Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JANTA SHIKSHA PARISHAD, BAZAR GOSAI & ANOTHER versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Janta Shiksha Parishad, Bazar Gosai & Another v. Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer & Another - WRIT - C No. 19872 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 1110 (21 April 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard.

The writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 19.4.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Sub Divisional Officer, Sagari, Azamgarh. By the impugned order the election of Committee of Management of the Society of which S/Sri JagdishChandra Dubey (President),  Indrasen Rai (Manager) and Kailash Rai (Mantri) has been recognized in pursuance of elections held on 5.1.1997 and 2.4.2999 and the elections of committee of management under the presidentship of Sri Shiv Shankar Singh has also been de-recognized.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner Janta Shiksha Parishad, Bazar Gosai, Tehsil Sagri, District Azamgarh is a recognized society under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860.  The society has also established colleges, degree colleges, libraries etc.  The society is run by a Committee of Management, which has its own bye-laws. The bye-laws provide for separate committees of management for each institution.  

Sri Indrasan Rai- respondent no. 2 moved an application before the Assistant Registrar, Chits, Funds and Societies, Azamgarh on 2.6.1997 supported by an affidavit inter alia that after 2.10.1995, the registration certificate was not renewed and the original certificate was missing.  On 13.11.1997, petitioner no. 2 filed objections stating that S/Sri Amresh Chandra Pandey, Ram Gati singh and Shiv Shankar Singh had been elected as Manager, President and Secretary on 25.5.1997 and the registration certificate had already been renewed for a period of five years w.e.f. 9.10.1995 to 9.10.2000.  

Upon receipt of the application, the Assistant Registrar, Chits, Funds and Societies, Azamgarh issued notice on 6.6.1998 to the petitioner no. 2 as well as respondent no. 2 to produce original documents and other relevant materials in support of their respective claims.  

The Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh and Assistant Registrar, Varanasi fixed a number of dates in the case, but neither respondent no. 2 appeared nor produced any documents in support of his case.  It is alleged that the petitioner appeared on all the dates fixed and stated that when the representative of the respondent no. 2 appeared on 20.5.2000 and he was informed that the matter would be heard for final disposal on 24.5.2000. As neither respondent no. 2 nor his representative appeared on 24.5.2000 the date fixed, order was reserved fixing 29.5.2000 for delivery of judgment.  On 29.5.2000, the application dated 2.6.1997 of the respondent no. 2 was rejected hence he moved an application on 14.7.2999 under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.  Petitioner no. 2 filed objection on 23.2.2001questioning the maintainability of the reference at the instance of respondent no. 2.  Vide order dated 19.4.2001, the Prescribed Authority- respondent no. 1 allowed the application of the respondent no. 2.

Counsel for Respondent no. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable in view of provisions contained in clause 13(4) of the bye-laws of the petitioner-Society appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition which were amended by resolution of the General Body of the Society on 29.5.1994 restricting the term of the committee of management as well as its office bearers to three years.. It is also claimed by the respondent no. 2 that he has been discharging the duties as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of respondent no. 2 was allowed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Chits and Societies, ex parte, is illegal and void ab initio and it has been passed ignoring the order dated 29.5.2000 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Chits Funds and Societies which had become final and the claim set up by respondent no. 2 was found to be false and baseless.  It is further submitted that the dispute was not covered by Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act but the Prescribed Authority usurped the jurisdiction and passed the impugned order dated 19.4.2001, operation of which was stayed by this court vide order dated 22.5.2991. It is further submitted that the application dated 2.6.1997 claiming renewal of certificate of the society was moved by the respondent no. 2 and rejected by the Assistant Registrar, Chits Funds and Societies vide order dated 29.5.2000 has become final. He states that    Respondent no. 2 cannot now brand the order dated 29.5.2000 to be without jurisdiction and that the Prescribed Authority ought to have rejected this argument of respondent no. 2 as he himself had approached the Assistant Registrar, Chits Funds and Societies. It is further submitted that moreover, it was not a dispute of office bearers and in any case and  the Prescribed Authority was not sitting in appeal as such has committed a manifest error of law in discarding the order dated 29.5.2000. It is also submitted that when the petitioners raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the reference at the instance of respondent no. 2, the same ought to have been decided first before proceeding on merit of the case.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Prescribed Authority has miserably failed to appreciate that the Committee of Management of the society and that of the college are two different bodies, the election of committee of management of the college cannot be mixed up with that of the society.  In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in Committee of Management of Hindu Inter College, Kosikalan V. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region Agra and others - 1988 UPLBEC-732 and Committee of Management,S.G.M. Inter College, KhairagarhV. Dy. Director of Education, Agra and others -1995 SCD-85.  He vehemently urged that the Prescribed Authority has committed a manifest error of law in holding that the order dated 29.5.2999 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Chits, Funds and Society is erroneous.  

The counsel for the respondents submits that the Prescribed Authority- respondent no. 1 has decided the dispute in respect of office bearers of the society and has found the claim set up by the petitioners to be wholly baseless.  It is stated that the Prescribed Authority has specifically held that the respondent no. 2 is duly elected Manager of the society.  The Prescribed Authority has further held that the list of office bearers submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 2 is a genuine and valid list and in pursuance to the order of Prescribed Authority, the list of office bearers has been duly registered by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh and the respondent no. 2 is continuing as Manager of the society. It is contended that conclusion drawn by the Prescribed Authority is based on categorical findings of fact in respect of validity of members and office bearers, which is not open to challenge in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is urged by the counsel for the respondents that tt is well settled that against the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, remedy lies before the competent Civil Court.  Reference in this regard may be had to All India Council through Bharat dharm Maha Mandal, Lahurabir Varanasi and others V. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others- 1988 (2) S.W.C-1154 and J.N. Chaturvedi V. Registrar Firms societies and Chits Lucknow and others-  E.S.C 2003 (V) Supp.- 216.

The counsel for the respondents vehemently urged that the writ petition filed by the petitioners has no force at all and the same is liable to be dismissed summarily with costs for the reasons that (i) by the impugned order, the committee of Management of the society of which respondent no. 2 has been elected as Manager has been held to be valid by the Prescribed Authority (ii) the Committee of Management of the Society, of which he is the validly elected manager, has already been recognized by the concerned authorities but has not been arrayed as party to the writ petition.   (iii) the term of office bearers of the society is three years and as the dispute relates to the elections held in 1997 and 2000 which were recognized in favour of  respondent no. 2 (iv) since fresh elections were again held in the year 2003 in which the respondent no. 2 was again elected as manager which was never challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition has become in fructuous by efflux of time. (v) the society runs an intermediate college, namely, Janata Intermediate College, Bajar Gosain, Harraiya, district Azamgarh.  Indrasen Rai- respondent no. 2 is duly recognized manager of the college run by the society.  All the functions of manager of the college are discharged by the respondent no. 2 being duly recognized and authorized by the departmental authorities as such, it would not be proper to unsettle the settled matter after so many years.

It appears from the record that earlier also, the petitioners had filed writ petition no. 21044 of 1997 and writ petition no. 26286 of 1997 challenging the order of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Azamgarh through which the respondent no. 2 was recognized as manager of the college with a further prayer that the Authorized Controller should be appointed in the college.  Both the aforesaid writ petitions were heard and decided by a common judgement and order dated 1.2.1999. The court after considering all the aspects of the matter including the issues raised in the present writ petition, dismissed both the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the petitioners specifically holding that the respondent no. 2 was validly elected Manager.  The High Court in the operative part of the judgement, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure C.A.-5 to the counter affidavit, held that if the petitioners are aggrieved, they should approach the competent civil court.  However, in spite of clear cut direction to the petitioners, they did not approach the competent civil court.  On the other hand, after subsequent election which was held in 2000 by a recognized committee of management of the society, the petitioners are re-agitating the matter, which is not permissible.

 In the present case, the Prescribed Authority has already decided the matter and has given categorical findings of fact after hearing all concerned and after perusal of records.  Hence, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority does not suffer from any infirmity or jurisdictional error and the same is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

There is yet another reason for not interfering with the order impugned.  The present writ petition has not been filed by the alleged Manager of the petitioners, rather it has been filed by the Up Prabandhak.  According to the provisions of clause 13(4) of the Bye laws of the society, the petitioners are wholly incompetent to file the writ petition.

Furthermore, reliance placed by the petitioners on the order passed by the Assistant Regisrar, Firms, Chits and Societies in their favour is based on total misconception.

The sixth reason is that the judgment and order dated 1.2.1999 of this court has become final between the parties inasmuch as the Special Appeal filed by one of the petitioners has been withdrawn.  In this view of the matter, the directions contained in the said judgment and order dated 1.2.19999 to which the petitioners, if aggrieved, should approach the competent civil court and in any case they cannot be permitted to re agitate every subsequent election by means of writ petitions.

It is equally well settled that the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits is wholly incompetent to decide the dispute with regard to the office bearers of society and only competent authority to decide such dispute is Prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.  Reference in this regard may be made to Vijay Narain singh V. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow and others- 1981 UPLBEC-308; Committee of Management and others V. Zila Basic Shikshal Adhikari and others - 1987 UPLBEC-333 (D.B.) ; AbhayGrasth Jan Sanasthan Kusumi Kalan and others V. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi and others- 1990 UPLBEC-460 (D.B.); Khaparaha Educational Society and others V. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Varanasi and others- 1993(2) UPLBEC-890; and Ram Laxmi Narain Marwadi Hindu Hospital and others V. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi and others- 2000(2) A.C.J-1277.

Respondent no. 2 has been successively elected as Manager of the society as well as that of the college in the last three elections. The concerned authorities have duly recognized him as validly elected manager of the society and that of the college.  All functions of manager of the society and that of the college are continuously being discharged by him and in the last election which was held in 2003 also, he was elected as manager.   It would not be proper to upset the settled position between the parties at this stage and re-alive the litigation again particularly in view of the facts of the case. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference in the writ jurisdiction.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 21st April, 2005/kkb  

Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard.

The writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 19.4.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Sub Divisional Officer, Sagari, Azamgarh. By the impugned order the election of Committee of Management of the Society of which S/Sri JagdishChandra Dubey (President),  Indrasen Rai (Manager) and Kailash Rai (Mantri) has been recognized in pursuance of elections held on 5.1.1997 and 2.4.2999 and the elections of committee of management under the presidentship of Sri Shiv Shankar Singh has also been de-recognized.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner Janta Shiksha Parishad, Bazar Gosai, Tehsil Sagri, District Azamgarh is a recognized society under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860.  The society has also established colleges, degree colleges, libraries etc.  The society is run by a Committee of Management, which has its own bye-laws. The bye-laws provide for separate committees of management for each institution.  

Sri Indrasan Rai- respondent no. 2 moved an application before the Assistant Registrar, Chits, Funds and Societies, Azamgarh on 2.6.1997 supported by an affidavit inter alia that after 2.10.1995, the registration certificate was not renewed and the original certificate was missing.  On 13.11.1997, petitioner no. 2 filed objections stating that S/Sri Amresh Chandra Pandey, Ram Gati singh and Shiv Shankar Singh had been elected as Manager, President and Secretary on 25.5.1997 and the registration certificate had already been renewed for a period of five years w.e.f. 9.10.1995 to 9.10.2000.  

Upon receipt of the application, the Assistant Registrar, Chits, Funds and Societies, Azamgarh issued notice on 6.6.1998 to the petitioner no. 2 as well as respondent no. 2 to produce original documents and other relevant materials in support of their respective claims.  

The Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh and Assistant Registrar, Varanasi fixed a number of dates in the case, but neither respondent no. 2 appeared nor produced any documents in support of his case.  It is alleged that the petitioner appeared on all the dates fixed and stated that when the representative of the respondent no. 2 appeared on 20.5.2000 and he was informed that the matter would be heard for final disposal on 24.5.2000. As neither respondent no. 2 nor his representative appeared on 24.5.2000 the date fixed, order was reserved fixing 29.5.2000 for delivery of judgment.  On 29.5.2000, the application dated 2.6.1997 of the respondent no. 2 was rejected hence he moved an application on 14.7.2999 under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.  Petitioner no. 2 filed objection on 23.2.2001questioning the maintainability of the reference at the instance of respondent no. 2.  Vide order dated 19.4.2001, the Prescribed Authority- respondent no. 1 allowed the application of the respondent no. 2.

Counsel for Respondent no. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable in view of provisions contained in clause 13(4) of the bye-laws of the petitioner-Society appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition which were amended by resolution of the General Body of the Society on 29.5.1994 restricting the term of the committee of management as well as its office bearers to three years.. It is also claimed by the respondent no. 2 that he has been discharging the duties as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of respondent no. 2 was allowed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Chits and Societies, ex parte, is illegal and void ab initio and it has been passed ignoring the order dated 29.5.2000 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Chits Funds and Societies which had become final and the claim set up by respondent no. 2 was found to be false and baseless.  It is further submitted that the dispute was not covered by Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act but the Prescribed Authority usurped the jurisdiction and passed the impugned order dated 19.4.2001, operation of which was stayed by this court vide order dated 22.5.2991. It is further submitted that the application dated 2.6.1997 claiming renewal of certificate of the society was moved by the respondent no. 2 and rejected by the Assistant Registrar, Chits Funds and Societies vide order dated 29.5.2000 has become final. He states that    Respondent no. 2 cannot now brand the order dated 29.5.2000 to be without jurisdiction and that the Prescribed Authority ought to have rejected this argument of respondent no. 2 as he himself had approached the Assistant Registrar, Chits Funds and Societies. It is further submitted that moreover, it was not a dispute of office bearers and in any case and  the Prescribed Authority was not sitting in appeal as such has committed a manifest error of law in discarding the order dated 29.5.2000. It is also submitted that when the petitioners raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the reference at the instance of respondent no. 2, the same ought to have been decided first before proceeding on merit of the case.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Prescribed Authority has miserably failed to appreciate that the Committee of Management of the society and that of the college are two different bodies, the election of committee of management of the college cannot be mixed up with that of the society.  In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions in Committee of Management of Hindu Inter College, Kosikalan V. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region Agra and others - 1988 UPLBEC-732 and Committee of Management,S.G.M. Inter College, KhairagarhV. Dy. Director of Education, Agra and others -1995 SCD-85.  He vehemently urged that the Prescribed Authority has committed a manifest error of law in holding that the order dated 29.5.2999 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Chits, Funds and Society is erroneous.  

The counsel for the respondents submits that the Prescribed Authority- respondent no. 1 has decided the dispute in respect of office bearers of the society and has found the claim set up by the petitioners to be wholly baseless.  It is stated that the Prescribed Authority has specifically held that the respondent no. 2 is duly elected Manager of the society.  The Prescribed Authority has further held that the list of office bearers submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 2 is a genuine and valid list and in pursuance to the order of Prescribed Authority, the list of office bearers has been duly registered by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh and the respondent no. 2 is continuing as Manager of the society. It is contended that conclusion drawn by the Prescribed Authority is based on categorical findings of fact in respect of validity of members and office bearers, which is not open to challenge in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is urged by the counsel for the respondents that tt is well settled that against the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, remedy lies before the competent Civil Court.  Reference in this regard may be had to All India Council through Bharat dharm Maha Mandal, Lahurabir Varanasi and others V. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others- 1988 (2) S.W.C-1154 and J.N. Chaturvedi V. Registrar Firms societies and Chits Lucknow and others-  E.S.C 2003 (V) Supp.- 216.

The counsel for the respondents vehemently urged that the writ petition filed by the petitioners has no force at all and the same is liable to be dismissed summarily with costs for the reasons that (i) by the impugned order, the committee of Management of the society of which respondent no. 2 has been elected as Manager has been held to be valid by the Prescribed Authority (ii) the Committee of Management of the Society, of which he is the validly elected manager, has already been recognized by the concerned authorities but has not been arrayed as party to the writ petition.   (iii) the term of office bearers of the society is three years and as the dispute relates to the elections held in 1997 and 2000 which were recognized in favour of  respondent no. 2 (iv) since fresh elections were again held in the year 2003 in which the respondent no. 2 was again elected as manager which was never challenged by the petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition has become in fructuous by efflux of time. (v) the society runs an intermediate college, namely, Janata Intermediate College, Bajar Gosain, Harraiya, district Azamgarh.  Indrasen Rai- respondent no. 2 is duly recognized manager of the college run by the society.  All the functions of manager of the college are discharged by the respondent no. 2 being duly recognized and authorized by the departmental authorities as such, it would not be proper to unsettle the settled matter after so many years.

It appears from the record that earlier also, the petitioners had filed writ petition no. 21044 of 1997 and writ petition no. 26286 of 1997 challenging the order of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Azamgarh through which the respondent no. 2 was recognized as manager of the college with a further prayer that the Authorized Controller should be appointed in the college.  Both the aforesaid writ petitions were heard and decided by a common judgement and order dated 1.2.1999. The court after considering all the aspects of the matter including the issues raised in the present writ petition, dismissed both the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the petitioners specifically holding that the respondent no. 2 was validly elected Manager.  The High Court in the operative part of the judgement, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure C.A.-5 to the counter affidavit, held that if the petitioners are aggrieved, they should approach the competent civil court.  However, in spite of clear cut direction to the petitioners, they did not approach the competent civil court.  On the other hand, after subsequent election which was held in 2000 by a recognized committee of management of the society, the petitioners are re-agitating the matter, which is not permissible.

 In the present case, the Prescribed Authority has already decided the matter and has given categorical findings of fact after hearing all concerned and after perusal of records.  Hence, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority does not suffer from any infirmity or jurisdictional error and the same is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

There is yet another reason for not interfering with the order impugned.  The present writ petition has not been filed by the alleged Manager of the petitioners, rather it has been filed by the Up Prabandhak.  According to the provisions of clause 13(4) of the Bye laws of the society, the petitioners are wholly incompetent to file the writ petition.

Furthermore, reliance placed by the petitioners on the order passed by the Assistant Regisrar, Firms, Chits and Societies in their favour is based on total misconception.

The sixth reason is that the judgment and order dated 1.2.1999 of this court has become final between the parties inasmuch as the Special Appeal filed by one of the petitioners has been withdrawn.  In this view of the matter, the directions contained in the said judgment and order dated 1.2.19999 to which the petitioners, if aggrieved, should approach the competent civil court and in any case they cannot be permitted to re agitate every subsequent election by means of writ petitions.

It is equally well settled that the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits is wholly incompetent to decide the dispute with regard to the office bearers of society and only competent authority to decide such dispute is Prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.  Reference in this regard may be made to Vijay Narain singh V. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow and others- 1981 UPLBEC-308; Committee of Management and others V. Zila Basic Shikshal Adhikari and others - 1987 UPLBEC-333 (D.B.) ; AbhayGrasth Jan Sanasthan Kusumi Kalan and others V. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi and others- 1990 UPLBEC-460 (D.B.); Khaparaha Educational Society and others V. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Varanasi and others- 1993(2) UPLBEC-890; and Ram Laxmi Narain Marwadi Hindu Hospital and others V. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi and others- 2000(2) A.C.J-1277.

Respondent no. 2 has been successively elected as Manager of the society as well as that of the college in the last three elections. The concerned authorities have duly recognized him as validly elected manager of the society and that of the college.  All functions of manager of the society and that of the college are continuously being discharged by him and in the last election which was held in 2003 also, he was elected as manager.   It would not be proper to upset the settled position between the parties at this stage and re-alive the litigation again particularly in view of the facts of the case. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference in the writ jurisdiction.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 21st April, 2005/kkb  


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.