High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Basrahi Nath Higher Secondary School Basrahi & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secretary Basic Edu. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 743 of 2006  RD-AH 12128 (25 July 2006)
Chief Justice's Court
Special Appeal No. 743 of 2006
Committee of Management of Basrahi Nath Higher Secondary School and another
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,CJ
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J
The appeal is summarily disposed of and we are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Tiwari on 3.7.2006.
By that order, his Lordship disposed of the writ petition without affidavits, as parties had sufficiently made clear through learned counsel that the matter would be disposed of on points of law, and facts are not so much in issue as the case had come before the Court by way of a writ.
One of the main arguments in appeal before us was that the Assistant Registrar of Society, Varanasi, who had passed the impugned order dated 5.4.2006 had not given the appellants a fair hearing. The order records (at page 184) some 10 dates of hearing and also that (at page 197) documents have been exchanged between the parties sometime in or about the month of March, 2006. About the ten or so dates of hearing mentioned, there is no dispute excepting with regard to the last, which is the 4th of April, 2006.
It appears that parties had been intimated that the hearing would take place on 3.4.2006. According to the appellants, they attended on that day but found the Assistant Registrar on leave on that day. They left an application at the office stating that the next date should be fixed for Saturday, as a lawyer practising in the High Court would attend on behalf of them and that it was not possible for him to attend daily.
It does not appear that the appellants made any attempt to find out on the next date what was happening in the office of the Assistant Registrar although they made the case that on 3.4.2006, the Assistant Registrar was on leave only for the day.
In any event, the respondents attended on 4.4.2006. There is no allegation that there was any special underhand communication as between the Assistant Registrar and the respondents.
The impugned order was passed on the day following i.e. 5.4.2006. In these circumstances, it does not appear that the appellants were denied an adequate opportunity of hearing; they might have prepared a ''good' case on natural justice for themselves by delivering an application for adjournment and by not attending on the 4th of April, 2006, but if an ordinary administrative authority is absent on a particular day, the party wishing to be present and heard, would be put upon a duty to inquire as to what was happening; it would not be sufficient discharge of duty on the part of the party simply to recline and wait for another notice to come.
In view of this and in view of the fact that the parties had been heard on several occasions and this is the 3rd time that they had gone before the learned Assistant Registrar for having a decision in the matter, we are of the opinion that the point of natural justice does not succeed.
The dispute between the appellants and the private respondents is a management dispute. It is practically admitted that the respondents before us were duly elected in 1998 (at page 11); they were further elected in 2001 and the appellants forwarded and relied upon the minutes of a meeting dated 28.12.2003 (at pages 12 and 13) whereby they appeared to have taken the extraordinary step of not simply removing one office bearer like Sri Ram Chandra Tiwari, but doing away with and dissolving purportedly the entire Committee of Management. This is an extraordinary thing and hardly ever heard of in these society matters.
The case of the appellants was resisted by the respondents on facts throughout, on the basis that the no objection, allegedly forwarded by the respondents to the appellants, was a piece of forgery; that submission of the respondents has been upheld in the registry ever since the objection was made by the respondents, although in the very beginning, on the basis of that allegedly forged document, the appellants had obtained an initial favourable of order.
This being the state of facts, it was not at all outside the jurisdiction of the learned Assistant Registrar to decide the matter in favour of the respondents.
Besides, an earlier learned counsel then appearing on behalf of the appellants had conceded that the then standing impugned order dated 19.2.2004 along with the order dated 3.2.2004 should be quashed and that the matter should be remanded to be decided afresh by the Assistant Registrar of Firms Society and Chits, U.P. Varanasi (at page 17).
On the basis of this concession and on the basis of specific directions given by the Court upon the said Assistant Registrar to decide the issue, the question of jurisdiction does not arise as he had become, by virtue of the Court's order, the persona designata.
Even though the order of the Assistant Registrar is upheld by us, this only disposes of the writ matter and puts the order on a firm pedestal in so far as the procedural aspect is concerned. If the appellants have a good case on facts, if what is held in the registry as a forged document is not forged, but bears genuine signatures of persons who had then been representing the respondents, then and in that event, the Civil Courts are always open and those are the best places for obtaining final decree and interim orders on good facts. If the facts are not good, the less the litigation is prolonged the better for all parties concerned. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.