C/M Kissan Vidya Sabha Shamli And ... vs State Of U.P. & 4 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 1181 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No.25 
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1646 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M Kissan Vidya Sabha Shamli And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh,D.K. Singh,Kalp Nath Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K. Singh,Jagdish Prasad Mishra,Nipun Singh,Rahul Agarwal
 
With 
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25058 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M R.K. Post Graduate College And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh,D.K. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Khanna,Krishan Pahal,Nipun Singh
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22454 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Babu Singh & 8 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Sarkar,Radha Kant Ojha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nipun Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1646 of 2015 had prayed for the quashing of the order dated 3.1.2015 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Saharanpur by which after refusing to recognise any of the elections which were placed before him the Assistant Registrar had ordered for a fresh election to be held under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. A further prayer in the writ petition was for the quashing of the elections held thereafter.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that there is a registered society known by the name of Kissan Vidya Sabha Shamli which has a Committee of Management, the office bearers of which are elected as per the By laws after every three years. On 16.8.2002 there was an election in which the petitioner no.2 was elected a Secretary. This election was an undisputed election. When on 21.8.2005 another election was held then a rival election was set up, necessitating a reference to the Prescribed Authority. On 10.3.2008 it upheld the election dated 21.8.2005 held by the petitioner no.2. Thereafter, on 24.8.2008 when it was time for a fresh election, rival claims were again set up and the matter was again referred to the prescribed authority. While the reference was still pending, another election was held on 29.8.2011. However, when on 9.4.2012, the Prescribed Authority upheld the validity of the election held on 24.8.2008 and also the validity of the election held on 29.8.2011 then the respondent no.5 filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 20625 of 2012 (C/M Kissan Vidya Sabha And Another vs. State Of U.P. And Others) which was dismissed on 24.8.2012. Pursuant to the order of the prescribed authority dated 9.4.2012 which was upheld by the order of the High  Court on 24.8.2012, list of the office bearers of the petitioner's Committee of Management was got registered in the office of the Assistant Registrar on 14.9.2012. Various challenges came to the order dated 14.9.2012. The respondents no.4 and 5 also raised their objections and ultimately the Assistant Registrar on 25.4.213 passed an order wherein he returned a finding that the elections of 2005, 2008 and 2011 which were earlier upheld by the Prescribed Authority on 9.4.2012 were held to be invalid. The order of the Registrar dated 25.4.2013 was challenged by means of a Writ Peition No. 26002 of 2013 (C/M. Kissan Vidya Sabha Shamli And Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) which came to be allowed on 27.8.2014. This meant that the election of the petitioners held on 29.8.2011 was held to be a valid one. After the order of the High Court dated 27.8.2014, the petitioner considering the fact that the tenure of the Committee of Management was coming to an end on 28.8.2014 initiated a proceeding for the holding of a fresh election and an election in fact was held on 30.9.2014. However, when the petitioner placed before the Assistant Registrar his election on 1.10.2014, he was served with a notice dated 26.9.2014 as Sri Uday Veer Singh, respondent no.4 had already complained to the Registrar that as the election by the petitioner was held after 28.8.2014 it was not valid, having been held after the term had expired. Not only that, the petitioner thereafter gained knowledge of the fact that the respondent no.3, Umesh Singh had also placed an election held by him on 6.8.2014. Confronted with the elections of the petitioners and of Umesh Singh, the Assistant Registrar issued notices to all the parties on 3.1.2015 and concluded that the petitioners' election could not be given recognition to as it was held by a Committee of Management, the term of the which had expired on 28.8.2014. The election of Umesh Singh was also found to be invalid as it was against the By laws and the Assistant Registrar directed for the holding of a fresh election under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of this Court reported in 2017 (3) ESC 1529 (All) (Vinod Kumar Varshney and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), submitted that the election as was held by the petitioner on 30.9.2014 was a valid election as the outgoing Committee even after its term had expired had a right to hold the election. He submitted that this was exactly what had been held in the decision reported in 2017 (3) ESC 1529 (All) (supra). Learned counsel specifically read out paragraphs-17 and 18 which are being reproduced here as under:

"17. Having given our thoughtful consideration in the matter and upon considering the language of Section 25(2) and 25(3) of the Act and upon a conjoint reading of Section 25(2) and 25(3) of the Act, it is apparently clear that the Registrar has the power and jurisdiction to call a meeting for the purpose of holding an election if he is satisfied that the election has not been held within the time specified in the rules of the society. However, Section 25(3) of the Act recognises that a meeting for the purpose of holding an election can be convened by any other authority or by any other person claiming to be an office bearer of the society, meaning thereby that if the term of the Committee of Management expires, the Committee of Management can still convene a meeting and hold an election unless an order is passed by the Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Act for holding an election.

18. We are of the view that upon a conjoint reading of Section 25(2) and Section 25(3) of the Act, the power of the Committee of Management to convene a meeting for the purpose of holding an election gets eclipsed only when the Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and has taken steps to convene a meeting under Section 25(2) of the Act. We make it further clear that so long as an order for convening a meeting and for holding an election is not passed by the Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Act, the power to convene a meeting for the purpose of holding an election continues with the Committee of Management, even after the expiry of its terms unless it is specifically prohibited in the Rules of that society. In this regard, our view is fortified by a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Dadar Ashram Trust Society and others Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi and others, 2017 (1) ADJ 1, wherein the Full Bench held:-

"As would be evident from a reading of sub-section (3), the power and jurisdiction of any other authority or person to call a meeting for the purpose of elections stands eclipsed only in a situation where a meeting has already been called by the Registrar under sub-section (2). In fact sub-section (3) recognises that a meeting for the purposes of elections may in fact be convened by any other authority or by any other person. The power of that other authority or person to convene such a meeting stands taken away only if the Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and steps under sub-section (2) to convene a meeting."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Committee of Management of the petitioner even after the expiry of its term could definitely convene a meeting for the purpose of holding an election and, therefore,submits that the impugned order of the Assistant Registrar by which he did not recognize the petitioner's Committee was erroneous in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the impugned order dated 3.1.2015 was set aside then it would be deemed that the petitioners' Committee was validly elected on 30.9.2014 and that its election had continued till 30.9.2017. Thereafter the Committee of Management of the petitioners would have held the election which would have become due in the year 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the other elections which might have been held after the impugned order dated 3.1.2015 was passed would therefore, remain invalid and the petitioner may now be allowed to hold a fresh election.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3, in reply however, submitted that the petitioners had no authority to hold the election on 30.9.2014 after the term of the Committee of Management had expired on 28.8.2014. Learned counsel further submitted that since subsequent elections were held in pursuance of the order impugned in the writ petition the case had become infructuous and relied upon a judgment reported in (1997) 6 SCC 678 (Rajendra Prasad Yadav and others vs. State of M.P. and others).

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order dated 3.1.2015 was passed on a wrong premise as it was definitely not in consonance with the law as has been laid down in the judgment reported in 2017 (3) ESC 1529 (All) (supra). The election held on 30.9.2014 could very well have been held by the petitioners even after the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management on 28.8.2014. This being the case, the order dated 3.1.2015 which is based on an erroneous proposition of law, is set aside.

The other writ petitions which were off shoots of the impugned order dated 3.1.2015, therefore, need not now be decided. Since it has now been held that the outgoing Committee, the term of which expired on 28.8.2014 could have held the election on 30.9.2014, it would be in the fitness of things that the matter may now be referred to the Prescribed Authority who may adjudge as to which election was properly held, the one held by the petitioners or any one of the others held by the other respondents. However, the ground taken to reject the petitioner's election on 3.1.2015 shall not be available to the Prescribed Authority to reject the petitioner's election.

This exercise shall be completed by the prescribed authority within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Fresh election shall thereafter be held by that Committee of Management, the Election of which, the Prescribed Authority would hold was correctly held. Till such time a fresh election takes place, the Committee of Management of the society, which is today running the society shall continue to govern the society.

The writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 31.5.2018

Ashish Pd.