Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Laxmi,J.

These three appeals relate to the elections of the Committee of Management and affairs of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 namely, the Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh, Khemapur Faizabad, district Ambedkar Nagar, the focus whereof is the challenge raised to the order of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad dated 15.04.2011 whereby the contention raised on behalf of the appellants had been accepted and the Deputy Registrar had after declaring the tenure of the Committee of Management of the society to have come to an end, further issued directions for holding of fresh elections in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the 1860 Act.

Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in Special Appeal No.265 of 2014 has extensively taken the Court through the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar to contend that the Deputy Registrar found serious irregularities and that no evidence of any elections having been held being available in his records, he had no option but to declare the committee to have become defunct since 1967 and the only option left under the provisions of the 1860 Act was to hold fresh elections. He further submits that since the date 01.04.2008 as mentioned by the learned Single Judge was not obviously in relation to the elections of the society, the same had been rightly corrected by the learned Single Judge dating it back to 1967 on the modification record. It is only the members who were existing then who were entitled to participate. Sri Babban Singh the Principal of the College in order to usurp the society and perpetuate his existence carried out the amendments reposing sole arbitrary powers in himself about membership including the power to receive the contribution for membership that was to be accepted by him only. The provisions of his becoming a life member of the society and inducting his son and wife as office bearers as a consequence of the illegal amendments can be of no avail and therefore, the Deputy Registrar was justified in exercising his power for annulling the said amendment. He, therefore, submits that if the respondent No.9 and 10 of Special Appeal No.265 of 2014 are aggrieved by any such orders on the amendment, they had a right of appeal under Section 12 (D) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which has not been availed of. The order of the Deputy Registrar therefore, cannot be questioned in view of what has been stated above.

In order to resolve the controversy, we have to first advert to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011 including the order dated 08.05.2014 that is impugned in Special Appeal No.265 of 2014. This is necessary as the decision in this appeal will have a direct impact on the other two appeals.

Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011 had been filed challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011. The writ petition was dismissed on 09.01.2012 recording that no election of the Society Management took place after 01.04.2008. This position has again been reiterated in the impugned order dated 08.05.2014 giving rise to Special Appeal No.265 of 2014. What we find is that there is a serious dispute about the recording of the correct date of last elections in the said order between the parties. The appellants of Special Appeal No.265 of 2014 contend that no elections were held after 1967 and the committee had become defunct whereas, the learned Single Judge held that no election took place after 01.04.2008 and as such, the term of Committee of management has expired. For this, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 08.05.2014 refers to certain documents relating to the elections upto 2008 alleged to have been set up by the respondent No.9 and 10 of Special Appeal No.265 of 2014. The appellants dispute the said elections contending that they are the dates of elections of managements of the Intermediate College and not of the society if at all they have been held. The appellants specifically contend that no elections of the society were held after 1967. The Deputy Registrar while passing the order dated 15.04.2011 framed only three issues for deciding the matter namely, the status of the amendment in the original byelaws of 1965, whether the Principal of the institution established by the society can also be the founder member of the parent society and thirdly, the status of members and membership is according to the original byelaws as against the amended byelaws of the society. However, while proceeding to consider this aspect of membership and the issue of amendment, the Deputy Registrar proceeded to hold that any elections or proceedings conducted on the strength of the such amendment and membership were invalid and, therefore, all elections after 29.11.1967 were invalid. Consequently, in the absence of any valid elections after 1967 the committee has become defunct and, therefore, it was necessary to invoke the provisions of sub-section 92) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

The learned Single Judge completely omitted to consider the aforesaid three issues and on the strength of the conclusion of the Deputy Registrar about the defunct status of the Committee of management, proceeded to uphold the order of the Deputy Registrar and issued directions for holding fresh elections but while doing so, the learned Single Judge mentioned the date 1st of April, 2008. This date nowhere is in the entire order of the Deputy Registrar pertaining to the election of the society while treating it to be defunct whereas, the contesting respondents 9 and 10 are alleging that they held elections periodically on 30.11.1969, 30.11.1971, 30.11.1973, 30.11.1975, 30.11.1977, 30.11.1979, 30.11.1983, 04.04.1988, 3.04.1993, 01.03.2003 and 01.04.2008. Sri Anil Tewari for the appellants urges that all these dates are fake and there is no document or any proceeding worth the name to support the holding of any such elections. According to him, the Deputy Registrar has categorically recorded that such documents are not available on his file. On a perusal of the order dated 15.04.2011 we find that before the Deputy Registrar, the one election of the Committee had been intimated through a registered letter dated 11.12.1985. At another place, it has been mentioned that while granting renewal on 06.11.1982 with effect from 10.10.1981, the list of office bearers and the elections proceedings dated 29.11.1981 has been submitted along with the election papers whereafter the renewal was granted. Thus, there is a reference of the stand taken by the respondent No.9 and 10 about the submission of documents relating to some elections held in between. However, neither the Deputy Registrar nor the learned Single Judge have examined this issue to find out abut the status of such elections and therefore, we find that there was no basis for the learned single Judge to have arrived at the conclusion that no elections were held after 01.04.2008 or that they have been held periodically prior to that date. The order of the Deputy Registrar of no elections having been held after 1967 is, therefore, clearly at variance with the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that no elections were held after 01.04.2008 for which we do not find any basis having been discussed or determined either by the Deputy Registrar or by the learned Single Judge. The Deputy Registrar had not even framed the issue to that effect which was necessary inasmuch as, unless that is done, no conclusion can be drawn about the defunct status of the Committee of Management so as to invoke the powers under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.