Board Of Trustee Of The Shia ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 957 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

RESERVED
 
Court No. - 8	
 
								   
 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 71 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Board Of Trustee Of The Shia College & The School & Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Instt. Finance U.P. & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sri Rajeev Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Sri Apoorva Tiwari, Sri Prakhar Mishra
 

 
Connected with : 
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7042 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Board Of Trustees Of Shia College & Other Connected Insttn.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance & Firms &Or
 
Counsel for Petitioner :-  Sri Rajeev Singh, Ms. Madhumita Bose
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,  Sri Apoorva Tiwari, Ms. Madhumita Bose
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

These two writ petitions relate to the membership and election dispute of governing body of the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 known as the 'Board of Trustees Shia College and other connected Institutions' (hereinafter referred to as the Board of Trustees) and being inter-related were heard together and are being decided by a common judgement.

Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajeev Singh has argued on behalf of the petitioners, Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel argued on behalf of respondent no. 5 in Writ Petition No. 7042 (MS) of 2014 and respondent no. 4 in Writ Petition No. 71 (MS) of 2015, Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has argued on behalf of the State.

Although C.M. Application No. 11298 of 2014 has been filed in Writ Petition No. 7042 (MS) of 2014 by four applicants i.e. newly elected members but no one has appeared to press and argue the said application, despite name of the counsel being shown in the cause list.

By means of Writ Petition No. 7042 (MS) of 2014, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 17.10.2014 has been challenged which essentially approves the list of the members of Board of Trustees, notwithstanding the election of governing body alleged to have been held on 11.10.2014. Writ Petition No. 71 (MS) of 2015 primarily assails the order dated 3.1.2015, whereby the rival governing body on being elected on 14.11.2014 as per the list of members of the Board of Trustees approved on 17.10.2014 has been recognised by the Deputy Registrar during subsistence of rival claim based on the previous election of governing body held on 11.10.2014.

In the context of rival disputes, it is an admitted position between both the parties that the previous election of the governing body for a term of five years was held on 15.11.2009 and the same was approved/recognised on 31.3.2010, whereafter registration of the Society was also renewed on 30.10.2010 for a period of five years w.e.f. 10.10.2010.

During the term of previous governing body, the removal of some trustees prior to the expiry of their term and simultaneous election of new trustees against resultant vacancies on the same very day gave rise to serious disputes. When new trustees were included in the list and the election proceedings based on the disputed list were submitted for approval under Section 4-B and Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act by the rival claimants, the objections/cross objections filed by both the parties engaged attention of the competent authority i.e. Deputy Registrar who has passed the impugned orders, hence the writ petitions have come to be filed. The election held by the rival group i.e. petitioners on 11.10.2014 has not been challenged by any party but the issuance of impugned orders passed by the Deputy Registrar on 17.10.2014 and 3.1.2015 is a subject matter of challenge in the above writ petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there being no stage either for registration or renewal of Society as stipulated under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Deputy Registrar, with the issuance of the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 legalising the election of new members of the Board of Trustees, has acted without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the Board of Trustees is the governing body of the Society hence all the members of the Board and its office-bearers constitute the governing body, therefore, Section 4-B of the Act has no application in the matter of approving the list of membership of the Board of Trustees which is rather the governing body of the Society.

Further submission is that at the relevant point of time, reference in respect of the election held on 15.11.2009 was pending before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act, therefore, the Deputy Registrar without having the relevant records available with him, has passed the impugned order relating to membership of the Society on 17.10.2004 which is bad in law and suffers from non application of mind. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions cited the following case laws:

1. Committee of Management, Anjuman Khairul Almin, Allahganj and another versus State of U.P. And others, 2014 (1) ADJ 44;

2. Gram Shiksha Audhar Samiti, Junior High School, Sikandara, District Kanpur Dehat versus Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, 2010 (7) ADJ 643;

3. Umesh Chandra and another versus Mahila Vidyalaya Society, 2006 (24) LCD 1373;

4. Sandeep Agarwal and others versus Adarsh Chandha and others, 2002 (4) AWC 3083;

5. Navyug Radiance Senior Secondary School Societey and another versus Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and another, 2002 (4) AWC 3050;

6. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P. versus Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, HVD (All) 1992 II 235; and

7. Mohammad Tayyab versus State of U.P. and others, (2015) 1 UPLBEC 423.

Per contra, Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 argued that the governing body of the Society is constituted by the Board of Trustees for the Society and respective managing Committees for the institutions are also constituted as per the bye laws and the Board of Trustees being the general body, therefore, the orders dated 17.10.2014 and 3.1.2015 do not lack in jurisdiction which the Deputy Registrar has rightly exercised. It is further argued that the Deputy Registrar even during pendency of proceedings before the Prescribed Authority was well within his jurisdiction to finalize the list of Board of Trustees as the election of the office-bearers of the Board of Trustees had fallen due, keeping in view the previous election of governing body held on 15.11.2009, therefore, the membership list once approved under Section 4-B of the Act, is not open to be challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even if it suffers from gross illegalities and the election held on 14.11.2014 being consequential and based on the approved list by order dated 17.10.2014, is sought to be defended on that basis. It is also submitted that allowing the prayer made in the writ petitions would only revive an illegal situation, therefore, any interference by this Court would not reach the ends of justice.

Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel also submitted that the Board of Trustees is the general body of the Society and finalisation of the membership of the Board of Trustees being relevant before holding election of the new office-bearers, therefore, issuance of list of office-bearers on 17.10.2014 is well within the domain of Deputy Registrar under Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act and the power of Deputy Registrar is not restricted to the two eventualities alone i.e. registration/renewal of the Society. Learned counsel relied upon the following case laws:

1. Committee of Management, Anjuman Madarsa Arabia Khairul Madaris and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) ALJ 83;

2. Committee of Management, Adarsh Shiksha Samitee, Charibana, Karchana, District Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. And others, (2009) 2 UPLBEC 2636;

3. Committee of Management, Shiksha Pracharini Sangh, Isari Salempur, Ballia and another v. Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rasara, District Ballia and others, 2005 (1) AWC 588;

4. Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Regionn, Gorakhpur and another, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242;

5. Committee of Management, Naldeo Kuldeo Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Belaon, District Jaunpur and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh and another, (1997) 2 UPLBEC 1009;

6. Abdul Kalam and another v. Prescribed Authority/S.D.M., Phoolpur and others, (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2499;

7. Moti Lal Memorial Society and another v. State of U.P. and others [Writ Petition No. 3299 (MS) of 2007];

8. T.P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363, S.C. Belgaum and others v. AIR 1963 SC 1144;

9. Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1966 SC 828; and

10. Committee of Management of Krishak Sewa Samiti, Uchauri, Ghazipur and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 2 UPLBEC 1688.

Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has argued on the same lines on which Sri Tiwari argued but has pointed out that the Deputy Registrar while passing the impugned order could not ignore the reference in relation to 2009 election pending before the Prescribed Authority, which even if dismissed as 'infructuous' subsequent to the date of impugned order dated 17.10.2014, has a bearing on the controversy.

Learned Addl. CSC has further argued that once reference proceedings stand initiated before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act, the same are bound to be concluded irrespective of the expiry of the term of previous governing body for the reason that the fresh election is to be conducted by the outgoing committee which should be a validly constituted governing body of the Society. In other words, expiry of the term of governing body does not render the reference before the Prescribed Authority as infructuous and the dispute ought to have been finalised by the Prescribed Authority so that the subsequent election could be validly held for managing the affairs of the Society, particularly when the dispute as to membership is so seriously involved in the proceedings for the purpose of electing the new office-bearers.

It is reiterated that the governing body of the Board of Trustees of the Society was earlier constituted in the year 2004 and thereafter it was duly constituted on 15.11.2009 and the same was approved by Deputy Registrar on 31.3.2010 is undisputed. In the meantime, renewal of registration of the Society also fell due and on fulfilling the necessary requirements, the registration certificate was renewed on 30.10.2010 for a period of five years. The list of office-bearers and members of the governing body on the date of renewal of registration i.e. 30.10.2010 remained the same as it was approved/recognised on 31.3.2010 in the context of election held on 15.11.2009.

In the light of governing body list approved/recognised on 31.3.2010, the controversy started when a complaint was filed by one trustee (serial no. 23) on 14.10.2011 against another trustee (serial no. 7) that the later had grabbed the management of the Society and the trustee (serial no. 7) has inducted his near relatives (samdhis) as members of the Board of Trustees. In retaliation another complaint was filed by the President of the Society (serial no. 1) on the same very day i.e. 14.10.2011 informing the Deputy Registrar that by notice dated 29.11.2010 proceeding of removal of three trustees (serial no. 9, 21 and 23) has been initiated and they be removed from the list of Board of Trustees. By another joint complaint dated 24.10.2011 made by the trustees (serial no. 46, serial no. 14, serial no. 21, serial no. 30 and serial no. 23) allegations of mismanagement against the trustee (serial no. 7) were levelled and taking note of the complaints, the Deputy Registrar moved into action by issuing a notice on 3.11.2011. The notice was replied by enclosing joint discussion of trustees on 26.10.2011. Further objection dated 15.11.2011 by the trustee (serial no. 23) was again filed unfolding the ill designs of trustee (serial no. 7) who forcibly and with the use of goonda elements was alleged to have assumed substantial control over the governing body forcibly.

Another notice was issued by the Deputy Registrar on 29.11.2011 to the Secretary of the governing body inviting reply upto 23.12.2011. All these complaints and cross complaints regarding membership dispute became a subject matter of examination and the Deputy Registrar passed an order on 17.10.2012 whereby reference of the disputes was made to the Prescribed Authority. The operative part of the order dated 17.10.2012 being of vital importance is reproduced below:

^^rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa ;g vo/kkfjr gksrk gS fd ekSykuk lS;~;n vyh ukflj lbZn vkckdkfr mQZ vkxk :gh] ekSykuk ,l0 dYcs tOokn ,oa Jh lS0 etgj vCckl dks cSBd esa Hkkx ysus ls cyiwoZd jksdk x;k ,oa buds fu"dklu ds lEcU/k esa dh x;h dk;Zokgh fnukad 14-11-2010] fnukad 14-10-2011 ,oa fnukad 30-10-2011 iwokZxzg ls xzflr gksdj dh x;h izrhr gksrh gS] ftlds pyrs mijksDr dk;Zokfg;ksa dks Lohdkj fd;k tkuk fu;ekuqlkj ,oa vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha gSA vr% mDr fu"dklu lEcU/kh dk;Zokfg;ksa dks vekU; fd;k tkrk gSA

tgkWa rd laLFkk esa cjrh tk jgh foRrh; vfu;ferrkvksa dh tkap ls lEcfU/kr f'kdk;r dk iz'u gS] rks mDr ds lEcU/k esa lks0 jft0 ,sDV 1860 dh /kkjk&24 ds ijUrqd vyx ls vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tk;saxsA

i=koyh esa miyC/k fuokZpu dk;Zokgh fnukad 15-11-2009 ds fy, ,ts.Mk fnukad 23-10-2009 dks tkjh fd;k x;kA ,ts.Mk esa mfYyf[kr fcUnq&2 ds vuqlkj laaLFkk ds v/;{k] mik/;{k] lfpo o la;qDr lfpo dk fuokZpu djk;k tkuk ,oa fcUnq&3 esa lnL;ksa dh lnL;rk vof/k lekIr gks tkus ds QyLo:i mudh lnL;rk dk uohuhdj.k djk;k tkuk mfYyf[kr gSA bl izdkj ,d gh cSBd esa lnL;ksa ds uohuhdj.k ,oa inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds fuokZpu dh dk;Zokgh lEiUu dh x;h gSA dk;Zokgh fnukad 15-11-2009 eas ,ts.Mk ds fcUnq&2 ds LFkku ij fcUnq&3 dh dk;Zokgh igys dh x;h gSS] ftlesa 34 esa ls 24 lnL;ksa dh lnL;rk dk uohuhdj.k fd;k x;k gSA rRi'pkr mUgha 24 lnL;ksa esa ls v/;{k] mik/;{k o lfpo dks pquk x;k n'kkZ;k x;k gSA ;gkWa ;g fcUnq fopkj.kh; gS fd ;fn ,ts.Mk&2 ftlesa cksMZ vkWQ VªLVht ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dk pquko fd;k tkuk Fkk] ds LFkku ij ,ts.Mk fcUnq&3 dks ugha fy;k tkrk] rks fuokZpu esa p;fur n'kkZ;s x;s inkf/kdkjh fuokZpu gsrq vgZ gh ugha gksrs] ftlls ,slk izrhr gks jgk gS fd fuokZpu izfdz;k nwf"kr gS ,oa laLFkk lafo/kku dh ifjf/k esa lEiUu ugha djk;h x;h gSA pwafd fuokZpu ds lEcU/k esa fu.kZ; ds vf/kdkj lks0jft0vf/k0 1860 ds /kkjk&25¼1½ ds rgr fofgr izkf/kdkjh dks gSA vr% izdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&25¼1½ ds rgr fofgr izkf/kdkjh vFkkZr ijxukf/kdkjh lnj] y[kuÅ dks fu.kZ;kFkZ lUnfHkZr fd;k tkrk gSA-

The operative part of the order clearly deals with three issues viz. (a) membership of trustees (serial no. 23, serial no. 21 and serial no. 46) and their removal having been found as illegal, the resolution was disapproved; (b) as regards, financial mismanagement, the Deputy Registrar recorded that the matter shall be dealt with separately; and (c) with reference to election held on 15.11.2009, it is observed that the Board of Trustees in its agenda with reference to item 2 and 3 passed the resolution, first on item 3, which related to the re-election of 24 members out of 34 and item 2 of the agenda which related to the election of the office-bearers, was taken up later. In case item 2 of the agenda was taken up before item 3, 24 members out of 34 would not have been eligible to participate in the proceedings and the office-bearers elected on 15.11.2009 would also not have been eligible, therefore, according to the Deputy Registrar there was an election dispute with reference to election held on 15.11.2009, which could not be decided by him, hence, reference was made to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act by order dated 17.10.2012.

The reference order was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 6597 (MS) of 2012 but the said writ petition was subsequently withdrawn, as is evident from the order dated 5.9.2014. The reference remained pending and in the meantime, further disputes as regards removal of more trustees and election of new trustees against the resultant vacancies cropped up and it appears that the Deputy Registrar instead of referring the said disputes to the Prescribed Authority, before whom the reference was pending, simultaneously entertained the objections and proceeded to hear the parties.

On a close scrutiny of record, it is also seen that resolutions were passed on 14.11.2010, 30.10.2011, 21.10.2012 and 20.10.2013, according to which some new members were elected against the resultant vacancies of those members whose term had yet not expired and these resolutions without proper notice of election programme were seriously objected by the petitioners. In the meantime, during pendency of the reference, the term of five years of some of the members had expired which was renewed by passing resolution one day before the date of holding the election on 11.10.2014 and in this manner the renewal of the term of some of the members of Board of Trustees is said to be objectionable by the rival claimants i.e. respondents no. 4 and 5 in the present writ petitions.

These resolutions were submitted before the Deputy Registrar while the reference proceedings were pending but for the reasons best known to him, he did not refer the subsequent disputes of the same nature, in respect of which reference was earlier made on 17.10.2012, to the Prescribed Authority in relation to the governing body elected on 15.11.2009. Such an approach of the Deputy Registrar led to multiplicity of proceedings giving rise to cause for for filing the present writ petitions before this Court. The Court hastens to observe that the Deputy Registrar is cautioned to be fair and just while exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act, which have serious implications on the civil rights of parties.

From general practice of the Board meetings, it is gathered from record summoned before this Court, that re-election of the trustees has usually taken place before the expiry of term or on the last day of the term and the concerned member whose re-election is proposed does not exercise his voting right, being himself the nominated candidate. The re-election as well as election proceedings of new members have been held on the basis of resolutions which are apparently short of a clear majority having regard to the existing strength of the Board of Trustees at the relevant point of time. This procedure goes to raise questions of vital importance as to the very process of re-election of existing members as well as election of new members and the issue deserves to be dealt with in the light of legal position applicable in this behalf. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 17.10.2014 calls for deeper analysis.

The impugned order dated 17.10.2014 clearly recites the respective objections and disputes regarding election of new members and removal of the members from the membership list of the Board of Trustees which have been addressed by the Deputy Registrar while passing the impugned order dated 17.10.2014.

Having regard to the rival contentions in the writ petitions, this Court passed the following order on 21.5.2015 and the same is reproduced below:

"It is a sad state of affairs that hearing in the matter has proceeded upto the hearts' content of learned counsel appearing for the parties but on turning to the pleadings of Writ Petition No. 7042 (MS) of 2014, it is found that no reply has been filed by the State in either of the writ petitions.

Short counter affidavit has, of course, been filed by the contesting private respondents in both the writ petitions.

Since legal questions are involved in the writ petition, which had been addressed at length by learned counsel, therefore, last opportunity is granted to Sri Satyanshu Ojha, Additional C.S.C. to file reply in the writ petitions within three days from today, specifically explaining: (a) as to how the Deputy Registrar, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act, 1860 could legally determine the membership dispute so far as the Society in question is concerned?; (b) as to what was the material before him on the basis of which the impugned order rests; and (c) Whether the Society has submitted annual list of the governing body at the helm of affairs of the Society or not?

Failure to file counter affidavit shall entail heavy cost.

List these matters on Wednesday i.e. 27.5.2015."

Short counter affidavit in compliance of the above order, was filed by learned Standing Counsel, wherein Deputy Registrar has justified the issuance of the order dated 17.10.2014 under Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act. As regards order dated 3.1.2015 whereby approval to the governing body elected by rival group i.e. respondent no. 4 is concerned, the Deputy Registrar has sought to justify the same on the strength of his own order dated 17.10.2014.

Before taking into account the stand set up by the Registrar, it is necessary to refer to Section 2 of the Act which reads as under:

"2. Memorandum of association. -- The memorandum of association shall contain the following things (that is to say) --

the name of the society;

the objects of the society;

the names, address and occupations of the governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted.

A copy of the rules and regulations of the society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than three of the members of the governing body, shall be filed with the memorandum of association."

From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is seen that the nomenclature of a society registered under the Act requires a clear picture of (a) name of the society; (b) objects of the society; (c) governing body to which the management of affairs is entrusted; and (d) rules and regulations of the society.

In the instant case, the first and foremost dispute relates to the identification of composition of general body and governing body of the Society. According to the stand adopted by the petitioner, bye-laws of the Society are peculiar and the Board of Trustees, as a whole, is the governing body of the Society, therefore, any election of members of the Board or removal thereof, is a change not in the general body of the Society but is a change in the governing body of the Society. The submission proceeds that once as a result of election of a new trustee, the change takes place in the governing body of the Society, then by entertaining objections within the scope of Section 4-B (1) that too prematurely when the date of renewal had not fallen due, the Deputy Registrar ought not to have exercised his jurisdiction to pass the order dated 17.10.2014 approving the membership list.

The real difficulty lies in the identification of general body and managing body of the Society so that the respective provisions of the Act and bye laws are consistently made applicable.

With regard to the question, whether the Board of Trustees is the governing body or general body of the Society, both the parties in the context of their submissions already recorded, have failed to answer the situation satisfactorily in the light of case law cited above, therefore, the Court proceeds to take aid of the Memorandum of Association filed at the time of registration of the Society in the light of relevant provisions of the Act i.e. Sections 1, 2, 4, 15, 16 as well as the bye laws.

From the original record, it is seen that a Memorandum of Association of the Board of Trustees of the Shia College and the School and other connected institutions was filed for registration on 6.3.1918 which, in clause 1, defines the name of the Society and in clause 2, the objects of the Society. The names of the trustees of Society i.e. "the Board of Trustees of the Shia College and school and other connected institutions" comprised of as many as 84 persons and this list of the Board of Trustees being signed by 9 persons was registered as the strength of the Board of Trustees. The Memorandum of Association of the above description is also accompanied with the draft constitution of the governing body of the Society, which in its amended form, as placed on record, are treated to be the bye laws/regulations of the Society. The bye laws of the Society define the governing body to be the Board of Trustees and its composition and constitution can be gathered from the relevant bye laws which, for the purpose of present disputes, are reproduced below;

Constitution and Powers of The Board of Trustees

(1). A. Governing Body shall be the Board of Trustees, to be called the Board of Trustees of the Shia College and other connected institutions and shall consist of:

(a) The President,

(b) Two Vice-Presidents,

(c) The Honorary Secretary,

(d) The Joint Secretary, and

(e) Such number of Trustees as may be determined in the manner hereinafter provided.

B. The office-bearers mentioned in (a), (b), (c) and (d) above shall be elected by the Board of Trustees from amongst its members and shall hold this office for a term of five years and may be re-elected.

(2). (a) The supreme control, direction and management of the Shia College and Shia High School, Lucknow, and of any connected institutions shall be vested in the said Board of Trustees.

(b) All property, movable and immovable, belonging to the Shia College and Shia High School and other connected institutions shall be vested in the Board of Trustees which shall hold and administer the same in trust.

(4). (a) The number of Trustees shall not be less than seventy and shall not exceed one hundred. At least forty percent of the said Trustees, shall be persons possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in section 5 (b) clause (2), (3) and (4), and at least five of the Trustees shall be shia mujtahids or recognized Shia Ulama-e-din.

(b) except as other wise hereinafter provided, a Trustee shall hold office for five years, but he shall be eligible for re-election.

Qualifications.

(5).    (a) No person other than a Shia shall be elected as a Trustee.
 

 
    (b) The persons to be elected shall belong to one of the following classes: 
 

 
[1] a Shia Mujtahid or a recognised Shia Alim-e-din,
 
[2] a Graduate of any University,
 
[3] a Barrister or Vakil,
 
[4] A Doctor of Medicine, an Engineer or an English diploma-holder of any branch of Learning, or Science,
 
[5] a diploma holder of any University or Recognized institution in Oriental Learning,
 
[6] a member of Governing Body or academic council or faulty or any other constituent body of a University,
 
[7] a member of the provincial or central Assembly or council,
 
[8] any person who has contributed a sum of ten thousand rupees or more towards the Shia College Fund, or is an eminent benefactor of the College or connected institutions in any other way, or from whom any appreciable benefit may be expected.
 

 
Removal of Trustees
 

 
(6) Any members of the Board of Trustees shall cease to be a Trustee when he:
 

 
[1]  dies or resigns,
 
[2] is in the opinion of the Board of Trustees, physically or mentally incapable of performing his duties.
 
[3] is convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude,
 
[4] has not attended any meeting of the Board for two consecutive years without a reason deemed sufficient by the Board or,
 
[5] is for some other reason deemed by two-third of the members of the Board unfit to remain a Trustee after the effected member be given opportunity to explain.
 

 

 
Procedure
 

 
(7).    (1) The Board of Trustees shall ordinarily meet a year.
 

 
               (2) The business of the Board shall be:
 
 
 
[a]  to confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Board.             
 
[b]  to elect the office-bearers mentioned in section 1,
 
[c] to elect Managing Committees and any other Committees that may be necessary from amongst the members of the Board.
 
[d] to elect for each Committees mentioned in clause (c) from amongst its members a Joint Secretary, who shall hold office for a term of three years and may be re elected.
 
[e] to fill vacancies on the Board or among its office-bearers.
 
[f] to fill vacancies on the Managing committees or on any other Committee caused by the expiration of the term of office by efflux of time, and 
 
                                [g]  to consider:
 

 
[1] the annual report of the Honorary             Secretary on the working of the various institutions and other matters connected with his duties (in its annual sitting)
 
[2] the annual accounts of income and expenditure (in its annual sitting),
 
[3]   the budget estimate for the ensuing year (in its annual sitting), and 
 
[4] any matter connected with the administration or welfare of the various institutions. 
 
 
 
(8). At all meeting of the Board of Trustees twelve members, inclusive of the Chairman, shall form a quorum. If two meetings of the Board of Trustees with the exception of:
 

 
[a]  annual meeting mentioned in Section 8 (to be read as 7) and 
 

 
[b] special meeting for the alteration of the rules contained in the constitution of the Board of Trustees in Section 13,
 

 
be consecutively postponed for want of quorum, then the third meeting may be held with the presence of nine members.
 

 

(9) Only members present shall be entitled to vote in any meeting of the Board of trustees. But if any of the absent Trustees submits his opinion in writing or any matte3r under discussion, it shall be the duty of the Secretary to lay the same before the meeting of the Board for its consideration, but such opinion will not be counter as a vote.

The making of Regulations.

(13) The Board may make regulations consistent with the rules contained in the Constitution. Such regulations may be passed, amended or repeated at any annual meeting or any meeting especially called for the purpose.

Managing Committee and its Personnel

(14). (a) The Executive administration and Government of the Shia College and its Hostel shall, subject to the general control and supervision of the Board of Trustees, vest in a Managing Committee of twelve members, excluding the ex officio members, of whom two shall be Shia Alim-a-din and two shall be educational experts.

(b) Separate Managing Committees for all the institutions shall be constituted by the Board of Trustees from amongst its members and shall work under the general control of the Board, provided that there shall be no objection to a member of one Managing Committee serving on another.

(c) The Head of an institution shall have the right to be present at all the meetings of his Managing Committee except where matters personal to himself come under discussion.

(d) In presence of President and Vice Presidents, the members present at a meeting of a Managing Committee shall elect a Chairman for that meeting from amongst themselves.

(e) Managing Committee shall elect from amongst its members its Joint Secretary, who shall hold his office for a term of three years and may be re-elected.

(f) The President, the Secretary and the Joint Secretary of the Board of Trustees shall be ex-officio members of the Managing Committees mentioned in clause (b) above and they shall possess the same powers and privileges as other members do and the secretary of the Board of Trustees shall be the Secretary of all the Committees.

Term of the Managing Committee

(15). The members of a Managing Committee shall hold office for a term of three years or till the next election is held, but they may be re-elected. Casual vacancies amongst the members or in the office of Joint Secretary due to death or resignation or any other cause shall be filled by the remaining members of the Managing Committee from amongst the Trustees. The persons filling such vacancies shall hold office for the remaining term of the persons they succeed.

Procedure

(16). (a) A managing Committee shall ordinarily meet once a month to transact the current affairs of the institution with which it is concerned:

(b) Only members present shall be entitled to vote in any meeting of a Managing Committees.

(c) At all meeting of a Managing Committee, five members present, inclusive of the Chairman, shall form a quorum.

General Procedure

(17). (a) Except as provided in clause 5 [to be read 2 (e) in absence of clause (5)] of section 7 and in section 13, the decision of all matters in any meeting of the Board of Trustees, or Managing Committees or any other Committees shall be by majority of votes.

(b) At all meeting of the Board of Trustees, a Managing Committee of any other Committee, the Chairman shall have a casting vote when opinion is evenly divided.

(c) If an office-bearer of the Board of Trustees or a member of a managing Committee ceases to be a Trustee, he shall also cease to be an office-bearer of the Board or a member of the Committee and if an office-bearer of a Managing committee ceases to be its member, he shall also cease to be its office-bearer.

Note: i). Clause 5 referred to in Section 17 of the bye laws to be read as 1(e).

ii) Section 8 referred to in Section 8(a) of the bye laws to be read as Section 7.

Findings

The intention to constitute the Board of Trustees on democratic principles is the essence of the bye laws reproduced above and it is clear beyond doubt that the strength and composition of governing body is what has been defined in clause 1-A (a) to (e). Since the strength of trustees which are an essential part of the governing body as per clause 1-A(e) are left undetermined otherwise than by clause 4 of the bye laws, therefore, the strength of members not less than 70 and not more than 100 is treated to be a part and parcel of the governing body throughout and on this basis, the annual returns have been filed under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. This has been a constant feature and practice prevailing in the Society as is also evident from the record of election proceedings of the year 2009. Once as per practice of the Society regulated in terms of clause 1-A read with clause 4 of the bye laws is of this description, the logical conclusion is that the governing body of the Society is co-extensive with its general body. On holding that the governing body and general body of the Society are co-extensive, it becomes relevant to understand as to how the business of the Society can be transacted with such a huge strength of members constituting the governing body. Under the Societies Registration Act, some business of the Society lies within the exclusive domain of the general body and some business of the Society can be transacted by its governing body. It is necessary to demarcate this essential area so that the business of general body of the Society as per rule of voting by majority, is not transgressed and overall control of the Society as envisaged under Clause 2 of the bye laws remains centralized in the general body. In this regard clause 7 (2) of the bye laws is relevant and needs to be referred to. The subjects enumerated under clause 7 (2) are in the nature of general business of the Board of Trustees, out of which item 7 (2)(e), being inclusive of item 7(2)(b) lies within the exclusive domain of general body of the Society. Once the business of election of office-bearers and other members of the governing body is provided to be transacted by the Board of Trustees, which, in terms of clause 1-A is none else but the governing body itself, it clearly shows that the general body and governing body is one and the same.

Clause 8 of the bye laws with respect to the meetings of the Board of Trustees, stipulates that 12 members inclusive of the Chairman shall form a quorum for carrying out general business of the Society. The provision of quorum for transaction of business enumerated in Clause 7(2) of the bye laws does threaten the democratic character and the jurisdictional domain of the general body of the Society regarding filling of the vacancies of the office-bearers or trustees in the governing body but it seems that the Board of Trustees at a later stage have amended the bye laws which, in its present form, under clause 17 (a) exclude two subjects from the business of quorum viz. clause 7 (2) (e) [wrongly mentioned as clause 5 of Section 7 in regulation 17(a)] and the business of making regulations consistent with the rules contained in the constitution i.e. clause 13. The business with respect to above two items i.e. clause 7(2) (e) being inclusive of 7(2)(b) and clause 13 of the bye laws, is bound to be transacted in annual meetings or special meetings as per clause (8) of the bye laws having regard to the general procedure of voting by majority from amongst the existing strength of members with prior notice individually. The annual or special meetings for transacting the business defined under clause 7(2)(e) inclusive of clause 7(2)(b) or clause (13) of the bye laws respectively, if left to the quorum, would destroy the very democratic character of the Society. Rule of voting by majority in the matter of elections of governing bodies of the Societies registered under the Act must deliver definite results so that participation of all the members towards achieving the objects of the Society is visible and goes to strengthen the rule of democracy upon which the edifice of the Society rests. These annual or special meetings of the Board of Trustees cannot be carried out by quorum which necessarily implies that the presence of all the trustees and in no case less than majority of existing membership is indispensable even if, the existing strength of trustees at a given point of time is less than 70. By observing so, it is not meant that minimum figure of membership of governing/general body be not maintained which requirement under Section 1 of the Act is fixed at seven or more persons. The rule of voting by majority also holds good when we look at the procedure of removal of a trustee prescribed under clause (6) of the bye laws, whereunder not less than 2/3rd of the trustees are empowered to remove a trustee from the membership of the Board. All other business, except the two items noted above, which lies within the domain of governing body as per clause 7 (2), is open to be transacted with the presence of quorum in the meetings of the Board of Trustees, of course, with due notice to all the members. This understanding finds ample support from the original bye laws when the language of clause-19 corresponding to clause 17 is looked at, where no such exception is embodied. Clause 19 of the original bye laws reads as under:

"19. (a) The decision of all matters in any meeting of the Board of Trustees, or Managing Committee or other Committees shall except as otherwise provided in this constitution be by majority of votes.

(b) At all meeting of the Board of Trustees, the Managing Committee or other Committees, the Chairman shall not give his vote except that when opinion on either side is evenly balanced, he shall decide the matter in issue by his casting vote."

Likewise, clause (8) and (10) of the bye laws in their present form stand at variance as compared to corresponding clause (9) and (10) of the original bye laws reproduced below:

"(9) At all meeting of the Board of Trustees, nineteen members, inclusive of the Chairman, shall form a quorum.

(10). Only members present will be entitled to vote in any meeting of the Board of Trustees, but those members who are unavoidably absent may sent their votes in writing, with reasons for absence, to the Honorary Secretary. Every such vote shall count as one, except, in cases as provided for in the regulations where personal presence in the meeting is obligatory."

This peculiarity of the bye laws demonstrates somewhat a clear picture of the governing/general body upon which the obligation of filling the vacancies of office-bearers and trustees of the governing body rests through the process of voting by majority. Any other understanding of the bye laws in its present form would lead to uncertainties and shall damage the democratic character of the Society. As far as the procedure of meetings of the other Committees of Management is concerned, it is independently provided under the bye laws which provisions regulate constitution and transaction of business by such committees. The present dispute relates to the management of Society alone and consequences, if any, arising out of the judgement, provisions of the Act and bye laws interpreted in the manner above, shall mutatis mutandis apply.

Now coming to the application of the provisions of the Act, it is crystal clear that the general body i.e. Board of Trustees and governing body as defined under Clause 1-A of the bye laws being one and the same, the provisions of the Act i.e. Section 4-B read with Section 15 and Section 4 read with Section 16 and other provisions would equally apply to the demarcated areas read and understood in the above manner. Since election of a trustee as member of the Board entitles a person to be a member of the governing body and the membership is through election and not by subscription, therefore, whether a dispute relating to the election of a trustee of the Board of Trustees is amenable to the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act is yet another question that calls for an answer.

Having held that the general body and managing body of the Society is co-extensive, it is necessary to deal with the application of Section 4-B and Section 15 of the Act in relation to a Society, having composition of its general body co-extensive with the governing body. The present case is peculiar case because a person on being elected in the general body of the Board of Trustees, becomes a member of the governing body by virtue of its constitution defined under clause 1-A(e) read with clause (4) of the bye laws and enjoys the status of an office-bearer. It is for this reason alone that the Deputy Registrar while making previous reference by order dated 17.10.2012 having taken note of the re-election of 24 members out of 34 classified the dispute to be an election dispute of office-bearers and the matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority.

In the light of findings recorded above, it is equally necessary to deal with the extent and nature of jurisdiction exercisable by the Registrar/Deputy Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act. True, that a trustee primarily being a member of the Society can only then be an office-bearer by virtue of clause 1-A(e) of the bye laws, therefore, this overlapping feature i.e. being a member and office-bearer simultaneously, certainly gives rise to a difficulty for excluding the application of Section 4-B of the Act when it comes to the examination of a dispute relating to the membership of Society. In the present case, it cannot be said that the Deputy Registrar lacks jurisdiction altogether to go into the examination as regards correctness of elected membership but what is lacking in Section 4-B of the Act is the ultimate declaration on the question of validity of election as an office-bearer, therefore, any challenge to the election of a trustee, in a case like that of present Society, is to be understood to be an election dispute of an office-bearer that can be redressed only under Section 25(1) of the Act by making a reference under Section 25 (2) read with Section 4-B or by means of filing a civil suit.

For a clear understanding of the scope of Section 4-B read with Section 15 of the Act, the same are reproduced below:

"4-B (1) At the time of registration/renewal of a society, list of members of General Body of that society shall be filed with the Registrar mentioning the name, father's name, address and occupation of the members. The Registrar shall examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body of such society on the basis of the register of members of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass book of the society.

(2) If there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the society referred to in sub-section (21), on account of induction, removal, resignation or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change.

The list of members of the General Body to be filed with the Registrar under this section shall be signed by two office-bearers and two executive members of the society."

"15. Member defined -- (1) For the purposes of this Act a member of a society shall be a person who, having been admitted therein according to the rules and regulations thereof, shall have paid a subscription, or shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof, and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations;

Disqualified members -- But in all proceedings under this Act no person shall be entitled to vote or be counted as a member whose subscription at the time shall have been in arrears for a period exceeding three months.

(2) Every society shall maintain a register of members giving such particulars as may be prescribed."

From the plain language of Section 4-B (1), it is clear that the Registrar is conferred with the power to examine the correctness of the list of members of the general body of the Society on the basis of the register of the members of the general body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank passbook of the Society. The criteria on the basis of which the Registrar/Deputy Registrar is to examine the correctness of membership is well defined under Section 4-B which has come to be inserted by U.P. Amendment Act No. 23 of 2013 w.e.f 9.10.2013.

The word 'examine' is not defined under the Act in the context in which it has been used in the newly inserted provision. Even the rules framed thereunder do not define the word 'examine', therefore, it has to be understood within its dictionary meaning. 'Black's Law Dictionary defines the word 'examine' to be 'typically equivalent with observe or analyze or inspect. Also synonymous with review, when examining a document'.

Once a statutory provision confers power on an authority by setting out its limits or the area within which correctness of a decision is to be traced, whether such power culminates into the determination of right of a party against another party, who may have a rival claim on the issue. In other words, can the power conferred under Section 4-B of the Act be interpreted to be quasi judicial. The quasi judicial decision as understood in the context of English decision i.e. Cooper Vs. Wilson [1937] KB 309 1937, is defined as under:

"The definition of a quasi-judicial decision clearly suggests that there must be two or more contending parties and an outside authority to decide those disputes"

Applying the above definition and triple test within the four corners of Section 4-B to the issues involved in the present case, it is quite clear that the decision making authority of the Registrar/Deputy Registrar is not contemplated in the provision but what is contemplated is an administrative exercise of power. The membership disputes, as is well settled, are amenable to the jurisdiction of civil court in a civil suit and that apart the language of Section 4-B, in my considered opinion, does not divest the civil court of this dominion either expressly or by implication.

From a perusal of the order dated 17.10.2014 it is amply clear that the Deputy Registrar has entered into the validity of membership disputes with respect to several trustees under Section 4-B of the Act and the impugned order by recognising the election of membership of those members against whom serious objections have been raised on either side once having given rise to election disputes in relation to office bearers of the governing body, the Deputy Registrar ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. Failure on the part of the Deputy Registrar to refer the disputes to the Prescribed Authority by assuming jurisdiction under Section 4-B is, therefore, clearly beyond the scope of said provision, hence without jurisdiction.

Not only that the impugned order is without jurisdiction but even on the administrative side, the Deputy Registrar has not applied mind on the relevant aspects as to whether the election of new members was at all held by following due procedure under bye laws and whether the removal of any existing member was carried out by following the mandatory provision of clause 6(5) of the bye laws. This Court, on close examination of the record, is satisfied that the impugned decision of the Deputy Registrar is tainted by arbitrariness. All these aspects have completely escaped the attention of Deputy Registrar while examining the dispute though he was duty bound to read the bye laws in the manner recorded hereinabove, for making a reference, therefore, on this account also, the decision arrived at lacks due application of mind rendering the order as illegal.

In Writ Petition No. 71 (MS) of 2015, the petitioner while assailing the order dated 3.1.2015 has again assailed the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to refuse making of reference of the rival disputes which were clearly noticed by him. For appreciating the arguments advanced, relevant portion of the operative part of the order dated 3.1.2015 is reproduced below:

"mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa i=koyh esa miyC/k izi=ksa o mHk; i{kksa }kjk miyC/k djkbZ xbZ vk[;k dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA ijh{k.kksijkUr ;g ijhyf{kr gksrk gS fd Jh jtk vyh [kku ,oa Jh lS0 fgnk;r gqlSu }kjk izLrqr xSj ekewyh cSBd fnuakd 11&10&2014] ftlesa lkslkbVh ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dk pquko gksuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS] laLFkk lafo/kku ds fu;eksa ds vuq:i ugha gS] ;g cSBd voS/kkfud gS rFkk blesa lks0jft0,DV 1860 ds izkfo/kkuksa dk Hkh mYya?ku fd;k x;k tcfd MkW0 v[rj gqlSu fjtoh }kjk izLrqr lk/kkj.k lHkk dh okf"kZd cSBd fnukad 14&11&2014 ftlesa lkslkbVh ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa dk pquko fd;k x;k og laLFkk lafo/kku ds fu;e varxZr vkgwr dh xbZ gS bl cSBd dks dk;kZy; }kjk iathd`r lk/kkj.k lHkk lwph fnukad 20&10&2014 ds vk/kkj ij lEikfnr fd;k x;k gS blfy, cSBd iw.kZr% fu;e lEer ,oa laoS/kkfud gSA rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g Hkh fu"ikfnr gksrk gS fd izLrqr izdj.k esa fdlh izdkj dk cksukQkbMh fookn ugha gS vkSj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds iwoZ vkns'kksa dh uthjksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g Li"V gS fd izdj.k esa cksukQkbMh fookn gq, fcuk mldks l{ke vf/kdkjh ds le{k lanfHkZr djuk ck/;dkjh ughs gSA mijksDr ds vkyksd esa ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd Jh jtk vyh [kku ,oa Jh lS0 fgnk;r gqlSu }kjk izLrqr xSj ekewyh cSBd fnukad 11&10&2014 laLFkk lafo/kku ds izkfo/kkuksa ds izfrdwy gS] tks vekU; gSA fofgr izkf/[email protected],l0Mh0,e0 lnj ds ;gka 25 lnL;ksa }kjk izks0 vtht gSnj ds f[kykQ lks0jft0,DV 1860 dh /kkjk 25 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr ;kfpdk nk;j gksus dk iz'u gS rks dk;kZy; }kjk /kkjk 4 ¼b½ esa iathd`r lwph 20&10&2014 ds ifj'khyu ls Li"V gS fd mlesa ls ek= 18 lnL; gh iathd`r lwph esa 'kkfey gS] tks fd lks0jft0,DV 1860 dh /kkjk 25 ¼1½ ds rgr [email protected] lnL; gksus ds ekin.M dks iwjk ugha djrs gaSA nwljh vksj Jh v[rj gqlSu fjtoh }kjk vius i= fnukad 17&11&2014 }kjk izLrqr lk/kkj.k lHkk dh okf"kZd cSBd fnukad 14&11&2014 laLFkk ds oS/kkfud lnL;ksa] tks dk;kZy; vkns'k fnukad 17&10&2014 }kjk ekU; gS] ds }kjk gh vkgwr dh xbZ gS tks fu;ekuqlkj vkSj vkSfpR;iw.kZ gksus ds dkj.k oS/kkfud gSA

rF;dze esa MkW0 lS0 v[rj glu fjtoh }kjk vkgwr cSBd fnukad 14&11&2014 ls fuokZfpr lkslkbVh dh izcU/k dk;Zdkfj.kkh] ,oa v|ru lk/kkj.k lHkk lwph dks lks0jft0,DV 1860 dh /kkjk 4 ds vUrxZr Qkby djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA"

Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 3.1.2015 has argued that once two rival disputes, as regards constitution of governing body, had come to the notice of Deputy Registrar as is sufficiently evident from the operative part of the impugned order, it was incumbent on the part of the Deputy Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority by exercising power vested in him under Section 25 (2) read with Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act.

Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a plea was also raised before the Deputy Registrar to the effect that 1/4th of the members have already raised a dispute before the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the Deputy Registrar may not look into the rival disputes as regards the election dispute of office-bearers of governing body and for that reason, the matter may not be decided either way.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in reply to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as far as the exercise of power vested under Section 25(2) is concerned, it was open to the Deputy Registrar to look into the bonafides of the dispute and only on being satisfied, the matter could be referred to the Prescribed Authority. Once the Deputy Registrar has applied mind and recorded a categorical finding that bonafide dispute regarding management does not exist, the obligation on the part of the Deputy Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the impugned order dated 3.1.2015 is valid and does not suffer from any illegality. As far as dissatisfaction regarding 1/4th of the members is concerned, learned counsel has further argued that to this extent also, the observation of the Deputy Registrar is tenable in as much as, having regard to the list approved vide order dated 17.10.2014, the strength of members was clearly short of 1/4th, therefore, the Deputy Registrar had exercised his jurisdiction in consonance of law.

Learned Standing Counsel, on being confronted to explain the position has, however, conceded that the Deputy Registrar could not exclude the jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority by passing the impugned order, in as much as, whether strength of members raising a dispute before the Prescribed Authority was sufficient or not, is the sole prerogative of the Prescribed Authority and the Deputy Registrar in this regard could not have recorded any adverse finding while passing the impugned order.

Once the reference was made to the Prescribed Authority, all the disputes arising during the term of the previous management elected on 15.11.2009, either relating to new election or removal of the trustees, should have been referred to the Prescribed Authority. Having held the order dated 17.10.2014 as bad in law, it is very clear that rival disputes arose before the Deputy Registrar on the basis of two elections held on 11.10.2014 and 14.11.2014 and the Deputy Registrar by passing the order dated 3.1.2015 has not only exceeded his jurisdiction but failed to exercise the administrative power in a manner prescribed under law. The Deputy Registrar could also not record findings adverse to the interest of any party defeating the object of any other proceedings conceived under Section 25(1) of the Act. This Court deprecates such an approach on the part of administrative authorities who are duty bound to be well versed and trained in the discharge of their functions.

For the reasons recorded above, the impugned orders dated 17.10.2014 and 3.1.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar deserve to be quashed and accordingly are hereby set aside.

Having concluded that both the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar are illegal and without jurisdiction, it shall not inure to the benefit of office-bearers elected on 11.10.2014 in the same manner in which the election held on 14.11.2014 falls. The argument of Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel at this stage, when tested, carries force and this Court is certainly satisfied not to revive a position which is equally faulty, therefore, the interest of justice would not be served unless some directions are issued which may take stock of the resulting situation. One more reason to issue necessary directions is to cut short the unwarranted controversies at this stage when the term of the previous management has already come to an end. The residual disputes relating to membership of the Board of Trustees instead of being relegated to any forum are bound to be subjected to the floor test which is the basic forum for this kind of disputes and this would be necessary to streamline the functioning of Society which is saddled with aimless rivalries affecting the educational atmosphere of a prestigious government aided institution imparting education from Class VI up to Post Graduate courses, recklessly. It is worthy to note that travelling beyond the year 2009 would be disastrous to the very existence of the Society on many counts, therefore, following directions are issued in the interest of justice:

(i) The list of trustee relied upon in the election of Board of trustees on 15.11.2009 as approved on 31.3.2010, shall be the basic final list of membership of the Society for the purpose of fresh election which fell due on or before14.11.2014. The Registrar under his own supervision shall revise this whole list by deleting only those persons who have died till the date of judgement and issue a fresh list on or before 30.7.2015 which shall be termed as List-I. The term of membership of the persons included in List-I shall be effective w.e.f. 10.10.2014.

(ii) All the members who were newly elected during the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 or before 10.10.2014 by either of the parties, shall be identified and enlisted and subjected to fresh election by the Board of Trustees i.e. List-I under the supervision of Registrar himself. The principle of voting by majority in the manner discussed and upheld in the findings recorded above i.e. by majority votes of the members of List-I, shall determine the result of new membership. The term of membership of new trustees elected, if any, shall be effective prospectively from the date of resolution passed in the manner above. The election of new trustees in the Board shall be finalised on or before 30th August, 2015 and their names shall be added to List-I. Upon inclusion of new trustees in List-I, the resultant list shall be deemed to be the final list of Board of Trustees for the purpose of further elections of office bearers, as defined in Clause 1-A (a) to (d). The final list shall be issued on or before 7th September, 2015.

(iii) The election of office bearers defined under Clause 1-A (a) to (d) shall be held by the Registrar under his own supervision on or before 30th September, 2015.

(iv) On conclusion of election proceedings within the time schedule fixed above, the management of the Society shall be handed over to the successor office bearers on or before 1st October, 2015. The term of office bearers elected in terms of direction (iii) hereinabove, shall commence from the date of declaration of result which shall last for a period of five years as per bye laws of the Society.

(v) Until constitution of new management and taking over charge in terms of the directions issued hereinabove, the High Level Committee comprising of the following, shall assume charge of the affairs of the Society:

(1) One Chairman to be nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad, from amongst the retired High Court Judges or any District Judge, preferably a Shia Muslim;

(2) Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow;

(3) Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow;

(4) Two persons elected by the rival Committees as General Secretary/Secretary of the Society, namely, Dr. S. Akhtar Hasan Rizvi and Sri S. Hidayat Husain, shall be the members of the Committee.

The record of the Society as and when requisitioned by the Committee shall be made available by whosoever concerned through the two members, referred to above, namely, Dr. S. Akhtar Hasan Rizvi and Sri S. Hidayat Husain without any resistance or protest. Both the members shall ensure their personal presence before the Registrar as well as the Chairman of the Committee for necessary assistance.

The election proceedings to be held under the supervision of the Registrar shall be duly assisted and cooperated by the high level committee and the proceedings shall be submitted for necessary recognition under Section 4 of the Act. The renewal of registration of the Society shall also be ensured by the Registrar before due date i.e. 10.10.2015.

The salary of the employees during the interregnum period shall be paid under the signatures of the Chairman designated in the manner above, and on handing over the charge, new management shall operate the affairs of the Society in accordance with law. All actions or decisions taken by the rival managements during intervening period i.e. w.e.f. 11.10.2014 up to the date of judgement, shall not be final and shall be subject to ratification by the new management, elected in terms of the directions issued hereinabove.

The Committee constituted above, shall assume charge of the affairs of the Society for carrying out the directions issued hereinabove on or before 10.7.2015, with a request to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for nominating the Chairman. Office is directed to apprise Hon'ble the Chief Justice about the request within three days from today and nomination made by Hon'ble the Chief Justice shall form part of this judgement so far as the constitution of high level committee is concerned.

Both the writ petitions are disposed of finally in terms of the directions issued hereinabove, with no order as to cost.

Dated: July 01, 2015

MFA