C/M Kissan Vidya Sabha And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 3680 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved.
 
Court No. - 28
 

 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20625 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M Kissan Vidya Sabha And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Nipun Singh,Ashok Khare
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,G.K. Singh,V.K. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J.

Kissan Vidya Sabha Shamli, Prabudh Nagar is duly registered society which runs two Institutions namely R.K. P.G. College and R.K. Inter College, Shamli. The R.K. P.G. College, Shamli, District Muzaffar Nagar is affiliated with Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and the other Institution namely R.K. Intermediate College is recognised under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. The affairs of the society is governed by its bye-laws, which is duly registered. Inevitable fall out of an election held in the management of the society results invariably in rival claims being made by the parties claiming to be legally constituted managing committee. Similar set of controversy is being raised in the present writ petition. In order to resolve the controversy in the present case certain facts are noted herein below:

The dispute arose in respect of an election of the committee of Management/office bearers of the society which was held on 21.8.2005. In the said election one Ved Singh was elected as Secretary and Sri Jai Prakash was elected as President. Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut passed an order recognising the election of respondent no. 4 Ved Singh on 6.10.2006. Election was affirmed by the Vice Chancellor after enquiry into the complaints filed against the said election which was enquired by the City Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar. Rival election was set up by Sri Babu Singh who placed the papers of his election before the Deputy Registrar, who referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority for its consideration under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act 1860. The Prescribed Authority in its order passed on 10.3.2008 held that the election held on 21.8.2005 in which contesting respondent Sri Ved Singh was elected as Secretary was valid. It also held that the electoral college on the basis of which the said election was conducted was valid. This order was not questioned before any forum.

Fresh election was ordered by the vice chancellor by issuing a direction on 21.7.2008 which was to be held through the election officer who would be appointed by the University with the consent of the both the contesting parties. Election Officer who was appointed for conducting the election published election programme in the news paper Dainik Keshari on 12.9.2008. All the members of the general body were informed about the aforesaid election programme. As a part of process of election, list of members of the general body was pasted on the notice board of the College by the Election Officer inviting objection thereto. After examining the objection filed Election Officer published the final list of voters on 13.8.2008. Election Officer after getting the election held submitted a detailed report before the Vice Chancellor, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits and District Inspector of Schools. Election was held on 24.8.2008. One Babu Singh set up rival claim for being duly elected office bearer of the Society on the same date i.e. 24.8.2008. He stated that the election which was held on the said date one Maharaj Singh was elected as President and Dhruvraj was elected as Vice President. Vice Chancellor vide his order dated 16.2.2009 refused to accord approval to the election of the managing committee conducted by two rival parties and directed that fresh election of the committee be held within one month. This order was challenged by the respondent no. 4 Ved Singh in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 11575 of 2009 wherein an interim order was passed staying the order passed by the Vice Chancellor. However, the said writ petition was dismissed in default on 13.3.2012. Restoration application was also filed. Prescribed authority after examining the rival claim of the parties upheld the election of contesting respondent no. 4. It held that the claim set up by Babu Singh for election of 2008 was bogus. The said finding was recorded on the basis that it was always outgoing committee which was empowered to hold the election.

Dispute regarding election of 2008 which have been referred to the Prescribed Authority remained pending till 2011. It transpires that in the meanwhile fresh election of Committee of Management was held in which three rival claims were filed i.e. one by the petitioner; other by the respondent no. 4 and third by the respondent no. 5. They claim to have constituted the managing committee on the basis of election which were held in this behalf. Following date of holding the election were indicated which is as under:

(a) Petitioners' date of election was 4.9.2011;

(b) Respondent No. 4 Ved Singh's date of election was 29.8.2011;

(c) Respondent no. 5 Babu Singh's date of election was 12.10.2009.

The matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority who was already seized with the dispute which was raised in the year 2008. After hearing the parties, Prescribed Authority passed an order on 9/4/2012. Prescribed Authority in its order rejected the election of the petitioner and of respondent no. 5. It upheld the election of respondent no. 4 Ved Singh as Secretary on 24.8.2008 as valid. After having held the election of 2008 valid, it also affirmed the election conducted by the Committee of which Ved Singh was Secretary to be valid election which was held on 29.8.2011. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

In the present writ petition, dispute is only between the petitioner and respondent no. 4. Dispute raised by the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 4 is being taken into consideration.

Contention of the petitioners in this behalf is that respondent no. 4 was removed as Secretary of the Society by resolution passed by the Society on 23.8.2010. Grounds for his ouster was that he had committed some financial irregularities. His further claim is that the petitioner who was appointed as Joint Secretary in the election of 2008 came to hold the post of Secretary after the removal of respondent no. 4. After his removal, respondent no. 4 seized to have anything do with the legally constituted managing committee as such all further actions were required to be taken by newly constituted committee. Petitioner became Secretary after removal of respondent no. 4. Since the petitioner was elected as member of the legally constituted managing committee, he alone had a right to hold new election which were held in the year 2011. Prescribed authority has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner by ignoring the fact that respondent no. 4 was removed as Secretary on 23.8.2010.

On the other hand stand of the respondent no. 4 was that Prescribed Authority had rejected the plea of petitioner that he was removed from the post of Secretary vide resolution dated 23.8.2010. It is stated that respondent no. 4 was never removed from the post of Secretary by the executive Committee on 23.8.2010 as no such meeting was held on 23.8.2010 as the same has to be convened by the Secretary. Since respondent was secretary he had not convened any such meeting. Convening of the meeting by the petitioner if any was in violation of the bye-laws of the society. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Article 14 of the bye-laws of the society which provides that any extraordinary meeting can be convened by the secretary with the approval of the President. It further provides that on a request made by at least eight members in writing extra ordinary meeting of the executive committee can be called by the Secretary. It is admitted case that no such meeting was called by the respondent no. 4 in the capacity of the Secretary nor was any such requisition made for convening the meeting by eight members of the society. Out of 22 members of the committee of Management 14 members have filed affidavit categorically stating that no such meeting of the executive committee has been held on 23.8.2010.

Prescribed Authority has rightly concluded that respondent was legally appointed Secretary of the Committee of Management entitled to hold the election of 2011.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Petitioner claims his right to hold the election as Secretary of the Committee and the election has to be authenticated by the Prescribed Authority. It is not in dispute that the elections of the society held in the year 2005 and 2008 whose secretary was respondent no. 4 have been held to be valid. While rejecting the rival claim of respondent no. 5 the managing committee which held the election of 2008 was authorised to hold the election of 2011 also. Only dispute that exists between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 is on account of the fact that respondent no. 4, according to the petitioner, had been removed on 23.8.2010. The question that would call for consideration is as to whether the removal of respondent no. 4 as Secretary by passing a vote of no confidence motion against him has been done in accordance with the bye-laws of the society or not. In this behalf reference is required to be made to the bye laws of the society which provides for convening a ordinary and emergent meeting. In the present case on the basis of meeting conducted the respondent no. 4 was removed as Secretary and in its place petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the Committee of Management.

While scanning through Article 14 of the bye-laws it provides that and extra ordinary meeting has to be called by the Secretary with the prior permission of the president in case the Secretary does not call for meeting then eight members of the society may on requisition ask for convening of emergent meeting. In the present case, resolution placed by the petitioner on the file do not make mention about any meeting having been called for by the Secretary nor is there any such mention that it was called on the request made by eight members of the society.

While scanning through the resolution passed, it mentions that a meeting was held on 23.8.2010 at 2.00 p.m. in Rashtriya Kissan Degree College which was held in the leadership of Vikram Singh Varma. It reveals that the said meeting is said to have been attended by 15 members of the society. Resolution is passed for removal of Ved Singh as secretary and appointment of petitioner as Secretary. Minutes of the meeting do not reveal that as to who had convened meeting. Admittedly, respondent no. 4 had not convened meeting. There was no such resolution or requisition made by the eight members of the society in calling such meeting. This by itself goes to show that emergent meeting seeking removal of the respondent no. 4 was not convened in accordance with Article 14 of the bye-laws of the society. This by in itself proves that removal of respondent no. 4 was done in violation of bye-laws of the society as such no cognizance can be taken of the same. After having held that the committee of management constituted in 2008 is validly constituted body it alone had the authorisation to hold the election of the society in the year 2011. The respondent no. 4 being Secretary of the Committee was competent to hold election in the year 2011. As such election of respondent no. 4 is valid. I do not find any discrepancy in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. In this writ petition, issue between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 has been decided. Other aspect of the matter relating to the claim of the respondent no. 5 shall be dealt with in separate writ petition filed by the respondent no. 4 bearing Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 21678 of 2008.

Order Date :- 24.08.2012

RKS/