Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M. CHANDRA BALI YADAV DALIT EVAM NIRBAL VARG MANAV GRAM versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M. Chandra Bali Yadav Dalit Evam Nirbal Varg Manav Gram v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 3806 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5064 (3 March 2006)

 

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

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3806 of 2006

The Committee of Management,

Chandra Bali Yadav Dalit Evam Nirbal Varg

Manav Gram Vikas Sansthan Harari,

Ismailpur, Post Office Chhapra Sultanpur,

Tehsil Sagri District Azamgarh, and another

  Vs.

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Shyam Karan Yadav, claiming himself to be the Manager of The Committee of Management, Chandra Bali Yadav Dalit Evam Nirbal Varg Manav Gram Vikas Sansthan Harari, Ismailpur, Post Office Chhapra Sultanpur, Tehsil Sagri District Azamgarh, has approached this Court, questioning the validity of  order dated 27.10.2005 passed by Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits, rejecting the claim of petitioners and accepting the claim of Sochan Ram Yadav, respondent No. 4.

Brief facts, as indicated in the writ petition, are that in the district of Azamgarh, there is a society known as Chandra Bali Yadav Dalit Evam Nirbal Varg Manav Gram Vikas Sansthan Harari, Ismailpur, Post Office Chhapra Sultanpur, Tehsil Sagri District Azamgarh. Petitioner No. 2 claims himself to be validly elected and recognized Manager of the Committee of Management. It has been further claimed by him that in between 1991-93, 25 members of the general body of the society were made by Sochan Ram Yadav, who was the then Manager of the Committee of Management. Petitioner No. 2 has contended that along with ten others, namely, Shiv Prakash Yadav, Manoj Kumar Singh, Badri Ram, Kalpnath Tiwari, Ram Bachan Rai, Brij Bhan Yadav, Subhash Yadav, Durgvijay Singh and Chhabi Nath Yadav were made life members of the society, and payment of required fees had been entered in the Membership Register. It has been contended that dispute arose for the first time, when respondent No. 4 set up new Committee of Management vide proceedings dated 01.06.2003 showing therein Managing Committee comprising 11 persons in place of 22 persons. It has also been contended that amendment was sought to be made in the aims and objects of the society and even new list of office bearers and members has been sought to be submitted along with the amended Rules. Petitioner has contended that action of Sochan Ram Yadav was perse illegal, as such meeting of general body was called on 16.01.2004, and therein proceeding dated 01.06.2003 together with proceedings pertaining to amendment were taken up, wherein proceeding dated 01.06.2003 was opposed, but the amendment was approved. Petitioner No.  2 has contended that this irritated Sochan Ram Yadav  and he walked out of the meeting  along with 9 members, out of whom 4 were his kith and kins. Petitioner No. 2 has contended that general body decided to hold election in the adjourned meeting to be held after two hours, and thereafter elections were held on the same day. Petitioner No.2 has contended that thereafter meeting of general body was held on 12.04.2004, wherein elections were duly accepted and resolutions dated 12.06.2003, 23.06.2003 and 23.07.2003 were approved. Thereafter, on 21.04.2004, petitioner No. 2 submitted list of members of the Committee of Management purported to be elected on 16.01.2004. After the said list had been submitted notices were issued to Shiv Kumar Chaturvedi, Prem Kumar Yadav, Lalu Yadav and Brij Raj Yadav for filing objections. It has been contended that no objection had been filed, and thereafter, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits registered the list of office bearers and members for the year 2004-05. Petitioner No. 2 has contended that thereafter, his signatures had been attested. It has been contended that thereafter, on 23,07.2004, Sochan Ram Yadav prayed for registration of list of members. On the papers so submitted, Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits refused to take any action. Thereafter, writ petition No.35483 of 2004 (Committee of Management and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and 7 others) was filed before this Court, and this Court on 19.01.2005 asked the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to dispose of the objection of the petitioner in that case, within three months after giving opportunity to the parties. Sochan Ram Yadav, thereafter represented the matter and order dated 29.06.2005 was passed by the  Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. Thereafter writ petition No. 50591 of 2005 had been preferred before this Court and this Court remitted the matter back to be decided afresh by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, in accordance with law and further direction was issued to the  Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to record specific finding as to whether Shyam Karan Yadav is valid member  of the general body of the society or not. Petitioner No. 2 has contended that as there was no  Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits posted at Azamgarh,   Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow  issued notice fixing 22.08.2005. Petitioner No. 2 has contended that on 22.08.2005 he was present but nothing was done and the next date fixed was 01.09.2005. On 01.09.2005, it has been contended that both petitioner No. 2 and Sochan Ram were present, and on the said date no next date was fixed, and parties were asked to produce their relevant documents within a week. Petitioner No. 2 has contended that he filed detailed application on 07.09.2005, and thereafter exparte order has been passed and it has been wrongly stated therein that 08.09.2005 was the last date fixed for hearing and on this date both the parties were present and the matter was heard deeply. At this juncture, present writ petition has been field.

Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein, it has been contended that, at no point of time petitioner No. 2 had been enrolled as member of the general body of the society, and there are only 22 members of the general body of the society, and the petitioner No. 2 is rank trespasser. Details have been given of each and every members who  have been enrolled. Receipt, which has been produced by petitioner No. 2, has been termed to be forged  and fictitious, and it has been contended that the same was never produced before the authority. The claim of petitioners  has been termed to based on fraud and manipulation and the election dated  01.06.2003 has been termed to be valid election. It has also been asserted that Shyam Karan Yadav  was aware of the date fixed and he did not file any document for substantiating his claim. It has been contended that valid decision has been taken.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of contesting respondent, and therein it has been reiterated that in between 1991-93, 25 members had been enrolled and proceedings in this behalf was incorporated in the Karyawahi Register vide proceeding dated 26.01.1993. The names of these 25 members  are Brij Raj Yadav son of Sochan Ram Yadav, Shyam Karan Yadav, son of Arjun Yadav, Shiv Prakash Yadav son of Lal Chandra Yadav, Manoj Kumar Singh son of Ram Palat Singh, Shiv Prakash Yadav son of Lal Chandra Yadav, Badri Ram son of late Timal, Brij Bhan Yadav  son of Dulam Yadav, Chhabinath Yadav son of Ram Badan Yadav, Kalp Nath Tiwari son of Bahadur Tiwari, Susbhash Yadav son of Kuber Yadav, Durgvijay Singh son of Udai Pratap Singh, Rajesh Yadav son of Ram Surat Yadav, Ram Bachan Nai son of Subhagga Nai, Hari Shankar Yadav son of Vishwanath Yadav, Ram Avadh Yadav son of Sudarshan Yadav, Ramnath Yadav son of Sukhai Yadav, Nagina Yadav son of  Madhuban Yadav, Awadhu Yadav son of Ram Deo Yadav, Ram Briksha Yadav son of Jai Karan Yadav, Nagina Yadav son of Mishri Yadav, Nagsingh Yadav son of Parshan Yadav, Shyam Behari Yadav son of Bibhuti  Yadav, Gaya Prasad Yadav son of Abhairaj Yadav, Khurttur Ram son of Chunni Ram, Sri Ram Yadav son of Vishwanath Yadav and Rama Kant Yadav son of Siddhu Yadav, who have deposited respectively Rs.2100.00, Rs.5100.00, Rs. 2100.00, Rs.1100.00, Rs. 1300.00, Rs.3100.00, Rs.5100.00, Rs.2100.00, Rs.1300.00, Rs.1500.00, Rs.1100.00,  Rs.5100.00,  Rs.3100.00,  Rs.1100.00,  Rs.1300.00,  Rs.1700.00,  Rs.1500.00,  Rs.1500.00,  Rs.1100.00,  Rs.2100.00,  Rs.2100.00,  Rs.1100.00,,  Rs.5100.00, and  Rs.2100.00. All these 25 members are alleged to have been enrolled as members vide proceeding dated 26.01.1993. Proceeding dated 16.01.2004 has been termed to be invalid proceeding. It has been reiterated that principle of natural justice has been violated. It has been reasserted that membership register was produced by respondent No. 4 behind the back of  petitioner, which is forged and fabricated, and in this background, it has been urged that writ petition is liable to be allowed.

After pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Advocate, assisted by Sri Indrasen Singh Tomar, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case order in question is exparte, and at no point of time any date was fixed for 08.09.2005 and at no point of time membership register  had ever been produced, as such order impugned is liable to be quashed. Apart from this, it has also been contended that at no point of time  Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits has made any objective consideration as to whether election proceedings dated 21.01.2003 were valid or not, and further recognition has been accorded on the basis of effective control, which is totally irrelevant consideration qua the issues involved, as such writ petition is liable to be allowed.

Sri Rajednra Rai, Advocate, appearing on behalf of contesting respondent, on the other hand, contended that full opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and the petitioner has miserably failed to prove that he was valid member of the general body of the society, as such no interference is warranted, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, and the impugned order has been perused, it is reflected that four dates i. e. 16.08.2005, 22.08.2005, 01.09.2005 and 08.09.2005 had been fixed in the matter. Qua 08.09.2005, it has been mentioned that parties were present, the matter was heard and records were perused. Categorical statement of fact has been mentioned in paragraphs 29 and 33 of the writ petition that on 01.09.2005 both petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 4 were present, when Registrar, Firms, Societies directed for production of relevant document within a week and no next date was fixed and further incorrect statement of fact has been mentioned that 08.09.2005 was the date fixed for hearing on the said date both the parties were present, matter was heard, record was seen and order was passed. These averments mentioned in paragraphs 29 and 33 of the writ petition have been dealt with in paragraphs 41 and 45 of the counter affidavit. In paragraph 41 of the counter affidavit, it has been contended  by respondent No. 4 that Shyam Karan Yadav was well aware of the date fixed for hearing before the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and he had not filed any resolution or document. In paragraph 45 of the counter affidavit, it has been reiterated that neither any representation nor any document was filed. This fact has not at all been categorically denied that in fact petitioner No. 2 was present  when hearing took place. Petitioner No. 2 has categorically stated that he was not present, as there is no denial of this fact, as such presumption is that petitioner No. 2 was not present at the time of hearing. Petitioner No. 2 has made categorical statement that at no point of time after 01.09.2005 any date was fixed in the matter. Nothing has been brought on record by respondent No. 4 to suggest that petitioner was informed of the date being fixed for 08.09.2005. Thus, in the facts of the present case, it is established that principles of natural justice has been violated, and order impugned is exparte to petitioners.

Impugned order in question reflects that sole basis and foundation for passing order in favour of respondent No. 4 is the membership register, whereas contention of petitioner No. 2 is that the said register had never been produced in his presence. It has not been indicated as to on which date the said register had been produced, as such exparte reliance  is unsustainable. Reliance has also been placed on the effective control , which by no stretch of imagination, can be termed to be relevant factor for judging the validity of the election . At no point of time, Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits has recorded any satisfaction as to whether election dated 01.06.2003 are valid or not. Net effect of the discussion made above is that decision making process is faulty on the face of it and based on assumptions.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.10.2005 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits for being decided afresh, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The matter be decided within next two months. Shyam Karan Yadav and Sochan Ram Yadav shall appear before Registrar on 10.03.2006.

03.03.2006

SRY


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.