Allahabad High Court
Society-Gramin Siksha Prasar ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Second. Edu. ... on 24 August, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved Court No. - 2 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 306 of 2022 Appellant :- Society-Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti,Pratapgarh Thru.Ms.Mamta Tripathi And Anr(In Wric 3526 Of 2022) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Second. Edu. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Kumar,Abhiuday Pratap Singh,Meenakshi Singh Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nagendra Bahadur Singh,Shobhit Mohan Shukla Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Prashant Kumar and Ms. Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Advocates for the appellant and Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.4.
2. This intra-court appeal under Chapter-VIII- Rule-5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.3526 of 2022; Society, Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti, J.J.D. Baba Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, by means of which the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the validity of the order dated 30.04.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies And Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj (here-in-after referred as Assistant Registrar) and the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar, has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the documents placed on record of this appeal, are that initially the appellant society was registered in the name and style of "Jagdish Janta Devraha Baba, Junior High School". Later on the name of the society was changed as per the resolution dated 30.07.1995 of the society as Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti, Post-Bihar, District- Pratapgarh. Accordingly, registration certificate was issued on 20.09.1995. At the time of change of name of the society, the amended by-laws of the society were also submitted in the office of the Assistant Registrar. In the initial by-laws there was a provision of 18 members in the Committee of Management, out of which 15 were to be elected and the remaining were the Principal as ex-officio member and two teachers on the basis of their seniority as ex-officio members for one year. After amendment in the by-laws on re-naming of the society, the members of the Committee of Management were reduced to 15, out of which 12 were to be elected by the General Body and the remaining 3 were the same as in the original by-laws. The society also runs an educational institution, namely "Jagdish Janta Devraha Baba, Inter College, Post-Bihar, District- Pratapgarh," which is duly recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh and the college receives grant-in-aid from the State Government. The term of Committee of Management of the society and Committee of Management of the college is three years. The election of the Committee of Management of the society as well Committee of Management of the college are being held jointly from amongst the members of General Body of the society. Accordingly, the joint elections were held on 13.12.2009, 09.12.2012, 20.12.2015, 27.12.2018 and 26.12.2021.
4. It appears that in the year 2016 eleven new members were inducted as ordinary members of General Body of the society, who were subsequently upgraded as life members in the year 2019-20, as such the General Body consists of 35 members. Accordingly, since the elections were due, the details of 35 members of General Body was sent to the Assistant Registrar on 09.11.2021. No objection or dispute appears to have been raised by anybody. Therefore on the basis of the said list of 35 members the election of the Committee of Management of the society as well as the college was held jointly on 26.12.2021, in which the respondent no.4 (the complainant) had also contested the election for the post of Manager but he could not succeed and the appellant no.2 was elected as Manager on 26.12.2021.
5. After the elections the papers and the list of members of Committee of Management was submitted by the appellant-society with a request for attestation of the signatures. In the meantime, a complaint was made by the respondent no.4. Considering the same the elections of the Committee of Management of the appellant-institution has been rejected by means of the order dated 25.01.2022 and the signatures have not been verified. The said order has been challenged by the appellant no.2 in Writ-C No.1074 of 2022 before the learned Single Judge, which is pending adjudication.
6. The respondent no.4 had also filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar complaining the irregularities committed in the Elections. The Assistant Registrar, by means of the order dated 30.04.2022, declared the Committee of Management of the society time barred under Section 25 (2) of The Societies Registration Act, 1860 (here-in-after referred as the Act of 1860) after the Election held on 13.12.2009 on the ground that the joint elections of the Committee of Management of the society and the college were held under the supervision of the Observer nominated by the D.I.O.S. under the scheme of the administration of the college and the elections of the society have not been held in accordance with the registered by-laws since 09.12.2012. The Assistant Registrar has also pointed out that certain relevant documents and receipts etc. have not been provided by the appellant. Accordingly, the consequential order dated 19.05.2022 was passed declaring the Election Programme. These two orders dated 30.04.2022 and 19.05.2022 came to be challenged in the writ petition filed by the appellants. The writ petition has been dismissed, therefore this intra-court special appeal has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the term of Committee of Management, as per the by-laws, is three years and since the very inception of the society, the election of the society and the college are being held jointly and no one ever raised any dispute in this regard. However, after the elections held on 26.12.2021, on the basis of the valid list of 35 members of the General Body submitted by the appellant no.1 before the Assistant Registrar, the respondent no.4 has questioned the validity of the elections before the Assistant Registrar, though he had contested the election without any demur. The Assistant Registrar, though not empowered to decide the election dispute, decided the same and declared the Committee of Management time barred holding that the last valid election was held on 13.12.2009, whereas thereafter elections were held in the same manner on 09.12.2012, 30.12.2015, 27.12.2018 and 26.12.2021 and never any objection was raised by the Assistant Registrar or any dispute was raised by anybody including the respondent no.4. Thus, the submission is that without considering it, the Assistant Registrar decided the election dispute himself instead of referring the same to the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860.
8. He further submitted that all the documents were filed and available in the office of Sub-Registrar, copies of which have been filed alongwith the writ petition and are available on the record of this appeal, but without considering the same the impugned orders have been passed. He further submitted that the list of 35 members with necessary details were sent to the office of the Assistant Registrar on 09.11.2021 i.e. one and half month prior to the date of election but no objection was raised by anybody. The Assistant Registrar without considering all these aspects passed the order holding the Committee of Management time barred since 09.12.2012, whereas it was not the case of any party.
9. He further submitted that after amendment in the by-laws there are 15 members in the Committee of Management but the learned Single Judge without considering the amended by-laws, though referred, held that no elections have been held since 13.12.2009 in accordance with the registered by-laws of the society as the election of Committee of Management consisting of only 12 members have been held in presence of supervisor appointed by the D.I.O.S. and the election of the Society has not been held in accordance with the by-laws. Therefore the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgement in the case of Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin, Allahabad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2014 (1) ADJ 44(DB), Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School, Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat and Another Vs. Registrar, firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow and Others; 2010 (7) ADJ 643 (DB), Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2016 (4) ESC 2146 (All)(DB), All India Counsel, through Bharat Dharam Maha Mandal, Lahura Bir, Varanasi and Another Vs. Assistant Registrar and Another; 1998 AWC (All) 1154 (DB) and State of Punjab and Another Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others; (2011) 14 SCC 770.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submitted that the appellant no.2 is not a member of General Body as election held on 26.12.2021 has been cancelled by means of the order dated 25.01.2022, which has been challenged in Writ-C No.1074 of 2022 and the same is pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge and that she has become member of the General Body only on 31.07.2022, therefore she is not competent to file the appeal on behalf of the appellant in view of para 14(3) of the by-laws.
12. He further submitted that the Assistant Registrar has rightly declared the Committee of Management of the society time barred because the common election of the society and college were being held under the supervision of the Observer appointed by the D.I.O.S. as per the scheme of administration of the college and the election of the society has not been held in accordance with the by-laws. Submission is that the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the respective claims of the parties and dismissed the writ petition and that there is no illegality or error in the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. He also submitted that since the election of the society and college have already been held therefore also this special appeal is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has relied on the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Nazeer ETC Vs. Salafi Trust & Another ETC; Civil Appeal No.3132-3133 of 2016.
13. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record of this appeal.
14. The facts regarding initial registration of the society in the name of Jagdish Janta Devraha Baba, Junior High School and later on changed to the name and style of "Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti, Post-Bihar, District-Pratapgarh" on the basis of Resolution dated 30.07.1995 and accordingly the amendment in by-laws also are not disputed. It is also not disputed that society is running an educational institution namely "Jagdish Janta Devraha Baba, Inter College, Post-Bihar, District- Pratapgarh."
15. Undisputedly, the elections were being held at regular intervals of three years since the beginning and accordingly were held on 13.12.2009, 09.12.2012, 20.12.2015, 17.12.2018 and 26.12.2021. Nothing has been brought before this Court to indicate that any dispute in regard to the membership or the elections was ever raised by any body or the respondent no.4 or the Assistant Registrar prior to the complaint made by the respondent no.4 on 30.12.2021 in regard to the Election held on 26.12.2021. The respondent no.4 made a complaint on 31.12.2021 after the Elections were held on 26.12.2021 that the elections of the Committee of Management of the society has not been held since 2009 therefore the same is time barred and may be held under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860. On the aforesaid complaint the notices were issued initially to Shri Brij Kishor Tripathi, the earlier manager of the society and after the information was given by him by means of the letter dated 18.02.2022 that fresh elections have been held and now the appellant no.2 i.e. Smt. Mamta Tripathi is the manager so the notice may be sent to her, the notices were sent to her.
16. It appears that for some or the other reason the appellant no.2 could not appear and produce the relevant documents before the Sub-Registrar and sought time on 2-3 dates. However the hearing was closed on 20.04.2022 for orders. The Assistant Registrar, holding the Committee of Management time barred on the ground that the joint elections were held under the supervision of the Observer of the D.I.O.S. under the scheme of administration of the college and the elections have not been held in accordance with the by-laws of the society and filing of the list of members of the General Body with their details and proof of payment of subscription before the Assistant Registrar time to time, declared the Committee of Management as time barred, whereas the elections were held after every three years as per by-laws and the relevant documents were submitted, copies of which have been placed on record of this appeal and no objection or dispute was ever raised by any body. However, it appears that some proceedings of elections were submitted on 07.10.2020 but it has been clarified by the meeting of the General Body dated 14.01.2022 that the same was, inadvertently, submitted wrongly stating to be elections due to some misunderstanding and the elections have been held on 26.12.2021.
17. It appears that though all the relevant list and documents were being filed by the appellant from time to time as required and no objections or dispute was ever raised but the same has escaped the sight of the learned Single Judge and the Assistant Registrar has also failed to consider the same. However the learned Single Judge could have verified the same by summoning the original record.
18. It appears that the appellant had furnished the list of 35 members of the society on 09.11.2021 and no objection was raised by the Assistant Registrar and no dispute in regard to the same was raised by anybody including the respondent no.4. Accordingly, the elections were held on the basis of the said list on 26.12.2021, in which the respondent no.4 had also contested for the post of Manager but he could not succeed. It is only after his failure in election for the post of Manager that the respondent no.4 made a complaint on 30.12.2021 raising the dispute in regard to the elections mainly on the ground that the election of the society and the college have been held together as per the scheme of administration of the college under the supervision of the Observer of the D.I.O.S. But the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 failed to point out as to how the elections can not be treated to have been held under the by-laws of the society though elections have continuously been held, may be under the supervision of the Observer nominated by the D.I.O.S., but without any objection from any quarter ever.
19. So far as the dispute raised in regard to the proceedings held on 01.04.2016 are concerned in which eleven members were additionally included in the General Body, we may observe firstly that the same is at a highly belated stage after holding of the two elections and secondly as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant the respondent no.4 himself was made member in the said meeting, therefore he can not challenge the same.
20. Section 25 of the Act of 1860 as applicable in the State of U.P. is in regard to the dispute regarding election of office bearers. The Sub-section (1) provides that the prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of office-bearers of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit. The grounds for setting-aside the election of an office-bearer are provided under sub-section (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 25. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 provides that where by an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call a meeting of the General Body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers. Therefore the scope of sub-section (1) and (2) are different and where the election dispute in regard to some election is raised, the same is essentially covered by sub-section (1) and the Election dispute can be decided by the Prescribed Authority only. The Registrar may decide the dispute in regard to the membership or where the elections have not been held in time but not the Election dispute.
21. It is true that the Registrar can hold the election under sub-section (2) of section 25 in a case where the Committee of Management has been declared time barred. But in the present case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant and as is borne out from the pleadings and the documents placed on record of this appeal, which seem to be the part of the record of the writ petition as well, the elections were held in time and relevant list of members and the Committee of Management were filed from time to time before the Assistant Registrar and no objection was raised by him nor any dispute was raised ever by anybody. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the writ petition ought to have been decided after summoning and perusing the record of the society from the office of the Assistant Registrar and after verifying the facts of the case. It is also required to be considered as to when the respondent no.4 participated and contested the Election on the basis of the list of members furnished by the Society without any demur, whether he could have raised any such dispute in regard to the membership and previous elections.
22. In the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that once the elections were from held time to time and the relevant documents and list were submitted by the society, the Committee of Management could not have been declared time barred merely because the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society were held alongwith the elections of Committee of Management of the college under the supervision of the Observer nominated by the D.I.O.S., particularly when no objection or dispute was ever raised. However if the Elections have been held in time and the necessary formalities have been completed thereafter, it is nothing but an Election dispute in regard to the present election, which can be decided by the Prescribed Authority Authority only under Section 25(1) of Act of 1860.
23. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin, Allahaganj and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Supra), after considering the provisions of Section 4 and 25 (1) of the Act of 1860 has held that once an application for taking on record the name of the office-bearers and an objection as to the validity of the office-bearers who were elected have been filed, the Registrar, considering under Section 25 (1), ought to refer the matter to the prescribed authority. The relevant paragraphs 7 to 11 of the judgment are extracted here-in-below:-
"7. Under Section 4 of the Societies' Registration Act, 1860, as amended in the State of U.P. the following provision has been made:-
"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 abridgment 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."
8. 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.
9. 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 practice 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."
10. Both these provisions have been harmonized in the judgment of the Division Bench in All-India Council (Supra) where it was held as follows:-
"Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as amended by the State Legislature enacts a comprehensive code and creates a designated forum or tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society. It also provides the grounds upon which the election of an office-bearer can be set aside. The procedure to be followed for filling up of the vacancies arising from the decisions rendered by the Prescribed Authority under Sub-section (i)of Section 25 has also been laid down(Section 25(2).
7.It will, therefore, be seen that insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of the office-bearers of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh are concerned, the Legislature has created a specific forum and laid down an exhaustive procedure for determination of the same under Section 25. There is no other provision, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the Legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the statute, such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed Authority being subject to the result of a civil suit."
11. The judgment of the Division Bench came up for consideration in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti (Supra). In the subsequent judgment the Division Bench held that the earlier judgment has harmonized the provisions of both Sections 4 and 25 and what can be inquired into under Section 25 of the Act, cannot be gone into under the proviso to Section 4. In that case, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside an order of the Registrar dated 11 July 2010 and ought to have directed the Registrar to refer the objection to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1). The Division Bench held that once an application for taking on record the name of the office bearers and an objection as to the validity of the office bearers who were duly elected has been filed, the Registrar considering under Section 25(1) ought to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. Undoubtedly, in the subsequent decision in the Committee of Management (Supra) it has been held that the Registrar "is not a post office for referring any and every dispute". The Division Bench there held that more than three years after the holding of an election there was no reason to entertain a petition at the belated stage."
24. Another coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Malti Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Supra), has held that all the issues pertaining to the election and continuance of the office-bearers of a registered society are necessarily to be examined by the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act of 1860 and it is not within the competence of the Assistant Registrar to enter into such disputes and the legal position in this regard is well settled.
25. Similar view has been taken by coordinate Benches of this Court, in the cases of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School, Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat and Another Vs. Registrar, firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow and Others (Supra) and All India Counsel, through Bharat Dharam Maha Mandal, Lahura Bir, Varanasi and Another Vs. Assistant Registrar and Another (Supra).
26. One of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.4 is that since after passing of the impugned orders by the Assistant Registrar the fresh elections have been held therefore without challenging the same the present appeal is not maintainable. Suffice would it be to say that once the basic order goes the superstructure would automatically fall. Applying this well recognized legal principle on the present case, we find that the judgment and order in the instant case was passed by the learned Single Judge on 09.06.2022 and the elections have been held, on the basis of impugned orders challenged in writ petition, subsequent thereto, therefore if the impugned orders are quashed, the subsequent action will automatically fall. Our this view is fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that it is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. The relevant paragraphs 107 to 110 are extracted below:-
"107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case.
108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally.
109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.
110. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) 1 SCC 228, this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 381; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823).
111. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a consequence, subsequent proceedings/orders/FIR/ investigation stand automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est."
27. So far as the question of maintainability of the appeal on behalf of the appellant no.2 is concerned, this Court is of the view that since she was elected as Manager in the elections held on 26.12.2021 which stands cancelled by the impugned orders, the appellant no.2 is fully competent to challenge the same. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Nazeer ETC Vs. Salafi Trust & Another ETC (Supra), relied by learned counsel for the respondent no.4 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been held in the said case that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is entitled to sue and be sued, only in terms of its by-laws and the by-laws may authorise the President or Secretary or any other office bearer to institute or defend a suit for and on behalf of the society. In the present case the appellant no.2 is claiming herself to be the Manager of the Society on the basis of elections held on 26.12.2021, the proceedings of which were already filed before the Assistant Registrar, whereafter the respondent no.4 raised the dispute and the same has been decided against her.
28. In view of above and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that it is a fit case in which the learned Single Judge ought to have decided the rival claims of the parties only after examining the original records of the society available before the Assistant Registrar. This Court is also of the view that since the writ petition in regard to the quashing of the elections of the college is also pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge, the same should also be decided alongwith the present dispute.
29. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 09.06.2022 passed in Writ-C No.3526 of 2022; Society, Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti, J.J.D. Baba Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition after summoning and examining the original records from the office of the Assistant Registrar. The writ petition shall be decided alongwith Writ-C No.1074 of 2022. Accordingly, the Writ-C No.3526 of 2022 is restored on the board of learned Single Judge which shall be connected and decided alongwith Writ-C No.1074 of 2022.
30. Learned Single Judge is requested to expedite the hearing of both the writ petitions as aforesaid.
31. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.08.2022 Haseen U.