Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The second objection of Sri Tripathi, with regard to filing of the Suit, is in essence the main issue and, therefore, is being decided along with the issue of jurisdiction hereinafter.

Sri Sinha advanced his submissions by contending that long back in the year 1970, 6 Churches merged together to form the Church of North India. According to him, this amalgamation of Churches further was followed by creation of a separate Diocese at Agra and in that chain, the Diocese of Lucknow came to be bifurcated territorially and by metes and bounds for all purposes between the Diocese of Lucknow and Diocese of Agra. For this, Sri Sinha relies on certain resolutions that have been brought on record to contend that the bifurcation of the religious order of Diocese was brought about in accordance with the Rules & Regulations of the supreme Church body and as a matter of fact after the bifurcation, the newly created Diocese of Agra took over charge of all the properties within its territorial jurisdiction including the educational Institutions and the education Board managing such institutions. Consequently the Bishop of Agra became the Chairman of Christ Church College Society. He contends that the by-laws as it stood in the year 1976 clearly provided that the Bishop of Lucknow, for the time being, or his duly appointed Commissary shall be the ex-officio Member of the Society and shall also be a Member of the governing body as per clause 8 (1) of the original by-laws. He further submits that the office-bearers of the Society have been defined in clause 12 which provides that there shall be a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and other office-bearers provided always that the Bishop of Lucknow, or his duly appointed Commissary shall be elected as the Chairman of the Society. His contention is that after the bifurcation of the Diocese and the adjustments which were carried out, meetings were convened by the Diocese of Lucknow itself under the then Chairmanship of Bishop Rt. Rev. Deen Dayal resolving and recommending that the Bishop of Agra shall be the legal successor of the Bishop of Lucknow in all the constitution of the institutions within the territory of Agra Diocese. It was also recommended and accepted that such constitution of the educational institutions or Society shall be altered accordingly and in place of Lucknow, it shall be treated to be changed as Agra. He has invited the attention of the Court to the recommendations dated 31.3.1976; copy whereof has been filed along with the second Supplementary-Affidavit dated 23.3.2011. It is submitted that as a consequence of this decision, the Bishop of Agra came to be duly nominated and this decision was chaired by the then undisputed Bishop of Lucknow. He, therefore, contends that this resolution itself will amount to a nomination of the Bishop of Agra as the Chairman of the Christ Church College Society in terms of the by-laws referred to herein above.

Sri Sinha, therefore, submits that this came to be executed formally with the Bishop of Agra Diocese taking over as the Chairman of the Christ Church College Society and which is also reflected in the minutes of 21st Annual General Meeting of the Society dated 21.2.1977; copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2A to the rejoinder-affidavit in Writ Petition No.23731 of 2011. He, therefore, contends that there was a clear take over of the office of Chairman by the Bishop of Agra in 1976-77 and since then it is only the Bishop of Agra who chairs the meeting of the Society. He further contends that the Bishop of Lucknow for the past more than 35 years has never acted as the Chairman of the Society or functioned as such. It is only after the new Bishop of Lucknow, who has taken over namely Rt. Rev. Morris Edgar Dan that this dispute has been raised on the ground that there has been no valid amendment in the by-laws of the Society and even if the Diocese was bifurcated or its properties were separated, the Society remained the same and there was no bifurcation or amendment so as to allow the Bishop of Agra to function as the Chairman. Sri Sinha submits that the office of Chairman and a few Members is ex-officio but the other office-bearers and Members of the governing body are elected and, therefore, any doubt or dispute in relation to the fact as to who is entitled to continue as a valid office-bearer is an issue which should go before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He contends that the respondent - Deputy Registrar, therefore, travelled beyond his jurisdiction in proceeding to determine as to who are the valid office-bearers entitled to manage the Society or present the documents or amendment of the by-laws or the renewal of the Society. The contention of Sri Sinha, therefore, is that the impugned order being without jurisdiction, the same deserves to be quashed.

Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi contends that the provisions of Section 25 have to be read as they stand and the same would indicate that resort to the said provision can be had only if there is a doubt or dispute with regard to the election or continuance of an office-bearer of a Society. Sri Tripathi lays stress on the words incorporated in the proviso thereto to contend that it is only an election which can be set aside if it is referred under Section 25 of the Act. He submits that in the instant case, the real dispute is as to which Diocese has the control over the Society and whose Bishop is to be the Chairman of the Society. Sri Tripathi contends that this declaration is, therefore, of the nature of a declaration about the Bishop of concerned Diocese who would be entitled to act as Chairman. According to him, this relief can only be granted by the Civil Court and not by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act. He further contends that the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar is on the basis of the material adduced and having taken notice of that, he has passed the order. The contention of Sri Tripathi further is that there might have been a division of the Diocese and it's properties but there was no bifurcation, dissolution or reformation of the Society namely Christ Church College Society. The constitution and the Management remained the same and no action was taken under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act to alter the constitution of the governing body of the Society. He further submits that any amendment brought about under the Chairmanship of the Bishop of Agra Diocese or the Principal of the College is not a valid amendment of the by-laws and, therefore, has been rightly discarded by the Assistant Registrar. Sri Tripathi, therefore, contends that these questions have to be raised only in a civil Suit and there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order or refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority.

Sri Shailendra, appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.66313 of 2011, contends that there are 3 bodies namely the Diocese which is concerned with only the religious affairs of the Church. The Church of North India and the Diocese at Lucknow is entitled to manage the affairs of the institutions under it through the Diocesan Education Board which is another body. The Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association deals with the property matters of the Lucknow Diocese. He contends that Lucknow diocese, which was admittedly controlling the Society and the Bishop of Lucknow was the Chairman, has never appointed or nominated the Bishop of Agra diocese to act as the Chairman of the Christ Church College Society. He further contends that it is only from within the Lucknow diocese that any person can be nominated and not a different Bishop. He further contends that there is no evidence to confer this authority on the Bishop of Agra and the alleged amendment relied upon by the petitioner is not inconformity with any statutory provision, as such, the same has been rightly discarded by the Deputy Registrar. He further contends that the petitioner of Writ Petition No.66313 of 2011 namely the Bishop of Lucknow had filed ample evidence to bring on record his claim, which has been completely overlooked and ignored by the Deputy Registrar, hence the impugned order is vitiated. Sri Shailendra, however, submits that this issue does not require any remittance to the Prescribed Authority and on the contrary, the impugned order should be set aside with a direction to the Deputy Registrar to decide the matter again after considering the documents that have been relied upon by the petitioner. His contention is that the other 3 contenders including the contesting respondents are rank trespassers and it is only the Bishop of Lucknow, who is entitled to have control over the affairs of the Christ Church College Society.