Allahabad High Court
C/M Veer Eklavya Uchchatar Madhyamik ... vs Sub Divisional Magistrate And 2 Others on 18 February, 2020
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5767 of 2020 Petitioner :- C/M Veer Eklavya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Siksha Samiti And Another Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta,Pawan Kumar Rao Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravindra Nath Yadav Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
This petition is directed against an order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 7.12.2019, whereby reference filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the election proceedings dated 25.2.2010, wherein respondent no. 3 was elected as Manager, has been affirmed. A recall application filed by the petitioner has also been rejected and thus aggrieved, petitioner is before this Court.
Veer Eklavya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Luxmipur, District Deoria is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the registration thereof was renewed from time to time. It is admitted that in the year 2005 a managing committee was elected in which respondent no.3 was elected as President. The term of the Society was five years. The present petitioner claims that he was made a member of the society some times in the year 2008 and a fee receipt to this effect has been annexed at Page 110 of the writ petition, according to which respondent no. 3 had issued a membership receipt in favour of the petitioner on 30.7.2008.
It transpires that a plea of resignation by respondent no.3 was set up where after petitioner no. 2 claimed himself to have been elected as Manager and and fresh renewal of registration was got issued in favour of the present petitioner. Ultimately, an order came to be passed by the Assistant Registrar on 30.9.2020, accepting the plea of election held on 25.2.2010 by respondent no 3 and also directed registration of the list of office bearers. This order of Assistant Registrar recorded that the petitioner has failed to produce any document in support of his claim of membership and that his claim is based upon manipulated documents. It was against the order of Assistant Registrar dated 30.9.2010 that the present petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 64902 of 2010 which came to be disposed of by this Court. The order of the Assistant Registrar dated 30.9.2010 was set aside as this Court was of the opinion that the dispute of office bearers had to be resolved by the Prescribed Authority. The operative portion of the order dated 2.11.2010, passed in Writ Petition No. 64902 of 2010, reads as under:-
"In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of finally setting aside the order impugned dated 30.09.2010 and directing the respondent No.1 to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh on the basis of relevant record, after affording full opportunity to the parties, if possible, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
No order as to costs."
It is thereafter that the reference has been registered. The proceedings before the Prescribed Authority continued for a period of almost 9 years and the order sheet of the case goes to show that on several dates accommodation was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner apparently sought accommodation on 22.11.2019 but the proceedings were finalised and the recall application filed by the petitioner on the same date has been rejected. The Prescribed Authority has observed that the election conducted on 25.2.2010 is in accordance with Clause-9 (2) of the Bye-laws of the Society and that petitioner has failed to produce any material to the contrary. The findings in that regard are assailed on various grounds.
So far as petitioner's claim of election in the year 2009 is concerned, this Court prima-facie finds that the observation of the prescribed authority that such election was uncalled for appears to have substance inasmuch as once the last election was held in the year 2005, the next election was to be held in the year 2010 and the plea of elections set up by the petitioner in the year 2009 is wholly uncalled for. The prescribed authority has disbelieved the plea of resignation by respondent no. 3 who was admittedly elected as the Manager in 2005 and would have continued as such till 2010 but for the alleged resignation claimed by the petitioner. The resignation by respondent no. 3 is otherwise seriously disputed.
Having examined the materials placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that question of facts, which are sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner to impeach the election dated 25.2.2010, require leading of evidence, both oral and documentary. The election dated 25.2.2010 which has been recognised merely reelected the previously elected manager i.e. respondent no. 3. Petitioner himself claims to have been enrolled as a member in the year 2008 and his membership has been seriously doubts. In that circumstances, remedy of petitioner would be to approach the Civil Court for an appropriate declaration with regard to his membership and also for challenging the orders passed by the prescribed authority. No interference in the writ petition is called for. Consequently, writ petition fails and is consigned to records.
Order Date :- 18.2.2020 n.u.