High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M. Bajpaiyee Kanya Inter College, Shiksha Samiti & Ors. v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 18724 of 2006  RD-AH 7288 (5 April 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ No. 18724 of 2006
Committee of Management Bajpaiyee Kanya Inter College, Shiksha Samiti Belauha, Post Karmaini District Sant Kabir Nagar through its Manager Munni Lal Yadav and others.
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 17.2.2006 and 20.2.2006 passed by opposite party no.2, Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Fund Chits, Gorakhpur.
There is a society known as Bajpaiyee Inter College, Shiksha Samiti post Karmaini, District Sant Kabir Nagar registered under the Societies Registration Act which manage the function and property of Institution of Kanya Primary and Pre Secondary School village Belauha District Sant Kabir Nagar.
A dispute arose regarding membership and office bearer of the society. The Assistant Registrar instead of referring the matter under Section 25 of the Society Registration Act entertained the matter himself and decided the case. The society has been renewed under Manger-ship of petitioner no.3 till 11.5.2009 and the list of the office bearer under the President ship of petitioner no.2 and Manager-ship of petitioner no.3 has also been registered. The opposite party no.3 was made a member of the society on 15.5.2001, as such he was not office bearer prior to that date.
It appears that petitioner no.3 moved an application before Superintendent of Police Sant Kabir Nagar, Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Funds Gorakhpur, Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur with the allegation that Munni Lal Yadav petitioner no.3 has nominated Ram Saran opposite party no.3 as Deputy Manager of the Society who has taken away the entire documents of the Society and is not returning the same and as such the action may be taken against him.
It is alleged that Ram Saran moved an application before opposite party no.2, Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Funds Gorakhpur for expelling Om Prakash and Munni Lal Yadav, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 from the Society and in his place the list of the office bearers produced by him may be registered.
In reply to the notice dated 27.9.2005 and 24.10.2005 petitioner no.2 submitted an application dated 13.10.2005 to the effect that the application dated 19.9.2005 moved by opposite party no.3 in the capacity of Manager is forged and baseless. Thereafter petitioner no.2 on 20.1.2006 sought adjournment from the Assistant Registrar to enable him to produce evidence but the case was not adjourned and it is alleged that no notice was given to the petitioner of the next date i.e. 17.2.2006/20.2.2006. Petitioner no.2 again moved an application before opposite party no.2 on 2.2.2006 interalia that copy of the application moved by Ram Saran had not been served upon him. It is further alleged that the dispute is only with regard to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 but the name of all other members of the society have also been deleted and totally new members have been included in the list of the office bearers and the opposite party no.2 has passed the exparte orders dated 17.2.2006 and 20.2.2006 against the petitioners without affording an opportunity of hearing .Thus which have been impugned in the present writ petition.
The counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have an efficacious and alternative remedy for redressal of their grievance by way of civil suit before the Civil Court.
The counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that findings of facts can be decided in suit and it is not feasible to decide disputed questions of facts required oral and documentary evidence in writ jurisdiction.
It is settled law that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should only decide the pure question of law in case of undisputed facts. It is not feasible for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide every such matter. The power under Article 226 is to be exercised in rare of rarest cases and certainly not in cases involving lightly disputed questions of facts as stated above.
I am of the firm opinion that in cases where there is a dispute regarding election of membership of the Committee of Management or society it is to be decided by the Civil Court which is alternate and efficacious remedy. Disputed question of fact and law require decision on basis of oral and documentary evidence.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner may approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.