C/M Shri Krishak Junior High ... vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 5511 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 58743 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M Shri Krishak Junior High School And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Ashwani K. Mishra
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,A.K. Yadav,S.K. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.

Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners.

Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the Standing Counsel. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are represented by Sri A.K. Yadav, Advocate and S.K. Singh, Advocate.

Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage itself without calling for any further affidavits, specifically in view of the order proposed to be passed by the Court today.

The controversy with regard to the elections of the Committee of Management of Sri Krishak Junior High School Beri Samiti, Gram Beri, District Mathura was subject matter of consideration before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 32169 of 2012. The writ petition was decided under the judgment dated 06.07.2012 after taking note of the earlier order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 14821 of 2012. The Court proceeded to hold that the matter with regard to the legality of the elections need be re-examined by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mathura and amongst other it was provided that the District Basic Education Officer shall also examine as to whether the resolution for amendment in the registered bye-laws of the society, alleged to have been transmitted under the signatures of the present petitioner Sri Narain Singh, are so signed by him or not, and further as to whether the elections pleaded have been held in accordance with the bye-laws as applicable or not. The District Basic Education Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh within two months.

The District Basic Education Officer under the order impugned, after noticing the various contention raised on behalf of the parties, has surprisingly recorded that there is no dispute with regard to the amendment in the bye-laws of the society and that the bye-laws had been amended on 13th June, 2008. He has, thereafter, proceeded to hold that the elections held by Sri Bhagwan Singh Sisodiya dated 11.01.2012 are legal and valid and in accordance with the bye-laws.

It may be recorded that the District Basic Education Officer has specifically held that the elections have been held in accordance with the amended bye-laws of the society.

Challenging the order so passed, Sri A.K. Mishra, counsel for the petitioners submits that under the order of the High Court dated 06th July, 2012 one of the issues, which was specifically directed to be examined by the District Basic Education Officer, was as to whether the amendment in the bye-laws had been proposed under any valid resolution and under valid signature of the manager of the institution at the relevant time, who was petitioner or not, inasmuch as it was the case of the petitioner all throughout that no such amendments in the bye-laws were ever proposed and documents in that regard were fabricated. The District Basic Education Officer was therefore not right in recording that there is no dispute with regard to the amendment in the bye-laws, as was enforced w.e.f. 13th June, 2008.

According to Sri A.K. Mishra there has been complete non-application of mind to the real dispute at the hands of the District Basic Education Officer. If the amendments, alleged to have been enforced w.e.f. 13.08.2012, are held to be bad, then the entire elections pleaded by respondent and held to be valid by the District Basic Education Officer would automatically be rendered illegal.

Sri R.K. Ojha, counsel for the respondent initially made an attempt to suggest that the District Basic Education Officer could not have gone into the issue as to whether the amendments proposed were under valid signatures of the then manager, namely the petitioner or not. However, realizing that the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 06th July, 2012 has become final between the parties and have not been challenged by way of special appeal or otherwise such plea is not open to the respondent. He, however, contended that the controversy pertaining to the elections of the office bearers must be resolved once and all so that the litigation may be brought to an end.

Counsel for the parties have agreed before me that in the larger interest of the education and in order to save uncalled for litigation in respect of the management of the institution, it would be appropriate that this Court may require that fresh elections be held under the control and supervision of the Assistant Registrar himself having regard to the power vested in him under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the records, this Court finds that the order impugned passed by the District Basic Education Officer cannot be legally sustained for non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 06th July, 2012. The District Basic Education Officer was duty bound to examine as to whether the amendment in the bye-laws had been proposed under any valid signature of the manager of the institution or not, which aspect of the matter has been completely ignored.

Counsel for the petitioner is justified in contending that if it is found that the amendment in the bye-laws had not been proposed by the manager and there has been interpolation in the documents then the elections, which have been recognized and which had been admittedly held under the amended bye-laws, would fall automatically. Such plea of the petitioner is therefore upheld.

Accordingly, this Court finds that the order of the District Basic Education Officer dated 10th October, 2012 cannot be legally sustained.

Normally this Court would have remanded the matter to the District Basic Education Officer for decision afresh strictly in accordance with the direction issued by this Court in its judgment dated 06th July, 2012. However, since the parties have agreed that the dispute be resolved and fresh elections be held by an independent person in larger interest of the institution, following directions are being issued:

(a) Fresh elections for constituting the Committee of Management be held by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits himself or through an election officer to be appointed by him, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.

(b) The elections shall be held in accordance with the unamended bye-laws of the society and it shall be open to the newly elected office bearers to decide as to whether they would accept the amendments, and if so from which date.

(c) Before holding the elections the Registrar shall finalize the list of members of the general body entitled to participate in the election in accordance with the unamended bye-laws and for the purpose he shall summon the records pertaining to the last undisputed elections, which had been held in the year 2007, from the office of the District Basic Education Officer and those may be available in his own office.

(d) After the elections are over, the aggrieved party, if any, will have a right to challenge the same under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act before the Prescribed Authority.

(e) Till fresh elections are held, as indicated above, there shall be single operation of account in the institution.

Writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made.

Order Date :- 7.11.2012

Pkb/