Singh as per which elections were held on the basis of list of 60 members. It is this order which is challenged in the leading writ petition. Subsequent petitions have also been filed which are virtually directed against the consequential orders to the order of Assistant Registrar inasmuch as subsequent list of members have been finalized and elections have also been held on the basis of such list. The adjudication made in the present/leading petition is, therefore, likely to determine the fate of other connected petitions, and therefore, all matters have been heard together.
I have heard Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri L. K. Dwivedi appearing for the faction led by Smt. Kewali Devi and her successor Ram Kailash Singh, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the faction led by Sri Ram Suchit Singh and Sri Vikas Kumar Singh, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Wilson Singh for the faction led by Sri Abhay Kumar Singh and have perused the materials brought on record.
The primary issue that requires determination in this bunch of petitions is as to how many members were validly enrolled in the Society and whether such members have taken part in the successive elections, which have been held to constitute the Committee of Management of the Society. The bye-laws are annexed as Annexure-1 to the leading writ petition and there is no definite procedure laid down therein to be followed for the purpose of induction of members in the Society. Clause 3(a) of the bye-laws which specifies powers of manager contemplates authority in him to receive all fee and donations and to issue receipt in that regard. The bye-laws also specifies as to who would qualify to be a member or would be ineligible to be made a member. Clause 19 gives some indication as to what would be the manner of induction of member as it is provided therein that in case any dispute arises as to whether a person has been inducted validly in the general body meeting of the Society then such dispute would be referred to the President whose decision would been final. Even otherwise, the Society having been formed on democratic principles the right to induct a member has to be conceded to the general body of the Society itself. Clause 19 also refers to induction of a member by the general body of Society.
The parties are at issue as to how many persons have actually been inducted as members. It is already noticed that according to Ram Kailash Singh, there were 60 members originally inducted in the year 1975. However, the other version is that there were only 20 persons, who were inducted as members of Society and elections were held only with participation of such members. The Assistant Registrar has noticed that as per original Smriti Patra only 12 members existed in the Society and that elections have been held subsequently with participation of 20 members in 1998. In the elections held in the year 1995 Ram Suchit Singh admittedly was elected as Manager. It is also not disputed by the parties that only 20 members participated in all elections of the Society.
Though the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar were initiated on the complaint/objection of Ram Suchit Singh but the Assistant Registrar has treated the proceedings to be one under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 4-B of the Act has been introduced in the year 3.10.2013, which reads as under:-
"4-B. (1) At the time of registration/ renewal of a society, list of members of 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 minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass book 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, registration or death of any member, a modified list of members of 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."
Specific considerations have been prescribed in Section 4-B(1) of the Act of 1860 to be taken note of for the purposes of determining the membership of the Society. The considerations which have been statutorily prescribed are the register of members of general body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank passbook of the society. The order of Assistant Registrar under challenge does not examine the issue of membership with reference to the factors statutorily prescribed in the newly inserted section 4-B of the Act. The Assistant Registrar appears to have been moved more by the fact as to who all participated in 1995 elections.
It is not in issue that the Society was initially registered in 1975 and many elections may have been held between 1975 to 1998. Whether any member was enrolled by the general body of the Society or his membership fee etc. was deposited are factors which were required to be examined when the Assistant Registrar proposed to undertake an exercise referable to section 4-B of the Act. The order of the Assistant Registrar omits to examine the controversy with reference to the factors which have been statutorily prescribed in Section 4-B of the Act. Even otherwise, the parties have not been specifically confronted with the issues relevant for the purposes of determining the membership as per Section 4-B of the Act. The determination made by the Assistant Registrar, therefore, fails to meet the requirement in law and consequently, the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 10.10.2018 cannot be sustained.
At this stage, it would also be relevant to observe that where the previous elections are not in dispute, the list of members may be a relevant consideration to be taken note of while determining the membership under section 4-B of the Act but in a case where the elections persistently are being disputed, and grievance is being raised from time to time by filing writ petitions etc., the Assistant Registrar will do well to examine the original records with reference to the factors which have been specifically provided in Section 4-B and not limit the examination only to members who have participated in the previous elections.
Consequently, the order impugned dated 10.10.2018, passed by the Assistant Registrar, as also the consequential orders dated 3.4.2019 and 16.5.2019 stands quashed. All rival factions/parties who are represented before this Court would appear before the Assistant Registrar concerned on 16.3.2020. The original records relating to induction/removal of members, which are available with either of the parties, would be made available to the Assistant Registrar, who shall examine claim of membership in accordance with bye-laws. Specific stand taken by the parties before the Assistant Registrar and before this Court would be examined by the Assistant Registrar with reference to the original records produced before him. The parties would be allowed to inspect records of other parties. Required determination would be made by the Assistant Registrar, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
All writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.2.2020 Ashok Kr.