Allahabad High Court
The C/M Akhil Bhartiya Kshatriya ... vs The Prescribed Authority And 2 ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21294 of 2019
Petitioner :- The C/M Akhil Bhartiya Kshatriya And Another
Respondent :- The Prescribed Authority And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Sri Radha Kant Ojha (Sr. Advocate)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhirendra Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Shivendu Ojha, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent and Sri Amit Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dhirendra Singh, learned Advocate for the contesting respondents.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner have assailed the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 12.6.2019 whereby claim of the Committee of Management of Kunwar Ajay Singh elected on 12.5.2010 was rejected and election dated 11.7.2010 set up by Kunwar Haribansh Singh and his Committee of Management was found to be valid and accordingly the direction was issued that list submitted by the office bearers by Kunwar Haribansh Singh deserves to be registered.
The only argument of learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing impugned order is that prescribed authority has failed to decide the issues involved in reference. The prescribed authority according to him did not discuss at all the issue nor, recorded any convincing findings of facts so as to justify the order while directing for registration of officer bearer presented by third respondent.
From the close examination of the order dated 12.6.2019 passed by the prescribed authority, I find that though he has referred to certain facts and has discussed in part but he has not held any discussion as to how and why on facts the claim set up by Kunwar Haribansh Singh deserves to be allowed. Although, the prescribed authority has held that on the basis of evidence available on record, the claim set up by Kunwar Ajay Singh was found to be not valid and claim set up by Kunwar Haribansh Singh was found to be valid, but he has not referred to as to what were the evidence, appreciation of which has led him to arrive at such a conclusion.
Learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 3 though has tried to defend the order but is not able to convince the Court regarding appreciation of evidence if any by the prescribed authority in arriving at a conclusion in his favour.
Learned Standing Counsel representing the State respondent though says that order has been passed after due opportunity of hearing to the parties but concedes to extend that order lacks separate discussion on the material evidence if any to arrive at finding of fact in favour of the contesting respondent no. 3 under the order impugned.
The prescribed authority while exercising power under Section 25(2) of the Act is to deal with the issue of an office bearer's continuance or the entire elections as may be raised under reference and, therefore, he has to decide the contentious issue of legality and validity of continuance of office bearer or the election of the officer bearers. Virtually though in a summary manner, he has to render due application of mind not only to the statements submitted before him but to the documents filed by the respondent parties in their defence and due appreciation thereof.
The statements of fact is always liable to be decided on the documentary evidence placed before the authority adjudicating an issue and, therefore ,it is necessary that threadbare discussion is held over the documents submitted by the parties and then after due evaluation thereof, an authority adjudicating issues should arrive at a definite conclusion. The proper adjudication, therefore, requires threadbare discussion of the pleadings and the contents of the documents put up by the parties and proper and due appreciation thereof. While this Court may not interfere with the findings of fact arrived by the prescribed authority after due appreciation of documents and the statements submitted before it but where findings lack such discussion and appreciation then findings are liable to be held perverse leading to serious miscarriage of justice. No justice system in a rule of law society can permit it.
Applying this above principle, I am of the considered opinion that the findings returned by the prescribed authority in terms of conclusion arrived at by it, under the order impugned, are liable to be held perverse and cannot be sustained. The order dated 12.6.2019 passed by the prescribed impugned in the writ petition as annexure 10 is accordingly quashed.
The matter is remitted to the prescribed authority to revisit the reference and pass appropriate order in accordance with law in the light of observations made hereinabove in this judgment and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is further provided that in the entire proceedings shall be concluded by the prescribed authority within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Sanjeev
