C/M Jagdamba Shiksha Evam Vikas ... vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 5046 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

									A.F.R.
 
									Reserved
 
Court No.-33
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 52185 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- C/M Jagdamba Shiksha Evam Vikas Sansthan & Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Kumar Nigam,Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi			
 
		Connected with 
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 51827 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- C/M Sri Jagdamba Shiksha Evam Vikas Sansthan And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.K. Srivastava,Gajendra Pratap
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Kumar Sharma,Nitinjay Pandey
 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

1. An internecine feud between father and son has landed them before this Court. In due course, even their wives and other family members got involved in the fight. It is a modern day Mahabharat, not to wrest control over the throne of Hastinapur, but to somehow or the other get in control over management of a private society, in the name of Jagdamba Shiksha Evam Vikas Sansthan, Vidya Nagar, Agra1 registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 18602.

2. Since common questions of fact and law are involved and, therefore, with consent of parties and for sake of convenience, both the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Writ Petition No.52185 of 20153 has been filed by the committee of management of the society through its alleged manager Manish Sharma. He claims himself to be the manager of the governing body of the society elected on 24.8.2014. On the other hand, his father Chandra Pal Sharma also claims himself to be elected as manager on 24.8.2014, though in a separate meeting. By impugned order dated 5.8.2015, the Deputy Registrar, Agra has held that (i) the list of governing body of the year 2012-13 was based on manipulated and forged documents and consequently, the registration of the said list was cancelled; (ii) the claim made by Manish Sharma in his representation dated 1.9.2014 for getting the list of governing body registered on the basis of elections held on 24.8.2014 has been rejected with the finding that only validly elected manager was competent to call such meeting and in absence of any evidence in that regard, the claim set up cannot be accepted; (iii) the registration certificate dated 24.8.2012 has been directed to be handed over to Chandra Pal Sharma within 15 days or the same be deposited in the office of the Deputy Registrar; and (iv) Chandra Pal Sharma has been directed to call a meeting for undertaking necessary proceedings in relation to those office bearers/members of the governing body who have submitted their resignations and, thereafter, submit the proceedings for further action before the Deputy Registrar.

4. Writ Petition No.51827 of 20154 has been filed by the committee of management of the society through its alleged manager Chandra Pal Sharma challenging notice dated 28.8.2015 issued by the Deputy Registrar calling upon the petitioner to appear before him on 18.9.2015 alongwith evidence in relation to complaints made on 18.8.2015 and 19.8.2015 by Minakshi Sharma, Anju Sharma and Smt. Vidya Rani Sharma alleging that list of governing body got registered by Chandra Pal Sharma was based on forged and manipulated proceedings of the committee of management dated 9.8.2015 and thus, the same be revoked. The Deputy Registrar has, in the meantime, kept in abeyance the registration of list of office bearers of the year 2015-16 until further orders.

5. The last undisputed election of the society was held in the year 2005, in which one Shiv Charan Lal Sharma was elected as President, Chandra Pal Sharma S/o Jhunni Lal as Secretary and Manish Sharma as member. The aforesaid list was duly registered by the office of the Deputy Registrar. Under the bye-laws of the society, the term of the committee of management is four years. It is alleged by Manish Sharma that next elections were held on 22.8.2010, in which he claims that Shiv Charan Lal Sharma was elected as President, his father Chandra Pal Sharma as Vice-President and he himself as secretary/manager. On an application submitted by Manish Sharma, the registration certificate of the society was renewed on 24.8.2012 for a period of five years. On 20.11.2012 he moved another application alongwith list of office bearers for registration under Section 4. It was registered by Deputy Registrar on 10.1.2013. On 24.8.2014, Manish Sharma claims that fresh election of the committee of management was held, in which Shiv Charan Lal Sharma was re-elected as President, his father Chandra Pal Sharma as Vice-President and he himself as manager/secretary. On 1.9.2014, he submitted the proceedings dated 24.8.2014 alongwith list of office bearers for registration under Section 4 before the Deputy Registrar. The list submitted by him was admittedly not countersigned by the outgoing office-bearers. On 10.12.2014, an application was purportedly moved by the President Shiv Charan Lal Sharma annexing thereto a list of newly elected governing body for purposes of registration under Section 4. Therein, Shiv Charan Lal Sharma had shown himself as President, Munish Kumar Sharma as Vice-President and Chandra Pal Sharma S/o Chhatar Pal Sharma as secretary.

6. The Deputy Registrar thus was in receipt of two different lists of office bearers. Faced with this situation, he issued notices to both Manish Sharma and Shiv Charan Lal Sharma and thereafter, fixed various dates for hearing in the matter. On 15.3.2015, it is claimed that the President Shiv Charan Lal Sharma tendered his resignation. It was allegedly accepted by the general body in the meeting held on 20.3.2015 and in his place Smt. Vidya Rani Sharma (wife of Chandra Pal Sharma) was allegedly elected as President for the remaining term. On 21.3.2015, an affidavit of Shiv Charan Lal Sharma was filed before the Deputy Registrar stating that the committee of management was duly elected on 24.8.2014, wherein he was elected as President and Manish Sharma as manager. He disowned having filed any list of office bearers for registration. He also admitted having tendered resignation from his post. On 23.3.2015, Chandra Pal Sharma s/o Chhatar Pal Sharma submitted an application, in which it was stated that Shiv Charan Lal Sharma apprised him that his son Manish Sharma had, against his will, by exerting undue pressure, succeeded in obtaining signatures of Shiv Charan Lal Sharma on various documents. It was alleged therein that his son Manish Sharma is bent upon committing fraud and detailed objections would be filed in that regard after inspecting the records. Prayer was made to accord opportunity of hearing to him and other members before taking any action in the matter. It was followed by a detailed objection dated 21/23.3.2015, in which it was claimed that elections of the governing body had in fact taken place on 28.8.2010 and an application for renewal of the certificate alongwith necessary documents was submitted on 4.9.2010. Acting on the said application, by letter dated 21.9.2010, the Deputy Registrar called upon Chandra Pal Sharma to get the accounts of the society audited. It is claimed that while these proceedings were pending, his son Manish Sharma, moved separate application on 4.8.2012 for renewal of registration of the society alongwith forged and manipulated election proceedings dated 22.8.2010 and in collusion with the staff in the office of the Deputy Registrar, succeeded in obtaining renewal of the registration certificate. He further succeeded in getting list of office bearers registered on 10.1.2013 on basis of alleged elections dated 22.8.2010. It is further claimed that in various communication made by office of the Deputy Registrar, Chandra Pal Sharma was constantly being recognised as secretary and thus, he never came to know that his son Manish Sharma had succeeded in obtaining registration of list of office bearers on 10.1.2013. Several grounds were disclosed in the said representation to demonstrate that Manish Sharma, his son, succeeded in getting the list of office bearers registered on 10.1.2013 by playing fraud and manipulation. Request was made to cancel the registration of the list of office bearers of the year 2012-13 made on the application submitted by Manish Sharma. It is further alleged that elections dated 24.8.2014, set up by his son Manish Sharma is a result of fraud and manipulation and thus his application dated 1.9.2014 for registering the list of office bearers be rejected and the list of office bearers of the year 2014-15 submitted by Shiv Charan Lal Sharma be registered.

7. On 30.4.2015, Chandra Pal Sharma S/o Chhatar Pal moved another application alongwith proceedings dated 24.8.2014, according to which, Shiv Charan Lal Sharma was elected as President, Munish Kumar Sharma as Vice-President and Chandra Pal Sharma S/o Chhatar Pal as manager/secretary. Manish Sharma filed his objections thereto. In course of proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, various affidavits, letters and documents were filed by the parties and thereafter, the Deputy Registrar passed the impugned order dated 5.8.2015 cancelling the list of office bearers of the year 2012-13 and rejected the representation dated 1.9.2014 filed by Manish Sharma in relation to registration of list of office bearers allegedly elected on 24.8.2014 and issued directions for return of renewal certificate to Chandra Pal Sharma and for permitting him to hold the proceedings in relation to certain resignations by the office bearers/members. The aforesaid order, as noted above, is subject matter of challenge in the first writ petition filed by the committee of management through its alleged manager Manish Sharma.

8. In purported compliance of the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 5.8.2015, Chandra Pal Sharma claims to have held a meeting of the general body on 9.8.2015. Therein, it is claimed that the vacancies caused as a consequence to the resignation of Shiv Charan Lal Sharma (President), Munish Kumar Sharma (Vice President) and Yad Ram Sharma (member) were filled up by electing Rajendra Prasad Sharma as President, Smt. Manju Singh as Vice President and Smt. Mamta Singh as member of the managing committee. In the same meeting, Manish Sharma and his wife Minakshi Sharma were allegedly removed from the primary membership of the society. These proceedings were submitted before the Deputy Registrar with a request to register the list of governing body for the year 2015-16. The Deputy Registrar, in great haste, proceeded to register the said list on 14.8.2015.

9. Respondents no.3 to 5 in the second writ petition filed objections on 18.8.2015 and 19.8.2015 alleging that no meeting had in fact taken place on 9.8.2015 and the entire proceedings submitted in that regard are based on forged and fabricated documents. Therein, it is further claimed that alleged elections dated 28.8.2010 set up by Chandra Pal Sharma with the support of 12 members is exfacie illegal, inasmuch as even in the year 1990 the general body comprised of 35 persons. The Deputy Registrar, taking cognizance of the complaints filed by respondents no.3 to 5 in the second writ petition, proceeded to issue impugned notice dated 28.8.2015 to Chandra Pal Sharma calling upon him to appear on 18.9.2015 alongwith relevant evidence and in the meantime, the effect of the registration of the list of office bearers of the year 2015-16 was kept in abeyance. As noted above, challenging the said notice, the second writ petition has been filed by the committee of management represented by Chandra Pal Sharma as its manager.

10. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the first writ petition contended that the Deputy Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 5.8.2015. It is urged that the dispute between the parties was in respect of the election and continuance in office of office bearers of the society and such a dispute can only be decided by Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order, proper opportunity of hearing and to submit documents was not provided to the petitioners and thus, there is a grave procedural irregularity. It is submitted that the alleged rival claim set up by Shiv Charan Lal Sharma by moving application dated 18.12.2014 came to an end, after he submitted his affidavit dated 21.3.2015, wherein he disowned having filed any application or list of office bearers. It is urged that thereafter the list submitted by the petitioners should have been registered. It is submitted that Chandra Pal Sharma S/o Chhatar Pal is not even a member of the general body. He tried to take benefit of the fact that one of the founder secretary of the society was one Chandra Pal Sharma S/o Jhunni Lal, who is a different person. It is further submitted that no finding in relation to the elections set up by Chandra Pal Sharma for the year 2010 and 2014 has been recorded in the order dated 5.8.2015. The Deputy Registrar assuming these elections set up by Chandra Pal Sharma to be valid elections illegally directed the petitioners to hand over registration certificate of the society to him. It is further submitted that liberty granted to Chandra Pal Sharma to fill up vacancies consequent to certain resignations and subsequent act on part of the Deputy Registrar in registering the list of office bearers, submitted by him for the year 2015-16 was wholly illegal. It is submitted that the election proceedings dated 24.8.2014 set up by Chandra Pal Sharma reveals that only five persons have participated in the elections, whereas the general body comprised of 30 members and under the bye-laws, the quorum being 2/3 of the total members, was thus not complete. Consequently, the alleged elections dated 24.8.2014 are exfacie illegal.

11. On the other hand, Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the committee of management represented by Chandra Pal Sharma in both the petitions submitted that the registration of the list of office bearers on basis of alleged elections dated 22.8.2010 was obtained by Manish Sharma by playing fraud. It is submitted that the Deputy Registrar was misled into registering the list of office bearers on 10.1.2013, although in the past, request in that regard was made by Chandra Pal Sharma by application dated 4.9.2010, soon after the elections were held on 28.8.2010. It is further submitted that the claim made by Manish Sharma was based on fraud and manipulated documents and in such circumstances, the Deputy Registrar was perfectly justified in entering into the controversy and after coming to the conclusion that Manish Sharma had succeeded in getting the list of office bearers registered on 10.1.2013 by playing fraud, was justified in cancelling the same. It is urged that the Deputy Registrar, while passing the order dated 5.8.2015, was justified in not going into the question of the validity of the elections set up by Chandra Pal Sharma, as that would have been beyond his jurisdiction. It is urged that the Deputy Registrar has only permitted Chandra Pal Sharma to hold the proceedings for filling up the vacancies consequent to resignation of various office bearers/members and he was still to pass orders after such proceedings are held. As such, it is not open to the petitioners in the first writ petition to contend that an election dispute has been decided. It is further submitted that the Deputy Registrar has entered findings of facts in relation to fraud and manipulation committed by Manish Sharma in obtaining registration of the list of office bearers on 10.1.2013 and the aforesaid findings are not open to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12. Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the second writ petition questioned the validity of the impugned notice dated 28.8.2015 on the ground that the Deputy Registrar having registered the list of office bearers on 14.8.2015, was not competent to review the said order, therefore, not competent to issue the impugned notice. It is submitted that in the complaint filed by the private respondents, it is in fact the elections which are being challenged and since the Deputy Registrar is not competent to go into the validity of the elections and thus, issuance of the impugned notice is wholly illegal.

13. Repelling the aforesaid contentions, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Namit Kumar Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 and Sri Nitinjay Pandey on behalf of respondents no.3, 4 and 5 in the second writ petition contended that the registration of the list of office bearers of the year 2015-16 by the Deputy Registrar on 14.8.2015 on basis of documents submitted by Chandra Pal Sharma, was wholly illegal. It is urged that the entire claim of Chandra Pal Sharma, based on elections dated 24.8.2014, was under dispute and the said fact being in the knowledge of the Deputy Registrar, he ought to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority. It is urged that since even the elections set up by Chandra Pal Sharma in the year 2010 being under dispute and the said elections having not been registered in the past, the only option available to the Deputy Registrar was to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. He has usurped the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority in registering the list and now in proceeding to decide the validity of the election and dispute relating to continuance in office of the office bearers of the society.

14. These rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties fall for consideration in these petitions.

15. Section 4 and relevant part of Section 25 of the Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh are reproduced below for convenience of reference:-

"4. Annual list of managing body to be filed. - (1) Once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day 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 [Registrar], 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 signatures of the old members, shall, as far as possible, be obtained on the list. If the old office-bearers do not countersign 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 period.]

[(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 Sction 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 preceding year account.]

25. Disputes 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-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit. ..............."

16. These two provisions have been subject matter of consideration in various decisions of this Court. Their scope and ambit is no more res-integra. The Deputy Registrar registers list of governing body of the society once in every year. In case, the governing body is elected after the last submission of the list, the counter signatures of the old members, as far as possible, is required to be obtained on the list. This is in order to ensure that the list of elected body is not in dispute. If the old office bearers do not countersign the list, ordinarily it can be inferred that there is some kind of dispute relating to the list submitted for registration and consequently, decision in relation to the registration of such a list is deferred until the objections are invited and decided by the Registrar.

17. The object of registering the list of office bearers is to apprise the Registrar who has to deal with the society administratively, as well as the public at large, as to the persons competent to represent the society. While registering the list, the Registrar is not supposed to act as a tribunal empowered to go into the dispute relating to election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such a society. In case, from the objections received by the Registrar, it transpires that any such dispute exists, he is required to refer the same to the Prescribed Authority, who under Section 25 (1) of the Act has been invested with the power to hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in relation to the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such society. However, it does not mean that the Prescribed Authority is to act as a post office and in every case where some or the other kind of an election dispute or dispute in respect of continuance in office of an office bearer is raised, the matter is to be referred to the Prescribed Authority. Where the Deputy Registrar comes to the conclusion that the dispute raised before him is totally sham or based on fake or fictitious documents, he can ignore the same and proceed to deal with the question relating to registration of the list, himself5. However, where there is a bonafide dispute relating to an election or continuance in office of an office bearer, then the matter has to be referred to the Prescribed Authority. The Deputy Registrar, in garb of exercise of power under section 4, cannot proceed to decide a bonafide doubt or dispute relating to election or continuance in office of an office bearer of the Society6.

18. Applying these broad principles, it is now to be examined whether the impugned order can be said to be validly passed by the Deputy Registrar. For convenience of exposition, I first proceed to consider the validity of that part of the impugned order dated 5.8.2015, whereby the registration of the list of the governing body of the year 2012-13 has been cancelled. Concededly, last valid elections were held in the year 2005, in which one Shiv Charan Lal Sharma was elected as President, Chandra Pal Sharma S/o Jhunni Lal as secretary and Manish Sharma as member. Indisputably, list of office bearers on the basis of elections held in the year 2005 was also duly registered.

19. The next elections, according to both the parties, were held in the year 2010. Manish Sharma claims that election of the year 2010 was held on 22.8.2010, in which Shiv Charan Lal Sharma was re-elected as President, his father Chandra Pal Sharma as Vice President and he himself as secretary/manager. On the other hand, his father Chandra Pal Sharma claims that election was held on 28.8.2010, in which Shiv Charan Lal Sharma was elected as President, he himself as secretary and his son Manish Sharma as Vice President.

20. It has come on record that on basis of alleged elections dated 28.8.2010, Chandra Pal Sharma made an application for registering the list of newly elected office bearers on 4.9.2010. On 21.9.2010, the Deputy Registrar, acting on the documents submitted by Chandra Pal Sharma, issued a letter to him requiring him to submit audited balance sheet of the society by 20.10.2010. When Chandra Pal Sharma failed to submit the audited balance sheet, the Deputy Registrar, in purported exercise of power under Section 24 (1) of the Act, authorised a firm of chartered accountants to audit the accounts of the society and submit a report. On 19.5.2012, the firm of chartered accountants submitted an audit report. On 17.1.2013, the Deputy Registrar corresponded with Chandra Pal Sharma addressing him as secretary/manager of the society and informed him that audit report has been received. While these proceedings were going on, Manish Sharma, for the first time on 4.8.2012 made an application for renewal of the registration certificate of the society, followed by an application dated 20.11.2012 for registering the list of office bearers. On these applications, the renewal of the registration was granted on 24.8.2012 and the list was registered on 10.1.2013. Indisputably, on 10.1.2013 a previous application dated 4.9.2010 made by Chandra Pal Sharma for registering the list of office bearers on basis of elections held on 28.8.2010, was pending consideration before the Deputy Registrar. However, the Deputy Registrar, ignoring the same as well as the proceedings held on the basis thereof, proceeded to register the list of office bearers supplied by Manish Sharma. The list of office bearers supplied by Manish Sharma on basis of elections allegedly held on 22.8.2010 was under serious dispute, as his own father Chandra Pal Sharma had set up parallel elections dated 28.8.2010. In normal course, in the aforesaid scenario, the Deputy Registrar was required to refer the rival claims to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 25 (1) of the Act. Even if such course was not adopted, the least which was required from the Deputy Registrar was that he should have issued public notice or at least to Chandra Pal Sharma, who had set up a parallel claim, illiciting his response on the list submitted by Manish Sharma. However, without taking recourse to such procedure prescribed by proviso to sub section (1) of Section 4, the Deputy Registrar proceeded to register the list supplied by Manish Sharma, which was thus manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction.

21. The specific case of Chandra Pal Sharma is that he never came to know of the fact that on 10.1.2013 the Deputy Registrar had registered the list of office bearers supplied by Manish Sharma. It is claimed that he was misled into believing that the list submitted by him alongwith his application dated 4.9.2010 had been duly registered by the Deputy Registrar, inasmuch as all communication by his office was made with him treating him to be the secretary of the society. In this regard, reference has been made to the letter dated 17.1.2013 (Annexure-4 to the second writ petition), wherein the Deputy Registrar had addressed Chandra Pal Sharma as secretary/manager of the society. It has been the specific case of Chandra Pal Sharma that he came to know of the misdoings of his son Manish Sharma for the first time when the dispute arose in relation to registration of the list of office bearers on the basis of elections held in the year 2014. Thereafter, he inspected the records and filed objections dated 21.3.2015 giving details of various frauds committed by Manish Sharma in obtaining registration of the list in the year 2012-13, on basis of elections allegedly held on 22.8.2010.

22. The Deputy Registrar in the impugned order dated 5.8.2015 has entered a specific finding to the effect that Manish Sharma succeeded in getting the list of office bearers registered on 10.1.2013 by playing fraud and on basis of manipulated documents. In coming to such conclusion, the Deputy Registrar has taken note of the fact that Manish Sharma, in his notary affidavit filed in support of his application dated 1.9.2014, has stated that Lakshman Prasad Sharma, Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, Yad Ram Sharma, Anil Kumar Kasyap, Suraj Prasad Sharma had died, but on being asked to deposit their death certificates, he showed his inability. However, on 18.4.2015 Raghuveer Prasad Sharma submitted a letter alongwith his notary affidavit stating that elections dated 22.8.2010 and 24.8.2014 set up by Manish Sharma are a result of fraud and fabrication and he was wrongly shown as dead. Affidavits to the same effect were filed by Suraj Prasad Sharma, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Smt. Suman Sharma and Anil Kumar Kasyap. It was followed by letter dated 28.4.2015 by Lakshman Swaroop Sharma, letter dated 27.4.2015 by Raghuveer Prasad Sharma and letter of even date by A. Kumar mentioning that they received information from Chandra Pal Sharma that he had submitted affidavits on their behalf by making their signatures. It is stated in those letters that the dispute is between the father and the son and they do not want to get involved in these proceedings. Faced with these conflicting claims, the Deputy Registrar issued notices to Anil Kumar Kasyap, Smt. Suman Sharma, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Suraj Prasad Sharma and Raghuveer Prasad Sharma. In pursuance thereof, Anil Kumar Kasyap by a letter received in the office of the Deputy Registrar on 13.5.2015 acknowledged having submitted a previous affidavit and further denied having written any letter. It was claimed that earlier letter was a result of fraud on part of Manish Kumar Sharma. Similar letters were submitted by Suraj Prasad Sharma and Raghuveer Prasad Sharma. Smt. Suman and Ashok Kumar Sharma submitted their letters dated 13.5.2015 and 14.5.2015 respectively alleging that their signatures on the list of office bearers of the year 2012-13 was a result of forgery.

23. It seems that thereafter Manish Sharma filed a further representation on 30.5.2015 alongwith affidavit of Yad Ram Sharma dated 21.4.2015. In the said affidavit, Yad Ram Sharma claimed that he had never been a member of the general body, nor participated in any proceedings, consequently, the list of office bearers submitted by Chandra Pal Sharma showing him as an office bearer is a result of fraud and manipulation. In rebuttal, Chandra Pal Sharma submitted a letter dated 8.4.2015 by Yad Ram Sharma, addressed to him. In the said letter, it is alleged that Manish Sharma under coercion and duress succeeded in obtaining his signatures and thumb impression and that of Sri Munish Kumar Sharma, on certain papers and consequently, they showed their inability to continue as members/office bearers and offered their resignation. Alongwith it, he also presented letter from Shiv Charan Lal Sharma tendering resignation. On the other hand, Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, by an undated letter, informed that Chandra Pal Sharma apprised him that he had submitted certain letter and affidavit forging his signatures. It was stated therein that the dispute is between the father and the son and he does not want to get involved therein. It was further stated that unless he personally appears and submit his representation, the documents submitted on his behalf should not be believed.

24. On 1.5.2015, Smt. Suman Sharma, by means of a letter informed that her signatures on the list of officer bearers of the year 2012-13 was forged and acknowledged having submitted affidavit dated 15.4.2015.

25. The Deputy Registrar, taking note of these conflicting documents and affidavits, concluded that the list of office bearers got registered by Manish Sharma for the year 2012-13 was based on fraud and manipulation. It has further been observed that he failed to produce the original documents in support of his claim and this further proves that the list of office bearers of the year 2012-13 submitted by him for registration, was based on fraudulent claim.

26. Sri Manish Sharma in the first writ petition made an attempt to challenge these findings by contending that he was not offered reasonable opportunity of producing the original records. On the other hand, counsel for the other side sought to urge that he was provided adequate opportunity, but he deliberately failed to produce the original records.

27. Be that as it may, this court finds that there are other findings and aspects, which have remained undisputed. Concededly, on 10.1.2013, when the list submitted by Manish Sharma was got registered, a previous application moved by Chandra Pal Sharma on 4.9.2010 for registering the list of office bearers on basis of elections held on 28.8.2010 was pending. It is also not in dispute that the list of office bearers allegedly elected on 22.8.2010, though required to be communicated to the Deputy Registrar, soon after the elections are held, was neither communicated to him, nor got registered. It was only on 20.11.2012 that a request was made to get the list registered on the basis of the election dated 22.8.2010. The Deputy Registrar, totally oblivious of the fact that previous application of Chandra Pal Sharma dated 4.9.2010 was pending, proceeded to register the list submitted by Manish Sharma. Sri Chandra Pal Sharma, as noted above, has categorically pleaded that the list submitted by Manish Sharma on 20.11.2012 was got registered without notice or information to him. The evidence on record placed before the Deputy Registrar, clearly discloses that there was a serious dispute between the parties not only as regard the date on which election was held in the year 2010, but also as regards the person who had allegedly participated in those elections. There was also sufficient evidence to establish that certain persons, whom Manish Sharma claimed to be dead, were in fact alive. Both the parties have brought affidavits and letter allegedly written by same persons and both assailed the documents of the other side, on the ground of fraud and fabrication. When such serious allegation of fraud and manipulation have been levelled and admittedly list of office bearer submitted by Manish Kumar Sharma was got registered without notice to his father Chandra Pal Sharma, whose list for registration was pending, in the opinion of the Court, the Deputy Registrar was fully justified in cancelling the registration of the list of office bearers on the basis of election dated 22.8.2010 set up by Manish Sharma. It could not be disputed by counsel for petitioner in the first writ petition that in case of fraud or misrepresentation, the Deputy Registrar is competent to pass an order revoking the registration of the list7. Thus, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Deputy Registrar cancelling the registration of the list of office bearers of the year 2012-13.

28. Now coming to the other part of the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 5.8.2015, it is to be examined as to whether the Deputy Registrar was justified in directing return of registration certificate to Chandra Pal Sharma and in permitting him to fill the vacancies caused by resignations, after rejecting the claim of Manish Sharma.

29. Concededly, both Chandra Pal Sharma and Manish Sharma have set up parallel elections not only in the year 2010 but also in the year 2014. A registration certificate, even if obtained by a defacto committee, enures not to the benefit of any individual or the committee obtaining the certificate, but the Society. However, at the same time, there does not seem to be any reason on record to warrant issuing a direction to Manish Sharma to handover the certificate to Chandra Pal Sharma. Such a direction could be justified if there had been an adjudication that Chandra Pal Sharma was the duly elected secretary in the year 2010 or in the year 2014. However, it seems that the Deputy Registrar was conscious of the limitation of his powers, therefore, he abstained from entering into such controversy. But, at the same time, he directed for handing over the registration certificate to him, assuming him to be validly elected secretary. This, in the firm opinion of the Court, was not warranted. It is impermissible for a statutory authority to do some thing indirectly, which he could not have done directly. At the same time, this Court finds that the direction to deposit the renewal certificate in the office of the Registrar is eminently just and calls for no interference.

30. It is noteworthy that under the guise of the direction given by the Deputy Registrar, Chandra Pal Sharma undertook proceedings for filling up the vacancies. It is claimed that in a meeting of the general body allegedly held on 9.8.2015 vacancies on the post of President, Vice Present and members were filled up. Soon thereafter on 14.8.2015, the Deputy Registrar, without any hesitation, proceeded to register the list of office bearers provided by Chandra Pal Sharma, totally brushing aside the fact that there was serious dispute relating to validity of claim set up by him in relation to the elections of the year 2010 as well as the year 2014. It further transpires from record that even the alleged meeting dated 9.8.2015, is seriously under challenge from third to fifth respondents in the second writ petition. Smt. Vidya Rani Sharma, the own wife of Chandra Pal Sharma, as well as daughter-in-law Smt. Minakshi Sharma have raised objections dated 18.8.2015 and 19.8.2015 before the Deputy Registrar contending that no agenda was issued for any such meeting, nor it was ever held and the entire proceedings in this regard is a result of fraud and fabrication.

31. It is also pertinent to note that the election dated 28.8.2010, wherein Chandra Pal Sharma claimed to be elected as secretary, and his son Manish Sharma as a Vice-President, is being seriously disputed by Manish Sharma. He denied any such meeting having been held. On the other hand, he had set up a parallel election dated 22.8.2010, in which, according to him he was elected as Manager/Secretary and his father as Vice President. It has come in the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 5.8.2015 that Yad Ram Sharma who was allegedly elected as a member of the governing body, had filed his affidavit dated 21.4.2015 stating that he is not even a member of the general body and inclusion of his name in the elected body, by Chandra Pal Sharma, is a result of fraud and fabrication. His own son deny having participated in alleged elections dated 28.8.2010 or having been elected as Vice-President therein. It is noteworthy that there was a specific challenge laid to the identity of Chandra Pal Sharma. It is claimed by Manish Sharma that his father Chandra Pal Sharma who is son of Chhatar Pal is not the same person who was founder secretary, as he is son of Jhunni Lal Sharma. It is claimed by him in his objection dated 16.6.2015 that his father illegally tried to take benefit of the fact that his name is same as that of the founder secretary. Similarly, in regard to election held in the year 2014, there is again serious dispute between the parties. Both father and son claim that they were elected as Secretary, though in separate elections of the same date. Sri Charan Lal Sharma is claimed to be elected as President by both the sides. He in his affidavit dated 21.3.2015 supported the case of Manish Sharma. It was followed by a letter of Chandra Pal Sharma dated 23.3.2015 stating that Shiv Charan Lal informed him that his son Manish Sharma succeeded in obtaining his signatures on various documents by extending threats to him. These questions have admittedly not been adjudicated upon by the Deputy Registrar, nor he could have done so, in view of his limited power under the Act. In the circumstance, the Deputy Registrar after revoking the registration of the list of office bearers supplied by Manish Sharma, should have, in all earnest, referred the rival claim of elections set up by the parties for adjudication by the Prescribed Authority. He transgressed his jurisdiction in rejecting the claim made by Manish Shama vide representation dated 1.9.2014 relating to the elections dated 24.8.2014. Similarly, it was also not warranted in the facts of the case to direct return of registration certificate to Chandra Pal Sharma or in permitting him to fill up the vacancies, thereby, indirectly, upholding his claim of being a lawfully elected secretary/manager of the society.

32. Thus, this Court is unable to uphold the direction given for return of registration certificate to Chandra Pal Sharma as also in permitting him to fill up the vacancies caused by resignation. At the same time, in the facts of the case, this Court does not find any error in the direction given to Manish Sharma to deposit the registration certificate with the Deputy Registrar, as after the dispute regarding rival claim of elections is settled, the Deputy Registrar would be justified in returning the same to the lawfully elected committee.

33. The plea of the petitioners in the first writ petition that after Shiv Charan Lal Sharma filed his affidavit dated 21.3.2015 admitting that he had not filed any application for registration of list of office bearers and wherein he also admitted the elections dated 24.8.2014 set up by Manish Sharma, the lis came to an end and the list of office bearers submitted by Manish Sharma should have been registered, cannot be accepted. It is noticeable that thereafter Chandra Pal Sharma in his objection dated 21/23.3.2015 made a specific prayer to accept for registration the list submitted by Shiv Charan Lal Sharma. He again made a similar request by filing application dated 30.4.2015, alongwith election proceedings dated 24.8.2014. (admitted by para 18 of the first writ petition). Chandra Pal Sharma, all-through contested the claim of Manish Sharma, tooth and nail. In the aforesaid background, the contention that the list of office bearers supplied by Manish Sharma should have been registered, as there remained no lis, cannot be accepted.

34. Since, this Court is of the opinion that the dispute between the parties relating to rival claim of elections should have been referred to the Prescribed Authority, thus it is not entering into the plea relating to prejudice having been caused to Manish Sharma, in not being granted adequate opportunity to produce the original documents to prove holding of the elections of the year 2010 and 2014, nor the plea that quorum in the meeting dated 24.8.2014 was not complete.

35. Now coming to the second writ petition, it is to be noticed that own wife and daughter-in-law of Chandra Pal Sharma have seriously disputed the legality of the alleged meeting dated 9.8.2015 held by Chandra Pal Sharma. While Chandra Pal Sharma could not have been restrained from holding such a meeting, but such meeting nor decision taken therein can be held to sacrosanct merely because the Deputy Registrar, by his order dated 5.8.2015, permitted Chandra Pal Sharma to hold such a meeting. Evidently, in that meeting various posts of the governing body have been filled up. The order impugned in the second writ petition is a notice issued in reference to complaints made by third to fifth respondents in the second writ petition. The complaints are in regard to the validity of the meeting. This court finds considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in the second writ petition that inquiry if permitted to be held by Deputy Registrar, would be in relation to a dispute relating to alleged resignations and filling up of vacant posts in the governing body. It would thus be a dispute in regard to entitlement to hold a post, which is beyond the jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar. In the opinion of the Court, it would be a futile exercise to permit the Deputy Registrar to hold any inquiry in pursuance of the impugned notice.

36. At the same time, it may be noted that Deputy Registrar had stayed the effect of the registration of list of office bearers of the year 2015-16. This was apparently for the reason that serious allegations of fraud was levelled by the complainants in holding of the said meeting. Normally, a statutory authority, not vested with power of review, could not also be permitted to keep its decision in abeyance, once the decision had been taken. However, this Court has entered a specific finding that part of the order dated 5.8.2015 permitting Chandra Pal Sharma to fill up the vacancies itself was illegal, thus, all consequential action including registration of list of 2015-16, on basis thereof, ignoring the fact that there was a serious dispute relating to validity of the elections, also cannot be countenanced. The Court is of the firm opinion that unless all election disputes between the parties are settled by the Prescribed Authority, the list supplied by any of the rival claimants should not get a legal stamp. This court would itself have given direction for keeping the registration of the list of office bearers of the year 2015-15, in abeyance. Since however, such a direction had already been given, consequently, no purpose will be served in setting aside the said direction and passing a fresh order in that regard. Consequently, that part of the direction in the impugned notice is left untouched.

37. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons given above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (i) Writ Petition No.52185 of 2015 succeeds in part. Order dated 5.8.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar revoking the registration of list of office bearers of the year 2012-13 as well as direction to deposit the registration certificate with Deputy Registrar is upheld whereas the remaining part of the order is quashed.

(ii) Notice dated 28.8.2015 challenged in Writ Petition No.51827 of 2015 is quashed except in so far as it keeps registration of list of office bearers of the year 2015-16 in abeyance.

(iii) The Deputy Registrar is directed to refer the entire dispute between the parties relating to elections of the year 2010 and 2014, including validity of the action of Chandra Pal Sharma in filling up the vacancies in the alleged meeting dated 9.8.2015 to the Prescribed Authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(iv) The Prescribed Authority, soon after reference is received, shall decide the same in accordance with law.

(v) The Deputy Registrar will take consequential action for registration of the list of office bearers under Section 4 of the Act, as per the determination made by the Prescribed Authority.

38. Cost made easy in view of the partial success and partial failure of the writ petitions.

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 04.12.2015

SL