Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M PREMI BABA VIDYALAYA JHAPARA FIROZABAD & OTHERS versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/UP

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Premi Baba Vidyalaya Jhapara Firozabad & Others v. Prescribed Authority/Up-Ziladhikari & Others - WRIT - C No. - 47940 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16104 (28 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. 47940 of 2007

Committee of Management, P.B.

Vidyalaya Jhapara, Firozabad and others

Versus

Prescribed Authority and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.09.2007 passed by Prescribed Authority, Jasrana District Firozabad including all further proceeding of Case No. 7 of 2006-07.

Brief background of the case is that there is a society known as Premi Baba Vidyalaya Jhapara Firozabad which is registered society under the Societies Registration Act 1860. Udai Raj Singh and 19 others on 25.07.2007 has approached the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act 1860 requesting therein that entire election proceeding which has been submitted by Omkar Singh in respect of election dated 06.05.2007 be cancelled and election dated 15.05.2007 be accorded approval.

On presentation of the said election petition request was made before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act 1860 by the Udai Raj and others for summoning the record from the office of Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits so that matter be effectively adjudicated. On the said application being moved order was passed to put up with file. Thereafter application was moved by Omkar Singh and others for recalling of the order dated 25.07.2007 and on the said application Prescribed Authority on 02.08.2007 passed order staying the operation of the order dated 25.07.2007 thereafter on 14.09.2007 said order dated 02.08.2007 has been recalled and the matter has been is directed to be taken up on 03.10.2007. In between in respect of earlier dispute which had travelled up to this Court in the shape of Civil Misc. Writ Petition 49533 of 2007 (Ram Pal Singh and five others Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits and seven others) and therein this Court took note of election petition no. 7 of 2006-07 Udai Raj Singh and others Vs. Bharat Singh and others and directed that Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jasrana, Firozabad shall decide the election petition as expeditiously as possible.

Present writ petition has been filed by Omkar Singh claiming therein that entire proceedings are not liable to continue as incumbent who have approached the Prescribed Authority are not valid member of the Society.

Countering said submission by Sri Nitinjay Pandey, Advocate once representing respondents, submitted that incumbent has approached the Prescribed authority for deciding the validity of the election then no interference be made by this Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which is emerging in the present case is that Prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has been authorized to decide the dispute in a summery manner in respect of election or continuance of office bearers of such society, and to pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit. Said dispute is to be adjudicated by the Prescribed authority (i) on reference made to it by the Registrar, (ii) on being moved by at least one-fourth of the members of a society.

Here in the present case admittedly no reference has been made by the Registrar/Deputy Registrar/ Assistant Registrar as the case may be, rather to the contrary Udai Raj and other claiming that they constitute one-forth member of the General Body of the society have approached the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act 1860 for deciding the election dispute in summery manner declaring election of otherwise as invalid and declaring their election as valid. As to whether incumbent who have approached the prescribed authority, namely one-forth member of the General Body of the society are valid member of the General Body or not is essentially question of fact which will give authority to Prescribed Authority to proceeded with the matter inasmuch as only when one forth valid members would approach the Prescribed Authority only then he will have authority to adjudicate. Once objection is raised that they are not valid member of the General Body of the Society then Prescribed Authority should firstly decide this question as to whether incumbents who have approached the Prescribed Authority to decide the election dispute, constitute one-forth member of the General Body and each one of them is valid member under Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act 1860. When this particular question is answered in positive then Prescribed Authority will assume jurisdiction to decide the dispute, and in case answer is in negative then Prescribed authority will have no authority to proceed. If incumbents who have approached the Prescribed authority are valid member of the General Body and this fact is not disputed by rival claimants then Prescribed Authority is under obligation to go into the said question and should proceed to decide the election dispute in summery manner.

Consequently, prayer which has been made by petitioner cannot be accorded. Prescribed authority shall proceed to decide the dispute as per observation made above. Issue of jurisdiction can be decided by the Prescribed authority at the first instance. Order dated 14.09.2007 warrants no interference by this Court, inasmuch as nothing has been decided by means of the order dated 14.09.2007 and same is cent percent interlocutory order. Dispute in question is yet to be decided by the Prescribed authority.

Consequently writ petition is disposed of. The Prescribed authority shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible as already directed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 10.09.2007 preferably within period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

No order as to cost.

28th September, 2007

Dhruv


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.