Jai Gurudev Dhaarm Pracharak ... vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 3162 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 

 
Court No. - 4
 

 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34416 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Jai Gurudev Dhaarm Pracharak Sanstha Jai Gurudev And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- H.N. Singh,R.K. Ojha
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

The petition was heard in Court and, on account of non-availability of time in Court, after orally pronouncing the order that the writ petition is being disposed of with certain directions and relegating the parties to the civil court, the judgment and order, as was made known to the parties, was dictated in Chambers, as under:

Baba Jai Gurudev, as he was popularly recognised, was a Indian Saint who left for heavenly abode on 18.5.2012. He had built a vast empire of his followers and had established three institutions:

1.Jai Gurudev Dharam Pracharak Sanstha, Jai Gurudev Yogasthali, Mathura;

2.Jai Gurudev Dharam Pracharak Trust, Mathura; and

3.Jai Gurudev Kothi Mandir Trust Khitoura, Etawah.

This petition is in connection with first institution named above i.e. Jai Gurudev Dharam Pracharak Sanstha, Jai Gurudev Yogasthali, Mathura which is a society. The said society was registered for the first time in the year 1979 and its registration had been renewed from time to time. It was last renewed on 25.5.2010 for a period of five years.

The aforesaid society has its own bye laws which have been filed as Annexure - 1 to the petition. The said bye laws, amongst other things, provide for different type of membership, constitution of the executive body of the society, general body of the society and about the office bearers of the society and their functions. It in clause 12 categorically provides that Baba Jai Gurudev Ji Maharaj is the Founder President of the Society and shall remain its President for life. It further, by sub-clause (v)(12) of clause 12 provides that the Life President Baba Jai Gurudev would alone be competent to nominate the future President of the Society. It reads, "ije~ iwT; Lokeh th xq: egkjkt ftldk uke [kksysxs ogh ukenku nsus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk vkSj ogh v/;{k gksxkA". The bye laws further provides that the President is authorised to constitute various committees, sub-committees, their chairman, the members of the executive committee, general body and other committees and even their office bearers.

On the death of Baba Jai Gurudev, one Ram Ujagar Singh vide letter dated 5.6.2012 requested the Registrar/Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra for necessary action due to the death of the President.

One Vikram Prasad Mishra submitted a letter to the same effect on 18.6.2012 to the Registrar/Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra contending that Baba Jai Gurudev, Founder and Lifetime President of the Society during his discourse on 16.5.2007 had authorised and nominated one Umakant Tiwari as the President of the Society and he is entitle to function as such in accordance with clause 12(v)(12) of the bye laws. The said Vikram Prasad Mishra as a member of the Society on 25.6.2012 produced the proceedings of a meeting dated 24.5.2012 alleged to have been held in village Mirzapur, Indore purported to have approved the nomination made by Baba Jai Gurudev on 16.5.2007 in favour of Umakant Tiwari and for recognition of the executive body of the society,

Another letter was submitted on 11.6.2012 by one Chatar Singh along with his own affidavit and the affidavit of one Sushil Kumar Lulla for recognising the list of the members of the executive body of the society for the year 2012-13.

In contrast to the above claims set up by Vikram Prasad Mishra and Chatar Singh on one hand, one Ram Krishna Yadav alleging himself to be the Secretary of one of the Trusts submitted a list of the member of the executive body of the society for the year 2012-13 for recognition. He has also filed his affidavit and produced an affidavit dated 27.6.2011 of Umakant Tiwari and a declaration alleged to have been Baba Jai Gurudev on 17.8.2007 to the effect that he should be succeeded by one of his disciple Pankaj Kumar Tyagi.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, two sets of the executive body of the Society came into existence before the Registrar/Deputy Registrar for the year 2012-13 for recognition; one alleged to be headed by the President Umakant Tiwari and the other by the President Pankaj Kumar Tyagi. The Deputy Registrar vide order dated 6.7.2012 has recognised the executive body of the society with Pankaj Kumar Tyagi as its President and rejected the claim put forth by Vikram Prasad Mishra and Chatar Singh wherein Umakant Tiwari had been declared/nominated as the President by Baba Jai Gurudev.

The aforesaid order dated 6.7.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar has been impugned in the present writ petition by Chatar Singh in the name of the Society claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society and one Ram Pratap Singh in capacity as Vice Present of the Society. The Society with Ram Krishna Yadav as theSecretary and Pankaj Kumar as the President have been arrayed as respondents No.3 and 4.

I have heard Sri H.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners along with Sri R.K.Ojha, learned Standing Counsel for respodnents No.1 and 2 and Sri Govind Singh along with Shivam Yadav for respondents No.3 and 4.

On the submissions advanced by the respective parties, the main plank on which the dispute rests is as to who has been nominated or declared to be the person authorised to give "ukenku" and to act as the present President of the Society in accordance with clause 12(v)(12) of the bye laws.

There is no dispute by the parties that such authorisation or nomination under the admitted bye laws was to be made by the Founder Lifetime President of the Society Baba Jai Gurudev.

According to the petitioner Baba Jai Gurudev in his Waseeratganj Ashram at Unnao on 16.5.2007 had authorised/nominated Umakant Tiwari for "ukenku" who, as such, became entitle to function as the President of the Society.

On the other hand, the respondents No.3 and 4 contends that the aforesaid authorisation stands superseded by the subsequent declaration of the Baba Jai Gurudev on 17.8.2007 which is contained in the affidavit of the Baba filed in Original Suit No.40 of 2010 in relation to one of the trusts in the court at Etawah. They also rely upon the affidavit of Umakant Tiwari dated 25.6.2011 wherein he has described himself as a dedicated disciple of the Baba living in the Ashram to serve the community with no intention to hold any post. Lastly, reliance has also been placed on the fact that last rites of the Baba were performed by Pankaj Kumar Tyagi to contend that he is the real successor.

In venturing to enter into the above controversy it would be beneficial to have a glance upon some of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The relevant provisions of the Act in its applicability to the State of U.P. reads as under:

"4. Annual list of managing body to be filed. - (1)1Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day on which, according to the rules of the Society, the annual general meeting of the society is held, or, if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting, in the month of January, a list shall be filed with the Registrar2 of the names, addresses and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society.

Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signature of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not counter-sign the list, the Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a public notice or notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within the said period3.

(2) Together with list mentioned in sub-section (1) there shall be sent to the Registrar a copy of the memorandum of association including any alteration, extension or abridgement of purposes made under section 12, and of the rules of the society corrected up to date and certified by not less than three of the members of the said governing body to be a correct copy and also a copy of the balance-sheet for the proceeding year of account4."

"25. Dispute regarding election of office-bearers.- (1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearers of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit:

Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied -

(a) ......

......

(2) ......

(3) ......"

Section 4 of the Act provides for submission of list of the names, addresses and occupation of the members of the executive body entrusted with the management of the affairs of the society annually or in the month of January every year. The list so submitted, as far as possible, should be counter-signed by the old members and, in case it is not so signed, the Registrar, in his discretion, after issuing a public notice and inviting objections, shall proceed to finalise it. The list shall be appended by a copy of the memorandum of association including all alteration etc. and up-to-date amended rules of the society certified by not less than three members of the executive body of the society and also the copy of the balance sheet of the preceding year.

Section 25 of the Act contemplates reference to prescribed authority of any doubt or dispute in respect of election as well as continuance in office of an office bearer of the society for resolution in a summary manner at the behest of of the Registrar or at least one-fourth members of the society.

The doubt or dispute referred to above is to be decided by the prescribed authority in a summary manner on a reference under Section 25 which does not take away the jurisdiction of the civil court who is competent by virtue of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to decide all such disputes. In this way, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded. In fact the decision of the civil court overrides that of the prescribed authority who only resolves the dispute in a summary manner.

Section 4 of the Act basically authorises the Registrar/Deputy Registrar to recognise the list of members and the office bearers of the Society. It does not empowers the Registrar/Deputy Registrar to decide any doubt or dispute arising in relation to the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of Society.

Now reverting to the facts of the case, the petition and the order nowhere clarifies that the two lists as submitted by the rival groups were counter signed by the old office bearers or any public notice as contemplated vide proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act was issued by the Registrar/Deputy Registrar. Thus, none of them could have been accepted or recognised under Section 4 of the Act.

The dispute or doubt is basically regarding who out of Umakant Tiwary and Pankaj Kumar Tyagi is entitle to continue in office of the President of the Society and consequently, the other office-bearers of the society. Its outcome is dependent upon the fact as who has been validly nominated as President of the Society by Baba Jai Gurudev. This essentially requires evidence to be taken. It, therefore, cannot be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction where generally court is not able to read evidence or reappraise it.

The contention that the dispute regarding the office of the President is not genuine as one of the contenders, Umakant Tiwari has given an affidavit that he has no interest in holding any post. Having interest in a post or not is different than declining the post itself. There is no material which prima facie shows that he has refused to accept the post of the President or that he has declined the authorisation or nomination made in his favour by the Baba. It is also not necessary that he should involve himself personally in the litigation when the Secretary of the Society is already litigating in the name of the Society and espousing the cause in this regard in the general interest of the Society. If he has kept himself aloof of the controversy is to promote the interest of the Society..

No doubt the Registrar/Deputy Registrar is not obliged to refer every dispute to prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act and that only bona fide and genuine disputes are referable on the basis of the relevant material on record. Nonetheless the aforesaid dispute, under the facts and circumstances, is not one which is covered by Section 4 of the Act simplicitor but is certainly one which is referable to the prescribed authority for resolution in a summary manner which would obviously be subject to final adjudication by the civil court on the basis of the evidence which maybe adduced by the rival parties.

The aforesaid dispute by no stretch of imagination can be said to be superficial or moot. It is apparently a bona fide dispute of a factual nature.

The said dispute is outside the purview of Section 4 of the Act and would be covered by Section 25 of the Act. It would thus be referable to prescribed authority to be resolved in a summary manner but subject to final adjudication by the civil court on the basis of the evidence which may be adduced by the rival parties.

In such a situation, I am of the opinion that the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 6.7.2012 is exfacie without jurisdiction and and any order of the Prescribed Authority on a reference under Section 25 of the Act also would inconclusive. The dispute of appointment/ continuance in office of the President of the Society and consequently all other office-bearers of the Society therefore requires adjudication by the civil court.

It has come on record that previous to the year in question i.e. 2012-13, there was no dispute regarding the constitution of the executive committee of the Society and its office bears and the list, prior to this year, stood duly recognised with Baba Jai Gurudev as the President. Now, therefore, in the absence of Baba Jai Gurudev, the entire team of office bearers, as it existed, before the death of Baba, in the year 2011-12 with its Vice President and other office bearers can easily function and manage the affairs of the society till the dispute to the office of President of the Society and consequently other office bearers is decided by the civil court.

In this view of the matter, I dispose of the matter with liberty to the parties to get the above dispute resolved by a civil suit and till the dispute is adjudicated or any other arrangement either interim or otherwise is made by the civil court, the executive body of the society as it existed prior to the death of Baba Jai Gurudev would continue to manage the affairs of the society with Vice President as the main head and, in the absence of the Vice President by notional promotion of the next senior most office bearer or person as the Vice President.

It would be in the best interest of the Society if either of the parties or any other person having an interest in the Society approaches the civil court of competent jurisdiction at the earliest preferably within six weeks subject to the limitation prescribed for such a suit. In the event delay occurs in the institution of the suit or the suit is not instituted and there is mismanagement in the Society it will be open for the parties or the persons having interest in the Society to move and apply to the civil court on the analogy of Section 92 C.P.C. for the removal of the office bearers and for the formation of a new scheme for the management of the Society.

The civil court will adjudicate the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by the impugned order of the Deputy Registrar.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Order Date :- 24.7.2012

brijesh