Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M.,JANTA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL THRU.ITS MGR.O.P.DIXIT & ANR. versus REGISTRAR FIRMS SOCIETIES & CHITS & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M.,Janta Junior High School Thru.Its Mgr.O.P.Dixit & Anr. v. Registrar Firms Societies & Chits & Another - WRIT - C No. 49397 of 2000 [2003] RD-AH 269 (8 August 2003)

 

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.9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49397 of  2000

Committee of Management & another ..........................Petitioners

Versus

Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies

and Chits and another ....................................Respondents

........

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioners  who claim themselves to be the Committee of Management of Janta Junior High School, Vichand Pahadpur Etah and  its Manager have  prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.11.2000 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Agra, filed as Annexure 23 to the writ petition and further a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioners' Committee of Management which they claim to have been validly elected and accepted by the Assistant Registrar on 20.8.2000 and the respondents be further restrained from interfering with the functioning of the petitioners committee in any manner whatsoever.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows

There is a society known as Janta Junior High School situated at Vichand Pahadpur in the district of Etah. It was established in the year 1981 and is governed by its bye-laws. The bye-laws provide that a Committee of Management shall be constituted from amongst the members of the general body consisting of 18 members and office bearers. The term of the Committee of Management is 5 years. There is no dispute that since 1986 Shri Ramadhar Dixit was elected as Manager. He continued uptill 28.8.2000.

According to the petitioner he tendered his resignation on 10.6.2000 which was accepted by the Committee of Management vide  resolution of the same date. However, it was provided that he shall continue till alternative arrangement is made and the signature of the next incumbent  is attested by the Educational Authorities. Immediately after the death of Shri Ramadhar Dixit on 28.8.2000 the present petitioner No.2  submitted a list of office bearers for the year 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 declaring himself  as Manager. The list was registered by the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 8.9.2000. The petitioners claimed to have been elected in the election held on 20.8.2000.

It appears that one Shri Rakesh Chandra had made an application on 22.9.2000 before the Deputy Registrar that the registration has been done on the basis of forged  list which ought to be cancelled. The Deputy Registrar issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the  list be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation and filed  documents in support of his claim. On behalf of Rakesh Chandra also documents were filed. He filed the affidavit of Shri Parmeshwari Dayal and 10 other members of the Committee of Management in which it was stated that no such resignation of Ramadhat Dixit was  given nor any meeting was held on 10.6.2000 accepting his resignation and permitting him to continue till alternative arrangement is made. The matter was heard by the Deputy Registrar in which both the sides had an opportunity to represent their cases. Shri Parmeshwari Dayal also appeared in person and gave a statement that his signature appears to have been forged on the resolution dated 10.6.2000 and further neither any election was held on 20.8.2000 nor Ramadhar Dixit had tendered any resignation. The opinion of the handwriting expert was also filed from the side of Rakesh Chandra that the alleged signature of Shri Ramadhar Dixit in  the affidavit is forged. The Deputy Registrar  after considering the material and evidence on record came to the conclusion that no such meeting as alleged was held on 10.6.2000 and the minutes of the meeting have been forged . He further came to the conclusion that Ramadhar Dixit had  not given any resignation and had he given the resignation in June, 2000 as claimed by the petitioners, there was no occasion for signing the salary bill for the month of July. Relying upon the  opinion of the hand writing expert he further found that  the signature of Ramadhar Dixit in the affidavit is forged

I have heard Shri A.P.Sahi learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K.Jain learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 4 of the Societies Registration act, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide  the rival claim of the election in as much as the respondent no.4 has also set up an election on 13.10.2000. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of  All India Council and another Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits Varanasi Region and another  reported in A.I.R. 1988 Allahabad 236 wherein this court  has held that if a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office bearers of a society registered  in Uttar Pradesh,  the same has  to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under section 25 (1)  and not by the Registrar, save, of course,   to the decision of the   Prescribed Authority being subject to the  result of the civil suit and  if such a dispute is raised  before or is brought   to the notice of the Registrar,  he should refer the same for adjudication  to the  Prescribed Authority and he cannot claim to decide that dispute himself.

Shri Sahi learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the  report of the handwriting expert was not confronted to the petitioner and therefore any decision  based on the said report stands vitiated  as the principle of natural justice has been violated. He  submitted that since the resignation of Ram Adhar Dixit was accepted on 10.6.2000 by the Committee of Management and he was  permitted to continue till  alternative arrangement are made, therefore he had to signed  the salary bill for the mnoth of July,2000 and no exception can be taken thereto .

Shri P.K.Jain learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 submitted that while deciding the validity of the list of office bearers which is to be registered under section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, the Deputy Registrar can examine as to whether the list of office bearers is genuine or not  and in deciding the said question the  Deputy Registrar is also empowered  to go into the question as to whether the election set up by  the rival Committee of Management is forged or not. He further submitted  that the affidavits filed by 11 members of the Committee of Management remained uncontroverted and in fact the President Parmeshwari Dayal  who appeared in person before the Deputy Registrar had stated that no such resignation was tendered by Ram Adhar  Dixit and the alleged meeting of 10thJune,2000 was never held   and the signature are forged. He  thus  submitted that the  theory of resignation and the same having been accepted on 10.6.2000 by the Committee of Management stood demolished and therefore  the Deputy Registrar was justified in cancelling the list submitted by the petitioner and  registering the list submitted by the rival committee and  had relied upon the affidavit filed by 11 members of the existing Committee of Management . In fact Shuri Parmeshwari Dayal the president had appeared in person and had stated that no such meeting was called nor any such resolution was passed and his  signature is forged.

From the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners it appears that the petitioners have filed documents controverting the affidavits filed on behalf of the answering respondents which was received in the office of Deputy Registrar on 30.10.2000 as per photostat copy of the letter  filed as Annexure SA 2. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 1.11.2000 passed by the Deputy Registrar it does appear that the Deputy Registrar has not considered the affidavits filed by the petitioner along with the letter  which was received on 30.10.2000. It further shows that he has not given any opportunity to the petitioner  to meet  the opinion of the hand writing expert . In this view of the matter without going  to other points raised by the learned counsel for the parties  as the principle of natural justice have been violated and the impugned order appears to have been passed after ignoring the relevant material and consideration, the impugned order  cannot be sustained.  In view of the foregoing discussion the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.11.2000 is set aside and the mater is remanded to the Deputy Registrar to  decide the same afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. However, the parties shall bear their own  costs.

Dt. 8.8.2003

Sh

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Pursuant to the direction  given by this Court  vide judgment and order dated 7.4.2000 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45990 of 1999 and other connected writ petitions . The representation made by the petitioners have been decided by the Joint Director of Education vide order dated 19.7.2000. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has been stated that the respondent no.2 Shri Chandra Singh Gawal who had passed the order as Joint Director of Education was under the order of transfer on 3.7.2000 and he handed over the charge to Shri Narain Datt Galtaur   in the forenoon of 19.7.2000.  This fact has not been denied by the State in its supplementary counter affidavit filed by Raj Singh Yadav, Principal Government Inter College, Noida and had been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 to 5 .

In paragraph 3 of the said supplementary counter affidavit, the effect of the order of transfer and handing over charge has not been disputed.

In this view of the matter, there was no occasion nor any justification  for the respondent no.2 to pass the impugned order . On this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Director of Education , Meerut Region, Meerut to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties within one month from the date a certified copy  of this order is filed before him.

This order will not affect the illegal order passed  regarding the appointment which is subject matter  of challenge in another writ petition.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

Dt. 8.8.2003

Sh


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.