Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINAY KUMAR SINGH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinay Kumar Singh & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 11299 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 4407 (23 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.26

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.11299 of 2006

Vinay Kumar Singh & another

Versus

    State of U.P. and others

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.1.2006 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) as well as the order dated 26.8.2005 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition).

The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that there is an institution known as Santoshi Maa Kanya Vidhyapeeth, Deokali Jaunpur (herein after referred to as the institution).  The Institution is governed by the set of Rules known as U.P. Recognized Basic School (Junior High School) (Recruitment and Condition of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978 and for the payment of salary is governed by U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. The institution is recognized under the U.P. Basic Education Act. The aforesaid institution is governed by the Committee of Management elected by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.  The dispute in the writ petition regarding to the controversy as to whether election dated 22.7.2002 in which the petitioner was elected as a Manager is valid election or alleged election dated 21.7.2002 was valid election in which the Committee of Management headed by late Hanuman Singh has been elected as Manager, therefore, the dispute in which is the genuine Committee of Management.  The last election of the Society was held on 14.7.1996.  In the aforesaid election dated 14.7.1996 one Sri Bechan Singh was elected as President and Sri Devideen Singh elected as Manager and late Hanuman Singh elected as Deputy Manger of the aforesaid society. There was no dispute about the election-dated 14.7.1996.  The next election has taken place in the month of July, 1999.  The term of the Committee of Management is three years according to the by-laws.  Meanwhile the sitting manager Sri Devideen Singh had died on 1.3.1999, therefore, by a resolution of the Society dated 20.6.1999, it has been resolved that the charge of Manager be handed over to the Deputy Manger Sri Hanuman Singh with the condition that he will hold the next election in July, 1999.  In view of the resolution dated 20.6.1999, it was the duty of late Hanuman Singh to conduct the election of the society in the month of July, 1999 but due to some vested interest the election did not taken place as no steps were taken by late Sri Hanuman Singh, as such, the general body of the Society have unanimously resolved that the election of the Committee of Management of the Society be held as early as possible and a meeting of the general body of the society was held on 22.7.2002 in which the petitioner was elected as Manager of the Society and Sri Satyendra Singh as a President of the Society. The necessary papers were placed before the respondent No.3 for making registration of the Committee of Management under the Manager ship of the petitioner under section 4 of the Act.

The notices were sent and as no objection has been received by the respondent No.1, therefore, the respondent No.1 in view of the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Act has registered the Committee of Management vide its order dated 29.1.2003 in which the petitioner was elected as a Manager and in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Basic Education Officer Jaunour has attested the signature of the petitioner No.1 as a manager of the Society vide order dated 1.2.2003.

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2003 the late Hanuman Singh has filed a Writ petition No.12767 of 2003 which was finally allowed by this Court by its order dated 25.2.2005 with a direction to the Assistant Registrar Firms, Chits, and Societies, Varanasi division, to decide the matter as a fresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of three months.  In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court the Assistant Registrar vide its order dated 26.8.2005 has passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner holding therein that from the perusal of the record it appears that there is no prove regarding the membership of the petitioner and he has not produced any document to show that he is the member of the society, as such, he cannot become the office bearer of the society and has also held that the society of Late Hanuman Prasad who is the Manager is being recognized.  Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed the writ petitionNo.5062 of 2005 at Lucknow Bench which was disposed of finally vide its order dated 15.9.2005 and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar Firms, Chits and Societies to consider the controversy as a fresh on the basis of the written statement filed by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.  In pursuance of the aforesaid order, dated 15.9.2005, the respondents have passed an order dated 27.1.2006 by which the claim of the petitioners has been dismissed.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that order passed in Writ Petition No. 5062 of 2005 dated 15.9.2005 which is apparently clear that a direction to this effect be given to the Registrar, Firms, to consider the controversy as a fresh keeping in view of the written statement filed by the petitioner which was Annexure 5 to the that writ petition after providing opportunity of hearing by a speaking and reasoned order.  But from the perusal of the order dated 27.1.2006, it has clearly been held that the order of the High Court has been perused and the record has been perused and there is no necessity to amendment of the order dated 26.8.2005.

The further contention of the petitioner is that from the perusal of the order dated 27.1.2006, it is clear that order passed by the respondents is an order of non application of mind without assigning any reason.  Only the various dates  have been mentioned and in the last portion it has been stated that there is no necessity of amendment in the order dated 26.8.2005.  Though the direction was issued by this Court in Writ petition that the respondents No.2 will consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the relevant record after considering the written statement on the various points and will pass a detailed and reasoned order but nothing has been done, as such, the order passed by the Registrar dated 27.1.2006 is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand Sri N.C.Tripathi, learned counsel who has put an appearance on behalf of the respondent No.4 has submitted that as the order dated 26.8.2005 was never set aside by the Lucknow Bench in order dated 15.9.2005, the same is apparent from the order passed in Writ petition No.70979 of 2005, which was filed by the petitioner himself against the letters dated 29.9.2005 and 7.10.2005 and this Court in that writ petition has clearly held that this writ petition appears to have been filled by the petitioner only to keep a dispute pending.  "The letters dated 29.9.2005 and 7.10.2005 are nothing but an internal communication between the respondent Nos. 3 and 4" The main prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 26.8.2005 passed by the Registrar". As the said order was challenged before the Lucknow Bench and the Court has held that order dated 26.8.2005 has not been set aside by the Court in Writ Petition No.5062 of 2005.

In such a situation, the respondent submits that taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the order dated 27.10.2005 has been passed by the respondent No.2 and there was nothing to be considered as each and every thing was considered by the authority in the order dated 26.8.2005.

It has further been submitted that the respondent no.2 has got no power to exercise the powers under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act.  It is only the Assistant Registrar who has got the jurisdiction. In such a situation, the respondents submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri N.C. Tripathi, who appears for the respondent No.4.

With the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting the counter affidavit. From the perusal of the order dated 15.9.2005 in the writ petition No.5026 of 2005 filed by the petitioner it is clear that the Registrar Firms Societies and Chits was directed to consider the controversy as a fresh keeping in view the written statement filed by the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing and it has further been directed that he will pass a reasoned and speaking order.  But from the perusal of the order dated 27.1.2006, it clearly appears that the respondent No.2 has only mention the dates on which the parties have been directed to appear and they have been heard and after that he has only stated that after perusal of the record, there is no necessity to pass any order as the order has already been passed on 26.8.2005 and there is no necessity for amendment in the said order.    Though the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.8.2005 but the said order has not been quashed by this Court in Writ petition No. 50260 of 2005. Therefore, while deciding the present controversy, this Court cannot set aside the said order.

In my opinion, this is a clear violation of the order of this Court dated 15.9.2005. The respondent No.2 was obliged to pass a detailed and reasoned order giving reasons in compliance of the order of this Court.  Only by holding that in his opinion there is no necessity of any amendment in the order dated 26.8.2005 cannot be said to be in compliance of the order of this Court dated 15.9.2005.  From the perusal of the aforesaid order it also appears that no reasons have been recorded and therefore, in my opinion, it is an order of non application of mind without assigning any reason.  In such a situation, I am of the opinion, that the order dated 27.1.2006 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 to pass as detailed and reasoned order in compliance with the order dated 15.9.2005 in writ petition No.5062 of 2005 after affording full opportunity to the parties.  It is also made clear that the respondent No.2 will pass a order within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.  

With these observation the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

23.2.2006

SKD        


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.