High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Bal Shiksha Mandir And Another v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies And Chits And Others - WRIT - C No. - 42861 of 2006  RD-AH 15972 (25 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42861 of 2006
Committee of Management, Bal Shiksha Mandir
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits
Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Sri R.K. Ojha for respondent no. 3.
This petition is directed against an order dated 21.7.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
Bal Shiksha Mandir,Kasia, in Kushi Nagar is a duly registered society under the Act having its object for promoting education. The undisputed election of the Committee of Management of the Society was held in 1995 wherein one Ram Adhar was elected as the President and Gauri Shankar was elected as the Manager. An alleged agenda dated 16.7.2001 was issued by Ram Adhar notifying election meeting of the General Body for 24.7.2001 where Ram Adhar was elected as President and Sarvesh Kumar, respondent no. 4 was allegedly elected as the Manager. The papers with regard to the election were submitted to the Assistant Registrar, who registered it on 16.10.2001 and granted the renewal of the Society for five years with effect from 3.11.2001. It appears that aforesaid Gauri Shankar approached the Registrar against the aforesaid certificate which was rejected and the same was subjected to challenge in writ petition no. 32183 of 2002. The dispute between the parties gave rise to a large number of writ petitions and subsequently when the Assistant Registrar vide his order dated 26.6.2003 held that the election conducted by Sarvesh Kumar was invalid, he filed writ petition no. 30806 of 2003. All these writ petitions were connected and by a detailed judgement, it was rejected on 23.9.2005 with the finding that once Assistant Registrar has found that the claim of Sarvesh Kumar was based on fraud, he was within his jurisdiction in recalling the registration certificate. However, the court also found that the dispute relates to the election of the Society and as such it gave an opportunity to the contesting respondents to approach the Prescribed Authority under the Act. It appears that Sarvesh Kumar filed Special Appeal against the aforesaid order but withdrew it and approached the Prescribed Authority with regard to the election dispute. The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated3.3.2006 held that the claim set up by Sarvesh Kumar was genuine and that set up by Jai Govind was rejected. This order was subjected to challenge in writ petition no. 30724 of 2006 and a Learned Single Judge on perusal of the order found that there is no clear cut finding whether 1/4th members had approached the authority for exercise of powers under section 25(1) of the Act and therefore remanded the matter vide order dated 26.5.2006 by the following relevant directions:-
" I, therefore, remand the matter back to the Prescribed Authority who will examine this issue first, i.e. whether the reference sought under section 25(1) by the respondent no. 3 had support of 1/4th members of the Society or not......."
In pursuance thereof the present impugned order has been passed holding that the reference had support of 3/4th members of the Society and reiterated his other findings of the order dated 3.3.2006 recognizing the respondents as the valid committee.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that once the findings of this Court in the judgement dated 23.9.2005 had become final, the Prescribed Authority could not go behind the said findings and accept the claim of Sarvesh Kumar.
No doubt this Court in its judgement dated 23.9.2005 has upheld the order of the Assistant Registrar who had found that the claim of Sarvesh Kumar with regard to the election was fraudulent and therefore he was justified in directing him to return the registration and renewal certificate. The Assistant Registrar through its order dated 26.4.2003 had recalled his earlier order registering the office bearers of the Management submitted by Sarvesh Kumar. The power of the Assistant Registrar under section 3, 3A and 4 is administrative and not adjudicatory in nature as is evident from the judgement dated 23.9.2005 itself. The Assistant Registrar felt that Sarvesh Kumar has been able to obtain registration certificate by fraud, therefore, he recalled the order which was upheld. However, the Prescribed Authority while exercising powers under section 25(1) has summary but quasi judicial powers and is not bound by the administrative decision rendered by the Assistant Registrar under section 3, 3A and 4 of the Act. That is why the court in its judgment dated 23.9.2005 had observed that the aggrieved party could approach the Prescribed Authority under section 25(1) of the Act where there is any dispute with regard to the election or membership of the Society. It is the Prescribed Authority under section 25(1) of the Act which can, though summarily, adjudicate upon it, subject to the decision of a regular court. Therefore, this argument, though attractive, cannot be accepted.
Lastly it is urged, that, once the order dated 3.3.2006 had been set aside by this Court vide its order dated 26.5.2006, the Prescribed Authority had to decide the matter afresh.
The Prescribed Authority by the order dated 3.3.2006 had upheld the claim of Sarvesh Kumar, but on challenge, this Court vide its order dated 26.5.2006 remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority on the limited question as to whether the reference had the support of 1/4th members of the Society. The Court had neither dealt with any other finding nor did it set aside any of its findings. The Prescribed Authority, on remand, found that 3/4th members had supported the reference, reiterated his other findings of the order dated 3.3.2006. Technically speaking, he ought to have incorporated those findings in the impugned order, but he took the easier way of reiterating the earlier findings, which cannot be faulted on this ground alone. In the order dated 3.3.2006, the Prescribed Authority has considered the case of the parties and examined the material on record and has returned findings in favour of Sarvesh Kumar and against the petitioner.
There is another aspect with regard to the claim of the petitioner.
The dispute relates to the Society known as 'Bal Shiksha Mandir, Kasia , Khushi Nagar.' The petitioner no. 1 claims that he was made the Manager of the aforesaid Society after removal of Shri Gauri Shankar from the erstwhile Committee of the Management through a resolution dated 15.12.2002. The aforesaid resolution is annexed as Annexure 4 to this petition but it is with respect to a Society known as 'Samiti Bal Shiksha Mandir, Kasia.' In support of his claim the petitioner relied upon the voters list of 2000-2001, 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 which are jointly annexed as Annexure 18 to this petition. However, this list also relates to a Society known as 'Samiti Bal Shiksha Mandir, Kasia.' Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any explanation about the aforesaid anomaly, thus, creating a doubt in the matter of the Court.
No other point has been urged.
For the reasons given above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. However, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the regular civil court. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.