Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M BHARTIYA VIDYALAYA THRU' ITS MANAGER PESHKAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Bhartiya Vidyalaya Thru' Its Manager Peshkar Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. - 43384 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15389 (12 September 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43384 of 2007

The Committee of Management,

Bhartiya Vidyalaya, Nitanandpur, Kannuaj,

through its Manager Peshkar Singh and another

Versus

The State of U. P. and others

Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.

Present writ petition has been filed by the The Committee of Management, Bhartiya Vidyalaya, Nitanandpur, Kannuaj, through its Manager Peshkar Singh, questioning the validity of of decision dated 21.08.2007 taken by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur.

In the district of Kannauj, there is society known as Bhartiya Vidyalaya Nitanandpur, which is duly registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Said society was originally included in the district of Farrukhabad, and after creation of new district Kannauj, it has been included in the said district Kannauj. Aforesaid society was registered for the first time on 04.01.1982 and the same has been renewed from time to time, lastly on 04.01.2005 for five years on the application of petitioners. Said society has got its registered bye-laws. Aforesaid society runs and manages the affairs of an educational institution known as Bhartiya Vidyalaya, Nitanandpur, Kannuaj, which is engaged in imparting education up to Intermediate level. Last elections of the Committee of Management of the society had been held on 20.04.2004, wherein Babu Ram was elected as President and Peshkar Singh as Manager. Petitioners submit that annual list of Managing body as is envisaged under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was filed on 29.06.2006. It has been contended that qua Principal of the institution, there has been dispute, and thereafter at the behest of the Principal of the institution, Mahendra Singh Yadav, who is not even primary member of the general body of the society, set up forged and fabricated election dated 08.04.2007, wherein he alleged to have been elected as Manager and Babu Ram as President. On 17.04.2007, Mahendra Singh Yadav submitted annual list of Managing body for the year 2007-08. Petitioners have contended that resolution was passed for holding election on 01.05.2007, and thereafter on 13.05.2007 fresh elections have been held. In the said elections 17 members of the general body out of 21 members were present and entire papers were transmitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. Petitioners have contended that on 22.05.2007 when they reached the office then it was revealed that Mahendra Singh Yadav had already filed some forged documents, and on that basis, annual list has been taken on record. Petitioners filed detailed objection, categorically mentioning therein that Mahendra Singh Yadav is not even primary member of the general body of the society, he is rank trespasser. Thereafter on 12.06.2007 notices were issued. Petitioners have contended that thereafter on 30.06.2007 he appeared and on the said date item Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were taken on record and thereafter on 14.08.2007 again papers were filed. 17 members out of 21 of the general body of society, namely, Niwas Chandra, Manoj Kumari, Mahesh Chandra, Ram Chandra, Dinesh Kumar Singh, Suresh Chandra Yadav, Ram Ladaite, Kaushalya Devi, Vijay Bahadur Singh, Rohitash Verma, Mahesh Chandra, Radhey Shyam, Dhani Ram, Ram Nath, Shrikrishna, Ahibaran Singh and Bhanu Prakash Singh filed their notarial affidavits, stating that proceedings initiated by Mahendra Singh Yadav were forged and fabricated, as he had included 17 new members in the general body totally against the provisions of bye-laws of the society. Thereafter, order impugned has been passed.

Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri B.P. Mishra, Advocate, assailed the validity of the said impugned order by contending that Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits has totally failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, inasmuch as, fraud has been practiced upon him and the material which was supplied before him, totally substantiated said fraud and said facts, have totally been ignored and totally on mere surmises and conjectures order has been passed, and coupled with this, Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits at no point of time before accepting the list of members and office bearers of other side ever made any exercise to satisfy himself prima facie that there were justifiable reasons to accept the same on record under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as such impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Sri G.K. Singh, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3, contended with vehemence that he would not be filing counter affidavit and on the basis of the pleadings available on record, writ petition be finally heard and disposed of. It has been contended by him that due consideration is there in the impugned order, as such no interference be made.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges in the present case is that Mahendra Singh Yadav claims himself to have been elected as Manager on 08.04.2007 and on the basis of the said election he supplied list of members as is required under Section 4 of the Act. This fact has not been disputed that before Deputy Registrar on papers pertaining to the list of members and office bearers being submitted by Mahendra Singh Yadav, no notices had been issued to any one of the office bearers and members. Petitioner has taken categorical stand that Mahendra Singh Yadav was not even primary member of the general body of the society and his entire claim was based on forgery and fabrication. Notarial affidavit have been filed by 17 members out of 21 members. Sri G.K. Singh, Advocate submits that majority of members, who had participated in the election dated 08.04.2007 had given affidavit in favour of Mahendra Singh Yadav, but the fact of the matter is that Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits at no point of time has ever proceeded to examine the genuineness of the proceeding, which had been set up by Mahendra Singh Yadav. Once issue had been raised that Mahendra Singh Yadav was not even primary member of the general body of the society, then this particular issue went to the root of the matter as any person can be accepted as valid member of the General Body of the society only if he fulfills the terms of Section 15 of the Societies Registration, 1860 and the bye-laws of the society. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits has proceeded to mention that within time frame objections had not been filed. Once fraud and manipulation was being alleged and the affidavits had been filed, then it was bounden duty of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to examine all these aspects of the matter, but all these facts have been ignored. In this background, there is complete failure on the part of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits in deciding the matter in its correct perspective. Sri G.K. Singh, Advocate, has agreed to the impugned order being quashed and matter being remitted back to Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to be decided afresh.

Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 21.08.2007 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits is hereby quashed; matter is remitted back to said authority for being decided afresh. It is made clear that Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits shall examine as to whether Mahendra Singh is Yadav is primary member of the general body of the society or not and also shall record prima facie satisfaction on following three aspects: (i) persons who convened meeting for holding election had authority to do so; (ii) Persons who participated in the election were valid members entitled to participate in the election; and (iii) elections were held as per provisions as contained in the bye-laws of the society, and in case Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits finds that there is bona fide genuine dispute, then in that event after recoding reasons, he may refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority.

No order as to costs.

12.09.2007

SRY


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.